Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Dan From Smithville]

What logic is there in claiming undirected, mindless processes formed the first supramolecular nano machinery in the cell?

That’s illogical; in fact, it’s blind faith, because no evidence supports it… no lab results or anything.

Evolutionary processes have shown that they only work on what already exists.

And @Audie wonders about honesty. Lol.





Nope, they are not.

The truth about God, reality, and science, are irrevocably intertwined.

Someday all will learn. Or at least, be given the chance… w/o the negative influences that currently exist, I believe.

I'm not seeing the support for your dead on, absolute, clearly correct claims. It should be easy considering the strength you consider for your opinion.

I'm seeing a lot of what I can only describe as smoke and nonsense though.

Is that really the message you want to send?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I doubt if tens of thousands of tons have been found. It may be estimated that there are that many buried, but you have to remember that over thousands of years that bones can accumulate. If buried in a bog they will be preserved. And glaciers are not always destructive. They can slide or they can flow. If it is "warm", near the freezing point, they flow more than they slide.

I doubt it too. Of course, there is no reference from the source that always posts references. I wonder what that says.

Likely it was teeth that has turned into tusks as it has progressed through each creationist telling while leaving out the fact and the evidence that the bottoms of those seas were once above water when mammoths roamed the Earth.

 

[Colt]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I doubt if tens of thousands of tons have been found. It may be estimated that there are that many buried, but you have to remember that over thousands of years that bones can accumulate. If buried in a bog they will be preserved. And glaciers are not always destructive. They can slide or they can flow. If it is "warm", near the freezing point, they flow more than they slide.

I don't think we need more expressions of irrelevant desperation, but if the festivals of the dead actually meant something, it would have to be from cultures that were not interrupted by a global flood. Otherwise, no mechanism to connect them.

 

[Audie]

YES! This is actually true of the Arctic north of Asia today, and the Canadian Arctic, though due to global warming.it is warming in the North resulting in warmer weather.

To add, the Arctic North is a torturous place in the summer and spring even though it may br covered with buttercups. Mud, unstable Tundra, Natural gas blowouts, and wolves as big as cows.

No,such wolves exist and the other things are
of no consequence. IF you'd ever been in the arctic
you'd mention mosquitos first.

 

[metis]

The last time I heard, there's a full-sized model of the Ark in Amsterdam Harbor but they're afraid to send it out because computer models show it to be too unstable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The last time I heard, there's a full-sized model of the Ark in Amsterdam Harbor but they're afraid to send it out because computer models show it to be too unstable.

You are conflating a couple of Arks built by Johan Huibers. His first ark was half sized. It was deemed not to be seaworthy. And was tied up for a while in lawsuits. It also is not really a replica. It was too much work to design and build a real "Noah's Ark so what the builder did for his large ark, and it appears for his smaller one too was to get a barge, and that is barges for his full sized one that were lashed together, and build an "ark" around them. It is similar to Ken Hamster's Ark Lark. His Ark is just the front facade of a building. If one can get around to the back side it does not look like an Ark at all. Here is a photo of his first half sized "ark":

You can see that it is just sitting on a barge that does the actual flotation:

Stuck Noah's Ark sparks international incident as Government urged to aid rescue

The British Government is being urged to wade into an “extraordinary” international incident involving the replica of Noah’s Ark currently…

www.eadt.co.uk

Here is an article about the second full scale one:

Johan's Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And a photo of it being built:

You can go to the article for a larger photo. But even here you can see that it is just a shell around barges. And since the second is more than one barge lashed together it is probably even less seaworthy.


To be fair I do not think that anything can be said about the seaworthiness of the Ark from these weak attempts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder how the ark could have sustained comfortably animals from vastly different biomes. Animals of such diverse habitats as tapirs, muskox, giraffes, bison, blind snakes, bald eagles, penguins, porpoises, kangaroos and saltwater crocs to name but a tiny number.

Even the best zoos cannot house such a diverse fauna without expending extensive resources to build climate controlled housing for the diversity they do hold. And no zoo would be so complete as the ark is claimed to have been.

 

[metis]

You are conflating a couple of Arks built by Johan Huibers. His first ark was half sized. It was deemed not to be seaworthy. And was tied up for a while in lawsuits. It also is not really a replica. It was too much work to design and build a real "Noah's Ark so what the builder did for his large ark, and it appears for his smaller one too was to get a barge, and that is barges for his full sized one that were lashed together, and build an "ark" around them. It is similar to Ken Hamster's Ark Lark. His Ark is just the front facade of a building. If one can get around to the back side it does not look like an Ark at all. Here is a photo of his first half sized "ark":

View attachment 81923

You can see that it is just sitting on a barge that does the actual flotation:

Stuck Noah's Ark sparks international incident as Government urged to aid rescue

The British Government is being urged to wade into an “extraordinary” international incident involving the replica of Noah’s Ark currently…

www.eadt.co.uk

Here is an article about the second full scale one:

Johan's Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And a photo of it being built:

View attachment 81924

You can go to the article for a larger photo. But even here you can see that it is just a shell around barges. And since the second is more than one barge lashed together it is probably even less seaworthy.


To be fair I do not think that anything can be said about the seaworthiness of the Ark from these weak attempts.

Thanks a lot, since it's been a long time since I read about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Instead of digging up dubious irrelevancies like days of the dead, pushing unsupported speculation as alternative explanations for permafrost carcasses or an unevidenced vapor/liquid canopy surrounding the Earth, I think that a serious student of a flood explanation would want to address the many legitimate questions that have arisen over the course of the history of this debate with actual evidence and rational interpretation.

1. No flood layer in the geological record.

2. Continuity of cultures.

3. The appearance and disappearance of an incredible volume of water.

4. Existence of plants, terrestrial aquatic and marine life.

5. Amount of space, food and care required to house so many diverse living things in the ark.

6. The existence of the modern icecaps.

This lists just a few of the questions that need rational address to support the claim of a global flood.

Instead we get the dubious, the speculative, the illogical and the diversionary.

As powerful a person as I wish I was, stating or not stating my personal world view is not a legitimate deterrent to another in answering these questions and supporting claims with evidence and rational interpretation of that evidence.

Continually cleaving to that topic is looking more and more than just a diversion and approaching more than the appearance of persecution. Especially when much of my position is well and widely known.

Frankly, I don't see anyone stepping up to do the ark side right. What I expect is more of the same that has been given by those that want their belief to be fact without the pesky issue of demonstrating it to be so.

 

[Heyo]

Instead of digging up dubious irrelevancies like days of the dead, pushing unsupported speculation as alternative explanations for permafrost carcasses or an unevidenced vapor/liquid canopy surrounding the Earth, I think that a serious student of a flood explanation would want to address the many legitimate questions that have arisen over the course of the history of this debate with actual evidence and rational interpretation.

1. No flood layer in the geological record.

2. Continuity of cultures.

3. The appearance and disappearance of an incredible volume of water.

4. Existence of plants, terrestrial aquatic and marine life.

5. Amount of space, food and care required to house so many diverse living things in the ark.

6. The existence of the modern icecaps.

7. The heat problem:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

7. The heat problem:

I knew going in that my list was just the tip of the issue.

The list I keep on my computer is much longer and growing.

 

[metis]

Instead of digging up dubious irrelevancies like days of the dead, pushing unsupported speculation as alternative explanations for permafrost carcasses or an unevidenced vapor/liquid canopy surrounding the Earth, I think that a serious student of a flood explanation would want to address the many legitimate questions that have arisen over the course of the history of this debate with actual evidence and rational interpretation.

1. No flood layer in the geological record.

2. Continuity of cultures.

3. The appearance and disappearance of an incredible volume of water.

4. Existence of plants, terrestrial aquatic and marine life.

5. Amount of space, food and care required to house so many diverse living things in the ark.

6. The existence of the modern icecaps.

This lists just a few of the questions that need rational address to support the claim of a global flood.

Instead we get the dubious, the speculative, the illogical and the diversionary.

As powerful a person as I wish I was, stating or not stating my personal world view is not a legitimate deterrent to another in answering these questions and supporting claims with evidence and rational interpretation of that evidence.

Continually cleaving to that topic is looking more and more than just a diversion and approaching more than the appearance of persecution. Especially when much of my position is well and widely known.

Frankly, I don't see anyone stepping up to do the ark side right. What I expect is more of the same that has been given by those that want their belief to be fact without the pesky issue of demonstrating it to be so.

And they also tend to miss the religious teachings found within the narratives.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And they also tend to miss the religious teachings found within the narratives.

I agree. Focusing on making it real detracts from the wisdom within.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Much logic as it is evidence based.

No, it isn’t. It’s assumption-based.

When your peer-reviewed literature resort to explanations that contain “probably”s, “likely”s & other suggestive language, which is pervasive in biology publications, you’ve entered the realm of philosophy.
You however attempt to portray these as fact, when in reality, they are based on assumption & guesses Not logic. Lol.

You have no explanation as to how the first of these molecular machines, or the first cell itself, arose.

As more & more cellular complexity is being discovered, in
explaining how it began, the more “evolution of the gaps” there will be, added to the already huge list!

But without any understanding as to how the complexity originated, you will continue to exclaim, “look what evolution did!”

That’s biased ignorance. And blind faith.

We know of no other source for complex functioning structures, than intelligence.

That is science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn’t. It’s assumption-based.

When your peer-reviewed literature resort to explanations that contain “probably”s, “likely”s & other suggestive language, which is pervasive in biology publications, you’ve entered the realm of philosophy.
You however attempt to portray these as fact, when in reality, they are based on assumption & guesses Not logic. Lol.

Peer reviewed papers use that language because they are the opposite of you. They are not dogmatic. They are willing to admit to a small possibility of being wrong. It is called "honesty". You should try it some time.

You have no explanation as to how the first of these molecular machines, or the first cell itself, arose.

Many of the problems have been answered. But not all of them. Meanwhile your claim is pure magic. You might be able to think of one of the few major problems that they have no found solutions too. But I have my doubts.

As more & more cellular complexity is being discovered, in
explaining how it began, the more “evolution of the gaps” there will be, added to the already huge list!

Nope, sorry, using bogus phrases like "evolution of the gaps" does not help you nor is it honest. If you do not understand something ask questions politely and properly. By the way, I need to remind you that by moving the goalposts to abiogenesis you have already tacitly admitted that evolution is a fact.

But without any understanding as to how the complexity originated, you will continue to exclaim, “look what evolution did!”

Why do you think that they are "without any understanding"? That is a claim on your part, you need to demonstrate that they lack such an understanding. If you can't it only looks as if you lied.

That’s biased ignorance. And blind faith.

We know of no other source for complex functioning structures, than intelligence.

That is science.

No, you are simply ignorant of the current state of science. Even when they had no understanding of abiogenesis scientists already knew that evolution was a fact. Do you not understand this?

Evolution does not rely upon abiogenesis in the least. It does not matter how life got started. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And they also tend to miss the religious teachings found within the narratives.

Which would be what? Why does the Genesis Flood narrative have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

No, it was a real event.

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which would be what? Why have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

No, it was a real event.

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

You are being excessively literal again. Not every verse has to have a "teaching". The story itself does.

Have you ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees"? You are focusing on the small little parts of the story that are not the message. That is why you cannot see the message that it tries to give. This is why literalists cannot understand their own Bible.

And Peter did not say that. Did you not know that Peter did not write 2 Peter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which would be what? Why have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

No, it was a real event.

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world,+ but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

If you double post you can quickly delete one of your posts without help from the moderators.

 

[Audie]

Which would be what? Why have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

No, it was a real event.

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

For once you are right.

It is empty