Flood Evidences — revised

[Dan From Smithville]

All of the mammoths are in varying stages of decay,
and most are fragmentary. Most were scavenged
before burial.

HOW exactly that could be, when all was "instantly"
killed then o'erwhelmed in "mucK" will not be explained,
though the triple backflips getting out of it may be
amusing. Or not.

It is beyond Olympic-level gymnastics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you think the Himalias were 5 vertical miles high during the flood?

Without evidence they were not, why would you think they were not?

 

[Audie]

Of course. It is another tactic to absorb the inane and ignorant. This is a fact. It is irrelevant. But it is a fact. So everything else must be true too.

Boats are used on water. The ark is a boat. The entire story is true. LOL! Logic Of the Lame.

And the con man. Just sprinkle in a measure
of truth here and there, and, reel in the fools.

Once a person has been conned, they are very
reluctant to give it up. A banker friend tells of
people who have been scammed, "I won the
dutch lottery! I just need to send them $8,653
dollars, to pay the taxes!"

Some times they will all but stand in the door saying,
YOU SHALL NOT PASS, to save them from
themselves.

Usually, a call to the police will calm them down.

"Did you enter the lottery?" No

etc.

A few questions like that, then tell the
customer, "We see this same scam over
and over, you should be grateful to the
people of the bank for seeing what was
about to happen to you."

Creos, though are for the most part beyond the
limits of reason, out past Pluto somewhere,
and beyond any help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait.....what?

Where did you get the idea that the Himalayas formed via erosion?

To be fair erosion played a role. If there was no erosion the Himalayas would be a fairly flat very high raised plateau. But he clearly has a very strange idea of how mountains are made. Uplift plus erosion, two factors that seem to be competing against each other, just as in evolution there is variation and natural selection. Odd how creationists can only look at one part of a complex problem at a time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Every one of these PRATTS has been answered a thousand times.

Every one, huh? No, they haven’t. One or two, maybe.

Find me an alleged flood deposit with any two animals from different eras colocated, (a saurian dinosaur with a mammoth, for example) and we'll talk.

I’m assuming you meant “areas.” Not “eras”. Once again, I am not a YEC. The dinosaurs were living millions of years before the Flood. (Maybe some were still living at the time it began.)

If “areas”...Why would that be necessary? We’re not talking about a tsunami-like formation of water. No doubt Most of the water came from the vast underground springs that existed prior to the Flood, just rising up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the con man. Just sprinkle in a measure
of truth here and there, and, reel in the fools.

Once a person has been conned, they are very
reluctant to give it up. A banker friend tells of
people who have been scammed, "I won the
dutch lottery! I just need to send them $8,653
dollars, to pay the taxes!"

Some times they will all but stand in the door saying,
YOU SHALL NOT PASS, to save them from
themselves.

Usually, a call to the police will calm them down.

"Did you enter the lottery?" No

etc.

A few questions like that, then tell the
customer, "We see this same scam over
and over, you should be grateful to the
people of the bank for seeing what was
about to happen to you."

Creos, though are for the most part beyond the
limits of reason, out past Pluto somewhere,
and beyond any help.

The best lies have a framework of truth or they would not attract the suckers. As we have mentioned, it offers them something to divert discussion and to point to in support of their assertion that the factual framework doesn't actually support.

I am amazed at the dichotomy of their assuming the moral high ground and then wiping their backside with it at the same time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every one, huh? No, they haven’t. One or two, maybe.



I’m assuming you meant “areas.” Not “eras”. Once again, I am not a YEC. The dinosaurs were living millions of years before the Flood. (Maybe some were still living at the time it began.)

If “areas”...Why would that be necessary? We’re not talking about a tsunami-like formation of water. No doubt Most of the water came from the vast underground springs that existed prior to the Flood, just rising up.

Of course, you have no evidence of these vast springs or where the water went afterword. But never mind that. Facts and logic are unimportant. Right? Right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every one, huh? No, they haven’t. One or two, maybe.



I’m assuming you meant “areas.” Not “eras”. Once again, I am not a YEC. The dinosaurs were living millions of years before the Flood. (Maybe some were still living at the time it began.)

If “areas”...Why would that be necessary? We’re not talking about a tsunami-like formation of water. No doubt Most of the water came from the vast underground springs that existed prior to the Flood, just rising up.

By now you do know better than to repose PRATT's and claim it is something new. The fact that you did not do this properly tells us that you were merely trying to use a Gish Gallop. Overwhelm the opposition by repeating old refuted nonsense and lies. If you were serious you would bring up your claims one at a time so they could be properly discussed

So, what claim would you like to address first?

Or would you like me to start?

 

[Audie]

By now you do know better than to repose PRATT's and claim it is something new. The fact that you did not do this properly tells us that you were merely trying to use a Gish Gallop. Overwhelm the opposition by repeating old refuted nonsense and lies. If you were serious you would bring up your claims one at a time so they could be properly discussed

So, what claim would you like to address first?

Or would you like me to start?

Pick one small detail, preferably one that
is peripheral such that true or not has no
effect on his argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, but the only links I see are:

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark Articles/NAS Worldwide Mammal Massacre.pdf

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’.

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science | Smithsonian​

None of which mention Dr. Seon Hong's or his study.

.

Oh, ok. I’m sorry, I thought had posted it! Grief! I quoted from it, though, didn’t I? The information I used, didn’t have the link to that paper.

Here is a link, though not the one I previously had.
Look at the “abstract “, at the beginning, pg.1

(I find no mention of the pitch that was used to make the Ark waterproof.)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d2e/f044f38624f03eaee4cd8e57a82259c7efd9.pdf

I’ll look for the other paper.

 

[Audie]

Oh, ok. I’m sorry, I thought had posted it! Grief! I quoted from it, though, didn’t I? The information I used, didn’t have the link to that paper.

Here is a link, though not the one I previously had.
Look at the “abstract “, at the beginning, pg.1

(I find no mention of the pitch that was used to make the Ark waterproof.)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d2e/f044f38624f03eaee4cd8e57a82259c7efd9.pdf

I’ll look for the other paper.

You are rearranging deck chairs on a boat
that was never built.

 

[Skwim]

Oh, ok. I’m sorry, I thought had posted it! Grief! I quoted from it, though, didn’t I? The information I used, didn’t have the link to that paper.

Here is a link, though not the one I previously had.
Look at the “abstract “, at the beginning, pg.1

(I find no mention of the pitch that was used to make the Ark waterproof.)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d2e/f044f38624f03eaee4cd8e57a82259c7efd9.pdf

I’ll look for the other paper.

Okay, I read it, but so far I haven't seen a thing saying, or even implying:

"the dimensions of the Ark, a 6-to-1 ratio of length to width, and 10-to-1 ratio of length to height, are exactly what is needed for a non-powered vessel of that size to maintain stability!"​

or

"Only in the last 2 centuries have ship builders recognized that these proportions are perfect for non-powered barge-like ships to be seaworthy."

.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, ok. I’m sorry, I thought had posted it! Grief! I quoted from it, though, didn’t I? The information I used, didn’t have the link to that paper.

Here is a link, though not the one I previously had.
Look at the “abstract “, at the beginning, pg.1

(I find no mention of the pitch that was used to make the Ark waterproof.)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d2e/f044f38624f03eaee4cd8e57a82259c7efd9.pdf

I’ll look for the other paper.

We went over how that is a paper of no value at all. It is not a peer reviewed work. It is garbage that was written for Ken Ham and his group of happy idiots.

 

[Audie]

We went over how that is a paper of no value at all. It is not a peer reviewed work. It is garbage that was written for Ken Ham and his group of happy idiots.

Besides which none here are marine architects, but
we do know that wood has structural strength issues,
and, that no wooden craft of that size has ever been
built.

 

[Twilight Hue]

True, If you do not consider that the earth's gravitational field was only slightly less than today.
And if you throw into your calculation that you want to have 900 parts of water to one part of air.
Now, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell everyone on what preassure difference one have between a clear sky, and one with clouds.
Then what will the Miilibar difference be between a morning with fogg and one that is clear.
This is absurdity at its best pal!

It's not my calculations. It's from the experts .
Moses and his jolly crew will become lobsters in the biblical scenario.

Hard science or religion . Take your pick.

For me, I'll stay with the hard science on the matter.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Allow me to demonstrate how silly the uniformitarian theory really is.
The Himialya is 5 miles high.
Therefore the Earth must have been 5 miles higher in radius..... If erosion (removed the soil)...

You are on to something, w/ the Earth’s surface now being slightly smaller in circumference. It would be due, though, to those “vast underground springs” which were “broken open”, as the account states.

Gravity would cause the ground to fall in most areas, to fill up the void that would be created with the water coming up. In fact, it would be the Earth’s crust falling in certain locations, forcing that water upward! This coincides nicely with Psalms 104’s description.

It’s been discovered that the present mountain ranges have roots (Putnam’s Geology). They wouldn’t fall. They would simply remain somewhat stable, while the surrounding land would fall. This would seem, to an observer on the ground, that ‘mountains would be rising.’ — Psalms 104 6-8.

(Some events in the Scriptures were described from the viewpoint of a ground observer, such as the creation account in Genesis, ex.: the light as would be seen from one on the ground.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Besides which none here are marine architects, but
we do know that wood has structural strength issues,
and, that no wooden craft of that size has ever been
built.

He had gone on and on how the writer of this paper was some sort of expert. When I Google searched where he supposedly worked I could find no record of his presence there. I also searched Google Scholar and could find no papers by this person besides this one, which was not well accepted. Businesses that have well respected experts working for them tend to keep their names on their sites so that they can refer back to how great they were even if they have fallen a bit since that time. If the expert is currently working there they make it obvious. This was just another fake "expert" that has no work in peer reviewed journals at all.

That he uses a fake paper after it was shown to have no credibility tells the whole story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are on to something, w/ the Earth’s surface now being slightly smaller in circumference. It would be due, though, to those “vast underground springs” which were “broken open”, as the account states.

Gravity would cause the ground to fall in most areas, to fill up the void that would be created with the water coming up. In fact, it would be the Earth’s crust falling in certain locations, forcing that water upward! This coincides nicely with Psalms 104’s description.

It’s been discovered that the present mountain ranges have roots (Putnam’s Geology). They wouldn’t fall. They would simply remain somewhat stable, while the surrounding land would fall. This would seem, to an observer on the ground, that ‘mountains would be rising.’ — Psalms 104 6-8.

(Some events in the Scriptures were described from the viewpoint of a ground observer, such as the creation account in Genesis, ex.: the light as would be seen from one on the ground.)

Oh my, it is too laugh!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh my, it is too laugh!

Oh yeah, that’s because we have so much figured out in geology, right?

The currently accepted hypothesis of how the Earth formed is laughable! (‘Interplanetary rocks and debris just aggregated together, somehow.’)

The known unknowns – the outstanding 49 questions in Earth sciences (Part I) - GeoLog

And this link is just Part 1 of 3.
Here’s another summary:
49 open questions in geoscience - Mapping Ignorance

 

[Audie]

Oh yeah, that’s because we have so much figured out in geology, right?

The currently accepted hypothesis of how the Earth formed is laughable! (‘Interplanetary rocks and debris just aggregated together, somehow.’)

The known unknowns – the outstanding 49 questions in Earth sciences (Part I) - GeoLog

And this link is just Part 1 of 3.

A creoquirk is that they cannot distinguish the
ToE from abio, and often even mix the BB
in there! Now it is mixing up how the earth
formed with glaciology!

HOW the earth formed has nothing to do with
later processes such as erosion, deposition,
vulcanism etc. May as well say you cannot study
auto mechanics unless understand the origin
of the universe

With thousands of geologists, often with serious
economic incentive for their research, working for
many years, they have actually gotten pretty good
at a lot of things.

One thing is for sure, the chance that you know more
than any / all of them after doing no study, no field
work and giving it thought is somewhere in the
negative range.

I have seen self deception any number of times, but
how you can believe you are that good is a mystery
to me.