Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[TagliatelliMonster]

No explanation in post, but your circular reasoning shows.

There is nothing circular about pointing out falsehoods and strawmen.

That calculation is correct and I was extrmely generous to a fault.

As explained, and ignored by you off course, your calculation is garbage because it is based on false assumption.

GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

But that is a simple technique. Prove with the lower bound and it is proven for all values greater.

It matters not. If you are start off with false assumptions, everything that follows which builds upon those falsehoods will be equally false - if not more

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

King James Bible. What versions do you use of THE word of God, THE Bible.

This one time, I found toilet paper with bible chapters printed on it. It was a bit expensive, but I just HAD to have it. It made for some good laughs when I had people over who had to use the toilet
It's the only bible I've owned since the one I had to buy while in catholic high school.

I don't have that toilet bible anymore though.
Guess what I did with it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This one time, I found toilet paper with bible chapters printed on it. It was a bit expensive, but I just HAD to have it. It made for some good laughs when I had people over who had to use the toilet
It's the only bible I've owned since the one I had to buy while in catholic high school.

I don't have that toilet bible anymore though.
Guess what I did with it.

What version was it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What version was it?

Probably the KJV since it is not protected by copyright.

 

[John53]

Probably the KJV since it is not protected by copyright.

Not even by the ghost of the King of Scotland?

 

[McBell]

King James Bible. What versions do you use of THE word of God, THE Bible.

WHICH King James Version do you use?
I understand that you were hoping to just spit out KJV as though that solved it, but the fact remains you have not been able to determined which of the hundreds of KJV you actually use.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What version was it?

Does it matter?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Does it matter?

Well then you are lacking knowledge in this area.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well then you are lacking knowledge in this area.

I can live with it. My butt wouldn't know the difference anyhow.

 

[Monty]

Well then you are lacking knowledge in this area.

Have you ever read the Hebrew bible which, like the KJV, also says that the flood was only 15 cubits high, and why the olive tree was unaffected? Or are you lacking knowledge in this area?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Have you ever read the Hebrew bible which, like the KJV, also says that the flood was only 15 cubits high, and why the olive tree was unaffected? Or are you lacking knowledge in this area?

You are incorrect as to what it says.
No one has ever made such a claim.
Your claim makes no sense whatsoever and that is why no one has ever made that claim.
Read Genesis 7 the water prevailed above all mountains and hills in the world so that its destruction was total for many Kinds of creatures except of the 2 or 7 of those kinds on the ark. Not all kinds needed the ark.

 

[Monty]

You are incorrect as to what it says.
No one has ever made such a claim.
Your claim makes no sense whatsoever and that is why no one has ever made that claim.
Read Genesis 7 the water prevailed above all mountains and hills in the world so that its destruction was total for many Kinds of creatures except of the 2 or 7 of those kinds on the ark. Not all kinds needed the ark.

IOW the KJV and the Hebrew bible both say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, which is why "not all kinds needed the ark" since, like
the olive tree (Gen 8:11) and Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal, Gen 4:20-21), they were not in the flooded area. Which is why kangaroos are not native to the Middle East.
QED

And if you'd actually bothered to read Gen 7, you would know that it says 14 of each clean kind of animal and two pigs - ie 7 rams & 7 ewes, 7 billy goats & 7 nanny goats, 7 roosters & 7 hens, one boar and one sow, and a raven and a dove which plucked a fresh leaf off an olive tree growing outside the flooded area.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

IOW the KJV and the Hebrew bible both say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, which is why "not all kinds needed the ark" since, like
the olive tree (Gen 8:11) and Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal, Gen 4:20-21), they were not in the flooded area. Which is why kangaroos are not native to the Middle East.
QED

And if you'd actually bothered to read Gen 7, you would know that it says 14 of each clean kind of animal and two pigs - ie 7 rams & 7 ewes, 7 billy goats & 7 nanny goats, 7 roosters & 7 hens, one boar and one sow, and a raven and a dove which plucked a fresh leaf off an olive tree growing outside the flooded area.

You are wrong.

 

[Monty]

You are wrong.

Alas I didn't write the bible, which clearly says that the flood height was only 15 cubits, and why the olive tree was unaffected (Gen 8:11).
Nor did I write Gen 7:1-5 which says that there were seven breeding pairs of goats and sheep and chooks on Noah's boat, plus one breeding pair of pigs, and a raven and a dove which plucked a fresh leaf from an olive tree.
Nor did I write Gen 4:20-21 which says that Noah's brothers were the fathers of all nomadic herders and musical instrument makers, and therefore they and their families were not affected by that particular flood either.

But it's your choice if you don't believe what the bible actually says and means, and want to believe that there were 14 Seismosaurus on Noah's boat, along with 14 Brachiosaurus and 14 Tyrannosaurus and 14 Gigantosaurus and 14 African Savanna Elephants and 14 African bush elephants and 14 Asian elephants etc etc, plus two pigs

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Peruse this site and let's see what you have to say: The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs

I read some of the wrticles in the link you provide...they are a poor rebuttal at best (especially the rebuttal on the steggarsaurous carving in the temple. I note in the article he provides only possible alternatives to the claim the carvings are a dinosaur. What's stupid is that one of the claims he makes is that perhaps someone unearthed a dinosaur in China and its a copy of that find that was carved on the temple. Trouble is...where's the evidence of any such find in China during the temple period?Where is the evidence someone during the construction of the temple new about it?it's one thing to say, oh but a fossil may have been found in China...its another to say a group of jungle people in another region knew anything about it and then carved it on a temple...that a modern idiot using Google to prove that ancients had 'fibre to the node coms'..or perhaps telepathy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read some of the wrticles in the link you provide...they are a poor rebuttal at best (especially the rebuttal on the steggarsaurous carving in the temple. I note in the article he provides only possible alternatives to the claim the carvings are a dinosaur. What's stupid is that one of the claims he makes is that perhaps someone unearthed a dinosaur in China and its a copy of that find that was carved on the temple. Trouble is...where's the evidence of any such find in China during the temple period?

The temple carving is most likely a young rhino. The background that looks like plates are a decorative flower motif that runs through other carvings. Please note the rather obvious lack of a thagomizer. That should have told you that it was not a stegosaurus.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The temple carving is most likely a young rhino. The background that looks like plates are a decorative flower motif that runs through other carvings. Please note the rather obvious lack of a thagomizer. That should have told you that it was not a stegosaurus.

Sorry but that argument has already been discussed. It's obvious that it's wrong. Take a closer look at the image instead of relying on heresay. It very clearly shows that the plates are directly on the animal and there are a second additional set of decorative shapes around the perimeter outside of the area of the dinosaur.

The big problem here is not whether or not it's a particular type of dinosaur, but that they even knew enough about the steggosaurous in the first place to be able to create a carving with a resemblance to one!
The evolutionary claim is the ancient man didn't know about such things...thats these finds are modern...that claims by ancient man in his carvings and drawings are not of real creatures that existed during the lifetime of such men. The reality is that its more likely that many formerly mythical tales and drawings are in fact, real records of many such creatures existing alongside our ancient ancestors.

Oh btw...have you ever seen a young rhino's tail?

Now look at the carving image again.

 

[Monty]

Sorry but that argument has already been discussed. It's obvious that it's wrong. Take a closer look at the image instead of relying on heresay. It very clearly shows that the plates are directly on the animal and there are a second additional set of decorative shapes around the perimeter outside of the area of the dinosaur.
View attachment 84039
The big problem here is not whether or not it's a particular type of dinosaur, but that they even knew enough about the steggosaurous in the first place to be able to create a carving with a resemblance to one!
The evolutionary claim is the ancient man didn't know about such things...thats these finds are modern...that claims by ancient man in his carvings and drawings are not of real creatures that existed during the lifetime of such men. The reality is that its more likely that many formerly mythical tales and drawings are in fact, real records of many such creatures existing alongside our ancient ancestors.

Oh btw...have you ever seen a young rhino's tail? View attachment 84040

Now look at the carving image again.

So where do those animals live now since that carving in Cambodia has little resemblance to a Stegosaurus reconstruction, except that it has four legs? Stegosaurus - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but that argument has already been discussed. It's obvious that it's wrong. Take a closer look at the image instead of relying on heresay. It very clearly shows that the plates are directly on the animal and there are a second additional set of decorative shapes around the perimeter outside of the area of the dinosaur.
View attachment 84039
The big problem here is not whether or not it's a particular type of dinosaur, but that they even knew enough about the steggosaurous in the first place to be able to create a carving with a resemblance to one!
The evolutionary claim is the ancient man didn't know about such things...thats these finds are modern...that claims by ancient man in his carvings and drawings are not of real creatures that existed during the lifetime of such men. The reality is that its more likely that many formerly mythical tales and drawings are in fact, real records of many such creatures existing alongside our ancient ancestors.

Oh btw...have you ever seen a young rhino's tail? View attachment 84040

Now look at the carving image again.

Have you ever seen a stegosaurus's tail? And the flower motif can be seen on the outside and inside of that carving. Those look more like petal than plates on the back. Your example has the rhino facing away from the camera. Here are some tail images:

The can be hard to see sometimes when they are tucked in:

Once again, where is the thagomizer?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Have you ever seen a stegosaurus's tail? And the flower motif can be seen on the outside and inside of that carving. Those look more like petal than plates on the back. Your example has the rhino facing away from the camera. \

The can be hard to see sometimes when they are tucked in:

would you mind now looking at the image in the temple carving again. seems to me that not all tails are the same...the one in the temple has a rather large tail compared with that of a Rhino does it not?

I think your rhino image proves my point...the tail in the carving is clearly not that of a rhino (did you even check this before posting it?)

Your claim about petals is absurd...the petal theory ignores the obvious...flower petals dont grow on the backs of animals...its is very clear from the orientation of the objects on the back of the creature in the temple carving that these are drawn in a manner that makes it plainly obvious the artist was intending them to be there...they are part of the animal.

Do any of the other animal carvings in said temple show those same objects physically attached to animals in this way?

btw...the following reply from an article in Creation Ministries answers your claims directly...

Some objectors have pointed out that the water buffalo image immediately above the stegosaur on the temple wall has a decorative design carved above the animal. They therefore said that the supposed ‘plates’ along the back of the stegosaur are merely decorative background symbols also. The carving is thus some other kind of everyday animal standing in front of a flower symbol, or some other unknown ‘leafy’ ornamentation.​

​

However, the plates along the back of the animal are unlike all the other decorative designs in the temple walls. The plates are also seen to hug the line of the back, and follow its curve exactly. The shape of the plates is quite similar to that of known fossil stegosaur plates. Furthermore, the creature’s plates have a noticeably higher relief than the background ornamentation seen immediately above the water buffalo.​

​

The simplest explanation is that the carving at Ta Prohm is a stylized representation of a dinosaur of the Stegosauridae family. In other words it is an artist’s version of what the creature looked like, not a scientist’s version. However, the main elements for a stegosaurian dinosaur are clearly depicted: namely the strongly arched back and dinosaurian body, and, crucially, the plates along the back of the animal. No other creature known, fossil or living, has a row of such characteristic plates along its back. Did Angkor really see a dinosaur​

​

BTW, did you know that dinosaur bones found in Hell Creek still have a smell? Did you know that many of the fossilised bones found in Hell Creek smell? If bones are millions of years old, how is it that Schweitzer found a t-rex bone with elastic tissue still inside and that the bones have a cadeverous odour? Doesnt that raise your eyebrows even just a little?

Perhaps the pdf from Dr Armitage Electron Microscopy Laboratory, Micro Specialist might interest some on the topic of dinosaur bones found in Hell Creek. https://dstri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/armitage_microtoday.pdf