Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Kenny]

How does this relate to the subject of the thread?

ROFL... You want me to remember the context of what I wrote over 30 days ago? I claim grandpa privileges at this point.

 

[gnostic]

Try this for size..www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning
Then go to Starwars maybe you'll have more clarity there...

What I wrote, relates to one of claims Dr Andrew Snelling had made in the article, about the marine fossils found in limestone of Mount Everest, that they don’t date to any point of the Early Bronze Age, the supposed time for Noah’s Flood. Plus I also pointed out that the mountains (Himalayas) couldn’t have rose from the seabed to their “present” elevations from less than 5500 years.

Your reply about what Stephen Hawking have to say in your link & mentioning Star Wars, they have no relevancy whatsoever to my reply to Little Nipper’s OP.

Instead of either supporting Snelling’s points or arguing against mine, you are changing the subject, as means of pointless distractions.

**mod edit**

 

[gnostic]

ROFL... You want me to remember the context of what I wrote over 30 days ago? I claim grandpa privileges at this point.

It was one of @Subduction Zone earlier reply to Little Nipper’s OP and link to Snelling’s AnswersInGenesis’ article, about marine fossils found on mountains (eg the Himalayas, such as Everest). SZ addressed one of Snelling’s claims about mountains, by refuting Snelling’s points these fossils were dated to Noah’s Flood.

your reply mentioned adaption, which doesn’t address SZ’s points:

Where did the OP go? The article loses on its first claim. It is not scientific, it is just an empty ignorant claim that ignores how mountains are made.

But since the OP is not here let me deal with fossil shells high up on mountains. Yes, we do observe that. Is it evidence for a flood? Not at all since they never made a testable hypothesis. But lets see what a testable hypothesis would look like.

If there was a global flood as in the Bible that would kill almost all sea life. Perhaps the larval stages of corals, mollusks etc. could survive. but the adult forms would have been killed by the changing salinity of sea water. Ask anyone that has a salt tank what happens to their pets if the salinity varies greatly. So we have a layer of dead sea life. And I suppose that some of it could be piled up on mountains, but one would need to explain how. Letting all of go what would we see? Well, at any one time there are not all that many clams, mussels, fish, or corals living. And the Earth was only a two or three thousand years old according to the myth. That does not give much time for the accumulation for much in the way of shells. So we might have a foot or two, heck call it three feet or even ten feet of shells built up by then, but that would be a huge exaggeration. What would we see Well we might have a few feet of shells that somehow survived extremely rough seas. What do we see instead. We see layers of limestone, sometimes thousands of feet thick when we add up all of the strata. Not just on mountains, but all around the world. Sorry, but the observations do not match the hypothesis. That claim is busted.

Your one-line reply was this:

Isn't evolution about adaptation?

SZ answered no, as the Nipper’s thread was about there been “evidence” to support Genesis Flood using Snelling’s article, not about Evolution.

Then you replied again with…

The difference in salinity of water?

neither of your replies to SZ, addressed his points, nor those of AiG’ pseudoscience article by Snelling.

It is apparent that you didn’t bother to read the linked article that @Little Nipper had posted...so you have been making pointless & irrelevant replies to Subduction Zone and to @shunyadragon .

You claimed privilege of grandfather’s age as a defence, but you should realised that both shunyadragon & SZ are not youngsters. shunyadragon is also retired geologist, so he would know more about how mountain’t are formed better than you, I & SZ.

 

[shunyadragon]

It was one of @Subduction Zone earlier reply to Little Nipper’s OP and link to Snelling’s AnswersInGenesis’ article, about marine fossils found on mountains (eg the Himalayas, such as Everest). SZ addressed one of Snelling’s claims about mountains, by refuting Snelling’s points these fossils were dated to Noah’s Flood.

your reply mentioned adaption, which doesn’t address SZ’s points:



Your one-line reply was this:



SZ answered no, as the Nipper’s thread was about there been “evidence” to support Genesis Flood using Snelling’s article, not about Evolution.

Then you replied again with…



neither of your replies to SZ, addressed his points, nor those of AiG’ pseudoscience article by Snelling.

It is apparent that you didn’t bother to read the linked article that @Little Nipper had posted...so you have been making pointless & irrelevant replies to Subduction Zone and to @shunyadragon .

You claimed privilege of grandfather’s age as a defence, but you should realised that both shunyadragon & SZ are not youngsters. shunyadragon is also retired geologist, so he would know more about how mountain’t are formed better than you, I & SZ.

I am 78. I work at a dementia care facility where some residents are younger than I. I slip up once in a while, but in favor of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I wrote, relates to one of claims Dr Andrew Snelling had made in the article, about the marine fossils found in limestone of Mount Everest, that they don’t date to any point of the Early Bronze Age, the supposed time for Noah’s Flood. Plus I also pointed out that the mountains (Himalayas) couldn’t have rose from the seabed to their “present” elevations from less than 5500 years.

Your reply about what Stephen Hawking have to say in your link & mentioning Star Wars, they have no relevancy whatsoever to my reply to Little Nipper’s OP.

Instead of either supporting Snelling’s points or arguing against mine, you are changing the subject, as means of pointless distractions.

**mod edit**

That is not true. But I believe the Bible sooner than I believe the suppositions made by some.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not true. But I believe the Bible sooner than I believe the suppositions made by some.

And there you go, using terms that put the burden of proof upon you. If you try to denigrate an idea by calling it a "supposition" you take on a burden of proof. Yet you never support your claims, probably because you know that you are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I wrote, relates to one of claims Dr Andrew Snelling had made in the article, about the marine fossils found in limestone of Mount Everest, that they don’t date to any point of the Early Bronze Age, the supposed time for Noah’s Flood. Plus I also pointed out that the mountains (Himalayas) couldn’t have rose from the seabed to their “present” elevations from less than 5500 years.

Your reply about what Stephen Hawking have to say in your link & mentioning Star Wars, they have no relevancy whatsoever to my reply to Little Nipper’s OP.

Instead of either supporting Snelling’s points or arguing against mine, you are changing the subject, as means of pointless distractions.

**mod edit**

Plus I'm not about to get into a philosophical intellectual debating match with you or Snelling's points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus I'm not about to get into a philosophical intellectual debating match with you or Snelling's points.

Snelling is disgusting because he knows better. He has training in geology. He knows how his arguments are all wrong. Yet he never deals with that. One thing that has been confirmed by lab experiments and is confirmed in the field in many ways is that rocks can and do bend when under immense pressure and heat. And they can still fracture a bit then. But if one has enough pressure and time rocks will almost flow. I might have to see if I can find the picture that he took of a formation where he claimed that the rock had to be unconsolidated (which means uncemented) and he covered up a stress fracture that showed he was wrong by having some of his "students" stand in front of the fracture.

Now some of the workers at AiG are just idiots or incompetent. Snelling was able to write real peer reviewed articles on geology and yet he threw away a career and became one of Ken Ham's Liars for Jesus. It has to be some sort of mental illness when one thinks that it is better to lie for a belief than to face reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

Plus I'm not about to get into a philosophical intellectual debating match with you or Snelling's points.

It is not a philosophical Intellectual match. It is a matter of pure physics and geologic science. Snelling is grossly wrong concerning the geology of the Earth. The formation of the vast limestone deposits that contain fossils is impossible to form under flood conditions, and the physics is outrageous that all the mountain building took place during the Noah flood event This amount of energy involved in a short period of time would melt the Earth as previously documented.

 

[gnostic]

Plus I'm not about to get into a philosophical intellectual debating match with you or Snelling's points.

so you haven't read the linked article that @Little Nipper had posted up in the thread’s OP, have you?

@Subduction Zone had addressed Snelling’s first claim about marine fossils...as did I.

it is not supposition that marine fossils found in the limestone of Everest are 490 million old, not less than 4500 years old as Snelling had claimed in his article with Answers In Genesis website.

Snelling who probably never seen these fossils, therefore never independently tested the fossils for himself, so how he possibly determine how old the fossils are?

even though snelling is a geologist, and a professor, not all geologists have experiences in paleo-stratigraphy, such as being able to date ancient rocks through various methods.

plus, not all geologists are paleontologists. Not all geologists work with fossils. There are great many fields and subfields, so most university students pick a field or two, to specialize in, and most never choose to do paleontology. And paleontology is a specialised field.

so I very much doubt Snelling is qualified in paleontology.

the point, is that I am no geologist, nor paleontologist, but even I can see the errors and misinformation in his claims in those article. Basically, Snelling have ruined his reputation as geologist, by willing to lie inthe article he wrote. He is no better than Ken Ham, they have no intellectual & professional integrity.

 

[shunyadragon]

so you haven't read the linked article that @Little Nipper had posted up in the thread’s OP, have you?

@Subduction Zone had addressed Snelling’s first claim about marine fossils...as did I.

it is not supposition that marine fossils found in the limestone of Everest are 490 million old, not less than 4500 years old as Snelling had claimed in his article with Answers In Genesis website.

Snelling who probably never seen these fossils, therefore never independently tested the fossils for himself, so how he possibly determine how old the fossils are?

even though snelling is a geologist, and a professor, not all geologists have experiences in paleo-stratigraphy, such as being able to date ancient rocks through various methods.

plus, not all geologists are paleontologists. Not all geologists work with fossils. There are great many fields and subfields, so most university students pick a field or two, to specialize in, and most never choose to do paleontology. And paleontology is a specialised field.

so I very much doubt Snelling is qualified in paleontology.

the point, is that I am no geologist, nor paleontologist, but even I can see the errors and misinformation in his claims in those article. Basically, Snelling have ruined his reputation as geologist, by willing to lie inthe article he wrote. He is no better than Ken Ham, they have no intellectual & professional integrity.

Unfortunately, a basic undergraduate in Geology and Physics is all that is needed to seriously question and determine Snelling is dishonest about the geology and basic physics he should know by his senior year in basic geology.

 

[Kfox]

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

If water covered the entire earth,

*was it salt water? Or fresh water. If salt water, how did the fresh water life survive, and how did fresh and salt water separate themselves after the flood reminded?

*If all the animals that survived the flood were on the boat, what did they eat? According to the bible they were on the boat for at least 100 days; during which time food for the animals would have spoiled due to no refrigeration.

*According to the bible, the Ark landed somewhere in Middle East Asia. So how did all of those Kangaroos and Kola Bears get to Australia without leaving a trail?

*Any Engineer will tell you it is impossible to build a boat 500 feet long (the recorded length of the Ark) made strictly out of wood without any steel reinforcements. Since steel wasn’t invented back then, how did they do what is impossible to be done today?

*It is estimated that it would take 5 times the amount of water currently on Earth to cover every mountain. Sooooo; where did all of that water go?

 

[F1fan]

That is not true. But I believe the Bible sooner than I believe the suppositions made by some.

Who told you to believe the Bible? And believe a certain interpretation of Bible stories? Why do you believe them?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

763 replies and 39 pages in. Is there any evidence yet?

Did you read the RF url that was posted? I don’t think it turned into a link.

Here’s another try:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/flood-evidences-—-revised.223411/#post-6238243


The evidence presented here has nothing to do with YEC theology.

And please keep in mind, how the evidence is understood depends on the interpretation / explanation given. And while most of these evidences can be explained using reasonable approaches, the first one — the vast numbers of animals that have been discovered, and are currently estimated, within the Permafrost (not on top of it, within it), some of which are found very well preserved… the cause of such a widespread anomaly, has not received a reasonable explanation using natural means, to this day.

And I don’t expect one forthcoming.

EDIT: No, the URL still didn’t create a link. (Does anyone know why?)

Sorry, Viker, but you’ll have to copy & paste.

If you’re interested enough.

 

[John53]

Did you read the RF url that was posted? I don’t think it turned into a link.

Here’s another try:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/flood-evidences-—-revised.223411/#post-6238243


The evidence presented here has nothing to do with YEC theology.

And please keep in mind, how the evidence is understood depends on the interpretation / explanation given. And while most of these evidences can be explained using reasonable approaches, the first one — the vast numbers of animals that have been discovered, and are currently estimated, within the Permafrost (not on top of it, within it), some of which are found very well preserved… the cause of such a widespread anomaly, has not received a reasonable explanation using natural means, to this day.

And I don’t expect one forthcoming.

I read at least 2 reasonable explanations and have 1 of my own. I don't see how it's possible for them to be victim of a flood especially the Noah flood, they are too well preserved to have been floating in water for 100 days. I grew up on a dairy on a flood plain and have seen how quickly cows rot after just a week in water. The preservation shows they were frozen quickly.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I read at least 2 reasonable explanations and have 1 of my own. I don't see how it's possible for them to be victim of a flood especially the Noah flood, they are too well preserved to have been floating in water for 100 days. I grew up on a dairy on a flood plain and have seen how quickly cows rot after just a week in water. The preservation shows they were frozen quickly.

In the Northern latitudes, we have ice. (Hence, the Permafrost.)

In the extreme North we wouldn’t expect to see water as a liquid. Ice preserves.

 

[John53]

In the Northern latitudes, we have ice. (Hence, the Permafrost.)

In the extreme North we wouldn’t expect to see water as a liquid. Ice preserves.

Water to the depth of the highest mountain isn't going to freeze quick enough to preserve them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the Northern latitudes, we have ice. (Hence, the Permafrost.)

In the extreme North we wouldn’t expect to see water as a liquid. Ice preserves.

Ice floats. The ice caps are hundreds of thousands of years old. There was no flood.

Why do you keep calling your God a liar?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read the RF url that was posted? I don’t think it turned into a link.

Here’s another try:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/flood-evidences-—-revised.223411/#post-6238243


The evidence presented here has nothing to do with YEC theology.

And please keep in mind, how the evidence is understood depends on the interpretation / explanation given. And while most of these evidences can be explained using reasonable approaches, the first one — the vast numbers of animals that have been discovered, and are currently estimated, within the Permafrost (not on top of it, within it), some of which are found very well preserved… the cause of such a widespread anomaly, has not received a reasonable explanation using natural means, to this day.

And I don’t expect one forthcoming.

EDIT: No, the URL still didn’t create a link. (Does anyone know why?)

Sorry, Viker, but you’ll have to copy & paste.

If you’re interested enough.

None of that is evidence. Did you forget the definition of scientific evidence again?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Water to the depth of the highest mountain isn't going to freeze quick enough to preserve them.

What was the highest mountain at the time, do you think?

The Flood was what created
most of the high ranges we have today.

Just by observing their features, you can see how geologically young they are.
The rocks themselves are old, but the features they have formed through uplift and other means, are quite young, with well-defined and sharp characteristics.

Easily seen when you take into account the extreme amount of weathering they endure. If they were “millions of years old”, they’d be rounded stumps by now!

Don’t get me wrong… some ranges are very old, like the Appalachians.

But some are young.