Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Hockeycowboy]

…in the face of overwhelming evidence…

Overwhelming evidence, for what? Common descent? A “LUCA”?

Overwhelm me.

 

[lukethethird]

No, it’s not settled, imo. Neither do Axe, Bechly, Minnich, Meyer, Ross, Wells, and other Scientists think so.

Jones had a vested interest, a bias, in keeping ID out of government-sponsored classrooms.

But he still wrote what he wrote, that “ID claims may be accurate…”

He didn’t have to add that.
In fact, that statement reveals his viewpoint, ie., opinion, that truth is always the goal of science.

While science always loves gathering facts, attempts to explain how those facts originated, are misguided.


Too many coincidences are accepted.

How do you formulate a belief? What is your process?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The believers have not offered any evidence.

I’ve offered plenty. Did you miss it?

Please explain the megafauna, some perfectly preserved, discovered within the Permafrost. (Not on top of it… encased within it.)
No one has provided an explanation, fitting the facts, through natural means.

The foundation evidence against the Noah flood is irrefutable and extensive.

It seems current science always connects the Biblical Flood to a YEC pov.

By discrediting the YEC interpretation, the Flood is discredited automatically.

But the two are unrelated.

No Flood ‘laid down’ strata… but it did eat it up, ie., erode it!

 

[Heyo]

No, it’s not settled, imo. Neither do Axe, Bechly, Minnich, Meyer, Ross, Wells, and other Scientists think so.

Jones had a vested interest, a bias, in keeping ID out of government-sponsored classrooms.

But he still wrote what he wrote, that “ID claims may be accurate…”

... but if they are, they were not found using the scientific method. That's why I said that it is settled that ID is not science, I didn't say that it is settled that ID is false. That was not what the case was about.
And the cdesign proponetsists have accepted that as they didn't appeal the ruling nor do they publish in scientific journals.
They still pretend to be a scientific institute because that ruse is protecting their salaries and there is no law against lying in that case.

 

[Heyo]

Overwhelming evidence, for what? Common descent? A “LUCA”?

Against a flood as described in the Bible.

Overwhelm me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How do you formulate a belief? What is your process?

Mostly, from what I see and read, and reasoning on it.

And I keep two very pertinent Bible revelations in mind:
1) Who is really controlling this world (1 John 5:19), and
2) his ability to mislead / deceive extends into all aspects of our lives - religious, political, scientific, moral, etc.

I have no reason to doubt it.

For example, more & more of the events I see in this world, filled as it is with hurt, disagreeable and disillusioned people, conforms with the Bible’s description of life “under the Sun” (alienated from Jehovah), and verifies my understanding of these Last Days.

Which began in 1914; and I can provide evidence of that claim, from secular sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it’s not settled, imo. Neither do Axe, Bechly, Minnich, Meyer, Ross, Wells, and other Scientists think so.

Jones had a vested interest, a bias, in keeping ID out of government-sponsored classrooms.

But he still wrote what he wrote, that “ID claims may be accurate…”

He didn’t have to add that.
In fact, that statement reveals his viewpoint, ie., opinion, that truth is always the goal of science.

While science always loves gathering facts, attempts to explain how those facts originated, are misguided.


Too many coincidences are accepted.

It is. And no, Jones if anything would have had a bias for the creationists. But it was shown that they lied. it was shown that they had no evidence.

Jones is not a scientist so he is not really qualified to judge whether an idea has been refuted or not. That is why he kept an open mind even after all of the endless evidence against ID and none for it. That is why he could so easily, even as a layperson, see that it was not science.

By the way, this is why I offer to go over the basics of science with almost every creationist. If you understood the basics of science and could be honest you would agree that there is no scientific evidence for ID. It is just make believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Overwhelming evidence, for what? Common descent? A “LUCA”?

Overwhelm me.

You first have to learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you understand the concept of evidence you are in no way qualified to even begin to judge.

But, the odds are that you are too afraid to learn.

 

[YmirGF]

You first have to learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you understand the concept of evidence you are in no way qualified to even begin to judge.

But, the odds are that you are too afraid to learn.

Try speaking more slowly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve offered plenty. Did you miss it?

Please explain the megafauna, some perfectly preserved, discovered within the Permafrost. (Not on top of it… encased within it.)
No one has provided an explanation, fitting the facts, through natural means.

Why? You can't explain it. Why do you think that others should? I gave a much better explanation than you ever did.

It seems current science always connects the Biblical Flood to a YEC pov.

That is because one really has to be YEC to believe in it at all.

By discrediting the YEC interpretation, the Flood is discredited automatically.

No, it is discredited because there is only evidence against it. There is no evidence for it.

But the two are unrelated.

No Flood ‘laid down’ strata… but it did eat it up, ie., erode it!

Then why is there no sign of strata being eroded by one global flood?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Against a flood as described in the Bible.

So, instead of addressing the evidence we do see, Ra tries another tactic: he spends over 2 minutes of his 12:21 video speech, denigrating it.
At 2:59, he finally begins his attack. He attacks, among other things, what he thinks — and you too, apparently — should’ve existed prior to the Flood. Like the “high mountain ranges.” (BaBLA, baBLA, baBLA).Oh brother. I’ve addressed this, the Bible itself addresses this, & I’m not going over this, again. Aron Ra’s simply moving the goal posts. (Attacking a problem that didn’t even exist.)

I watched the entire video; I’ll get to his points, at a more convenient time for me.

(You do realize, I’m sure, that the Flood described in Scripture, was a miraculous, ie., controlled, event, right?)

Goodnight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, instead of addressing the evidence we do see, Ra tries another tactic: he spends over 2 minutes of his 12:21 video speech, denigrating it.
At 2:59, he finally begins his attack. He attacks, among other things, what he thinks — and you too, apparently — should’ve existed prior to the Flood. Like the “high mountain ranges.” (BaBLA, baBLA, baBLA).Oh brother. I’ve addressed this, the Bible itself addresses this, & I’m not going over this, again. Aron Ra’s simply moving the goal posts.

I watched the entire video; I’ll get to his points, at a more convenient time for me.

Goodnight.

That is just the first in a series of about eight videos.

And no, the Bible does not address this. You reinterpret the Bible to try to match your version of the myth.

And remember, you still cannot deal with the Goosenecks State Park meanders.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why? You can't explain it.

Yep, I did!


I know you’re trying so hard to rile me. But it just won’t work, my cousin.

You can’t stand it, your Ad Homs mean nothing. Except reveal a weak argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, I did!


I know you’re trying so hard to rile me. But it just won’t work, my cousin.

You can’t stand it, your Ad Homs mean nothing. Except reveal a weak argument.

No, you never did. It was explained to you ad nauseum how you failed. And name one ad hominem. That is a false accusation on your part.

 

[exchemist]

So what do you think, "Little Nipper"? @Little Nipper

Banned, apparently. For being a troll, most likely.

Nice friends you have.

 

[Heyo]

(You do realize, I’m sure, that the Flood described in Scripture, was a miraculous, ie., controlled, event, right?)

If that is your explanation then there is nothing to debate. The point is that you need it to be a miracle. There is no way that the flood could have happened under the laws of physics. When you don't abide by them, everything is possible in your mind. Miracles don't have to leave traces, the heat could have been miraculously dissipated, species could be miraculously transported from and to the Middle East from all over the Earth.

 

[Heyo]

But, the odds are that you are too afraid to learn.

You can't teach someone who's livelihood depends on not understanding you.
It would have dire consequences for @Hockeycowboy to accept science. I don't expect him to. But that doesn't give him the freedom to propagate his version of Earth's history unchallenged. The audience has a right to both viewpoints.

 

[caledor dragonmaster]

Here we shall discuss evidence of NOAH's FLOOD. There is ongoing scientific research that has brought to light many interesting finds, that contrary to some or many ---- does in fact point more and more to a monumental worldwide cataclysm that is labelled the FLOOD in GOD's Word: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

However, according to the information I have collected, in fact, the Great flood event was far earlier than the time of Noah, and it was not the ark that was solved in the time of Noah. The legendary story of Noah's Ark comes from the Hebrew Bible editors' application of the Great Flood in Sumerian mythology. Noah himself was the one who solved Jehovah's curse on Adam and the earth for not being able to produce enough, and he was the first human to grow grapes and make wine.


The Great Flood is an important global memory, but whether it was from Noah's time is obviously a big question.


It is important to understand that the biblical accounts prior to Abraham are essentially primitive mythological memories shared by the Semitic peoples, not exclusively by the Jews or the Hebrews, and that even the versions of the biblical accounts are more a product of edited versions that distort part of the Semitic collective memory in favor of their own peoples.

 

[exchemist]

If that is your explanation then there is nothing to debate. The point is that you need it to be a miracle. There is no way that the flood could have happened under the laws of physics. When you don't abide by them, everything is possible in your mind. Miracles don't have to leave traces, the heat could have been miraculously dissipated, species could be miraculously transported from and to the Middle East from all over the Earth.

Exactly. This is something irrational about creationism. On the one hand it is asserted to be the miraculous work of an all-powerful supernatural being, yet on the other it is expected to leave traces can be studied scientifically, as if the laws of natures applied after all.

 

[metis]

But he still wrote what he wrote, that “ID claims may be accurate…”

ID is religious based, not scientific.