Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Audie]

“Do not fear.”
OK, I won’t. Lol.

Tell me, how many grazing animals were living in those high Northern lattitudes? From the discovered graveyards in the permafrost, there were millions! There would have to be tonnes of crops growing, to meet their needs. It certainly doesn’t exist there, now. Not enough to meet those huge requirements!

That is not much of an answer. I asked for climate,
and vegetation.

"Tonnes" is not a vegetation type, or a climate.

You did not say what it is that does not exist there now.
"Tonnes", or, species?

If thatt is the best you can do, you sure dont know
much.

I have been in the arctic, btw. You will have no
luck trying to kid me with made up facts.

Now, fearlessly, tell me about the climate and vegetation.
Be specificl

 

[nPeace]

Is that a good idea? How can we possibly understand our world by ignoring evidence?

Not at all.

The rational, skeptical empiricist does not ignore evidence, and doesn't have use for methodologies for determining what is true about the world that do.

Cool.

Incidentally, my question to you was: "Imagine if a falsifying discovery were made - the precambrian rabbit, for example, or a partially digested human being in a T. rex's stomach. The mountains of evidence that we have accrued to date doesn't go away. How would we account for the existence of all of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory?"

You really don't know?
Try preconceived ideas, and what seems to fit.
I demonstrated how that works already.

That's an especially significant problem for Christian creationists - or ought to be. My question was rhetorical, meaning that it was not an effort to collect information, but to make a statement in the form of a question. I already know the answer: If you could falsify Darwin's theory, it would not do a thing for Christian creationism. One would be forced to assume that the evidence that had come before leading to the theory of evolution must have been planted by an extremely powerful and sophisticated source to appear as if evolution had occurred, which could conceivable be a god or gods, or an advanced alien race, which seems like a pointless and trivial thing for such agents to expend effort and resources on.

I have a friend who went to countless doctors. They all examined him, and no one seemed able to diagnose the problem.
However, some looked at similar symptoms and used it as a basis to determine the problem.
They were all wrong.
Get the point?
See above.

So, for the Christian creationist, the same mountain of evidence that is being ignored now would need to continue to be ignored even if the theory were falsified, meaning that assailing it does the believer much good even if he is correct that the theory is wrong.

Doesn't bother me one way or other.
I don't rely on what's considered the best assumption of a matter.
I depend on what's logical, and makes sense to me.
That's what individual minds and reason are for.
Right?

The problem of how the first life appeared on earth is of great interest to the scientific community and the rest of us that respect its core beliefs, methods, and achievements. Separating it from evolutionary science and tackling the two problems separately is as natural as NASA studying.

'K.

It seems like you are finding the scientific method inferior to the faith based method because it hasn't solved the problem of abiogenesis yet, whereas Christianity says God made the first life. Do you see that as an advantage to the faith-based method - that it can give answers where science must remain mute for now?

That seems like a wrong assumption.
I believe in going where the evidence leads, and I mentioned this before. The scientific method is not the measuring rule for every "blessed" thing on earth. Is it?

We're not looking for answers of any kind, but rather, for useful answers - answers we can use. I described the usefulness of the theory of evolution - unifying observations, offering plausible mechanisms, accurate predictions, accounting for the similarities and differences of the tree of life, and applications to areas life medicine and agriculture.

I know of mechanics that have built some the most sophisticated machines. Why, and how?
They studied mechanics - that's including all the working parts right down to the juice in a battery.

If I studied chemistry, or biology, do you think I would make a good pharmacist? I'd like to think so.
That's how we learn stuff right?
We get our hand dirty - open up, examine, take apart, examine...

When we learn how things work, we are learning from what's there.
The order of the universe didn't come into existence while we were studying it. We studied the already existing universe, in order to learn how to navigate it.
Sequencing genes helps us learn about the genes already in existence.

What were you saying about evolution?

What useful contributions have creationists made in the areas of understanding where the universe came from, where the earth came from, how the first life appeared in the universe and on earth, and how did the family of life that we see on earth today come to be? None at all, correct?

Perhaps you see the biblical answers as useful.

What answer do you want to go with?

 

[nPeace]

I did not have in mind bacteria to a dog either. Fish to tetrapod is fine.
Anyways, forget it. No need for added speculation.

Give us a harder one. No need for any speculation!

Oh look! A living transitional! I should have known they were real.
That must be why there are snake lizards and snake fish.
There are so many living transitionals on earth!

Evolution must be a fact.
... but wait.

If evolution is happening right before our eyes, then I should really be seeing thousands of these things right, because all don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time.
Each would be evolving at different periods of time right?

So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...
Hope I haven't lost you Audie. You get what I am saying?

You know Audie, around my home, there are these silver lizards - perhaps you've seen them - they are real slithery, and yet they walk on legs. Not as long as this one.

It's about the size of an average lizard.

Then we have these.
Snakehead
The variety of plants that have so many similarities.
Don't get me started on the fruit with their similarities. It might get me hungry. Actually I have to go and eat now.
There is this fruit they call breadnut, because of it's similar - but yet different - appearance to bread fruit.

Of course you don't have to ask who I give credit to for this variety. Call it what you will Spaghetti Monster, Magic man in the sky....

It doesn't change the fact that the evidence around us is points to an awesome creator, who has generously supplied in amazing abundance, life and what is needed to sustain it. Romans 1:19, 20
He gets my praise.

Evolution fails to account for the animal you showed me, plus all the others discovered, and yet to be discovered - that shouldn't exist if evolution were true.

 

[Audie]

I knew there was a reason you were on ig

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have been in the arctic, btw.

Well, then you should know the current amount vegetation produced there (due to the climate existing now), cannot support the numbers of animals discovered in those latitudes, during the megafaunal extinction back then.

It's a no-brainer, really. I'll just attribute it to your indoctrination.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is evidence for changes within species. That's why humans can create a new breed of dog, or cat.

Noah only had about 35,000 individual animals on the Ark -- there being 2 of each "kind", that would be about 16,000 species. But how many land species are currently on Earth? Estimated to total maybe 6.5 million! (Explorers have only discovered c.1,000,000 land species so far, with c.10,000 new land and sea species discovered every year.) So, with that in mind, there has been a lot of speciation since the Flood! Jehovah no doubt has played a role in that...although mankind is alienated from Him at the moment, He still cares for us, and provides marvels for us to discover! As Jesus said @ Matthew 5:45, "He makes His sun shine on the righteous and the unrighteous."

All this being said, there is no proof that men descended from fish, or apes! Only if the evidence is interpreted that way....but then there are too many unanswered questions that arise.

No proof that any organisms within a family evolves into another family.

All they can do, are form other species, maybe other genera.

Where do you come up with these numbers of 35,000 and 2 of each "kind"? Is this just speculation? It seems like it is to me.

There is no evidence that shows a flood.

Proof is not how science works and not what we do with theories. If you want proof, you will need to visit a distillery. There is no other explanation outside of the theory of evolution that fits those facts.

We have evidence of speciation through the study of both invertebrates, vertebrates and plants and even the evolution of genera in some groups of animals. The evolution of new species is enough to show what is sometimes termed macro-evolution, but new genera is definitely evidence of macro-evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

I feel this thread is turning into a conflagration, it has gone in so many directions it is hard to keep up with what is being said, and the points that have already been made. I cannot even keep up with the thread trying to get up to speed to even be able to construct a valid response anymore.

I believe you to be correct in saying these need to be discussed one at a time to keep the conversation on track and to keep the conversation orderly. I would be willing to start with #1 and go on from there.

I do want to say that I do hesitate to get into conversations on these types of items, as I see they do not advance the message of Christianity. All they would do is to possible prove the existence of God if it was able to be proven. God is perfectly capable of doing that if He wanted. I know I will not be able to prove anything to you or anyone else. All I can hope for is to possible get someone to see where we are coming from or even say well I doubt it but maybe it is possible.

My fear is that I may be doing this for my own vanity, I hope not. It has been your comments on Christians being ignorant or uneducated, and that God is a liar. I somehow feel compelled to defend this.

I also want to say the hardest thing in getting involved is the time it will take. I can only reply in the evenings and late at night as I work during the day. I can sometimes spend more time on the weekends, but sometimes I get home late and just want to eat and go to bed, so if you can suffer through a slow motion conversation I would be willing.

They would not prove the existence of god. The problem is on one side of the argument is here is a piece of information that proofs the great flood happened and the ark existed when it has nothing to do with any great flood. Then any explanation of how it happened is given whether reasonable or not just to say it is proof. That was #1. Then the next argument is to try and argue that all of the species of the would fit on a ark and live for 80 days. There is no evidence for any of this. If your god is capable of doing what he wanted and here of course it is assumed god is a He then god would make it clear to all life and humans. If you believe in god then it seems he has written his story in the rock of the earth to the genetics of life. Or is man's words greater the god you speak of who is male from your reference.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The following is not evidence supporting the Biblical Flood, but rather, why Jehovah God would cause it....

What common thread ties the 3 most popular mythologies -- Roman, Norse, and Greek -- together? Isn't it the interaction between humans and gods? And, many times, the interaction includes sex. Hence, we're familiar with characters like Hercules, Orpheus, Perseus, Heracles, etc.

List of demigods - Wikipedia

Now, how is this related? Because, behind all mythologies, there is a kernel of truth, and this truth is revealed in Genesis 6:1-4:

Sons of Jehovah God, themselves like "gods", came to Earth, materialized, and were taking women -- "all whom they chose" -- to sleep with and bear children, which became known as the Nephilim. They were bullies and intimidators, much like their fathers.

The Bible in later passages refers to these angelic father's as "the Angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4)," the Angels who "forsook their proper dwelling place (Jude 1:6)", the heavenly realm.



If Jehovah hadn't stepped in, human couples would just be used as, and forced to be factories to produce beautiful women for these creatures.

If allowed to continue, this would have affected the entire course of human history!

 

[Jose Fly]

Regarding the water on the earth...

Grief, the articles I’ve just read on this!

There’s too many conflicting pov’s among scientists, to support any idea! Let alone conclusive evidence. That just reveals an extreme lack of understanding.

Some prefer an out-of-this-world cause...like ‘comets and asteroids’!

Yeah I’ll agree it was an “out-of-this-world” cause!

That's not helpful.

And again, you need to describe the geologic conditions of the Himalayas and show how your model explains them better than the tectonics model.

 

[Bear Wild]

The following is not evidence supporting the Biblical Flood, but rather, why Jehovah God would cause it....

What common thread ties the 3 most popular mythologies -- Roman, Norse, and Greek -- together? Isn't it the interaction between humans and gods? And, many times, the interaction includes sex. Hence, we're familiar with characters like Hercules, Orpheus, Perseus, Heracles, etc.

List of demigods - Wikipedia

Now, how is this related? Because, behind all mythologies, there is a kernel of truth, and this truth is revealed in Genesis 6:1-4:

Sons of Jehovah God, themselves like "gods", came to Earth, materialized, and were taking women -- "all whom they chose" -- to sleep with and bear children, which became known as the Nephilim. They were bullies and intimidators, much like their fathers.

The Bible in later passages refers to these angelic father's as "the Angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4)," the Angels who "forsook their proper dwelling place (Jude 1:6)", the heavenly realm.



If Jehovah hadn't stepped in, human couples would just be used as, and forced to be factories to produce beautiful women for these creatures.

If allowed to continue, this would have affected the entire course of human history!

So these sons of god were demi-gods? Who did Jehovah mate with to created these sons? And if they were from god why did they turn bad if god is perfect? And finally why did god have to destroy all the other life if he was just mad at humans?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you're trying to prove the flood from a scientific standpoint, then inserting God magic into it is cheating and you might has well just scrap the science and go with magic the whole way.

But I'm not...and won't, as long as there is evidence to be found.

How do you account for the dimensions of the Ark, given to Noah? They are perfect for the Ark's purpose! Shipbuilders have only reached this conclusion in the last two centuries!

How did Moses get it right? By a fluke? You'd love to believe that, I know, but coupled with the other evidences, it's hard to ignore!

 

[RedhorseWoman]

The following is not evidence supporting the Biblical Flood, but rather, why Jehovah God would cause it....

What common thread ties the 3 most popular mythologies -- Roman, Norse, and Greek -- together? Isn't it the interaction between humans and gods? And, many times, the interaction includes sex. Hence, we're familiar with characters like Hercules, Orpheus, Perseus, Heracles, etc.

List of demigods - Wikipedia

Now, how is this related? Because, behind all mythologies, there is a kernel of truth, and this truth is revealed in Genesis 6:1-4:

Sons of Jehovah God, themselves like "gods", came to Earth, materialized, and were taking women -- "all whom they chose" -- to sleep with and bear children, which became known as the Nephilim. They were bullies and intimidators, much like their fathers.

The Bible in later passages refers to these angelic father's as "the Angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4)," the Angels who "forsook their proper dwelling place (Jude 1:6)", the heavenly realm.



If Jehovah hadn't stepped in, human couples would just be used as, and forced to be factories to produce beautiful women for these creatures.

If allowed to continue, this would have affected the entire course of human history!

This is a great explanation by primitive people of people afflicted with gigantism. Seeing such huge humans without having any understanding of genetics would automatically scream "These huge people MUST be angels because they are so much bigger and stronger than any regular human!" And yet, they were as human as anyone...and giants still walk the earth today...and they aren't "angels" who have come down from Heaven to molest humans.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Hay...yes, hay. Noah would have needed to stash away tons and tons of hay (along with any other specialized diet items needed by various animals) on the Ark.

This never seemed to be a problem to me until I acquired several horses, then hay became a very major thing. Hay tends to lose nutritional value after a year or so. In order for Noah to accumulate sufficient hay to keep those thousands of animals well fed (and, of course, to use as bedding) he would have had to start collecting it decades prior to the Flood. Most of that hay would have been useless as far as nutrition was concerned and would have been good only for keeping herbivores from being absolutely bored and turning into "cribbers" that would have chewed any wood they could get their teeth on simply for something to do.

Then, of course, there is the issue of a wooden chest partially submerged in water and being drenched from above with rain for days on end, which, as I discovered, causes stored hay to mold. Moldy hay can quickly kill many herbivores and moldy hay can also spontaneously combust, which would be really bad news on a wooden Ark.

Of course, there are myriads of additional logistical problems with the whole Ark/Flood scenario, but this is just one rather important one that Flood believers don't seem to consider.

 

[Audie]

Well, then you should know the current amount vegetation produced there (due to the climate existing now), cannot support the numbers of animals discovered in those latitudes, during the megafaunal extinction back then.

It's a no-brainer, really. I'll just attribute it to your indoctrination.

I see you are referring to the climate and vegetation,
but again decline specifics.

I will remind you that every (all of them) scientific
publication on the flora associated with the frozen
mammoths is arctic / subarctic species.

You've no call to be rude to me, or suggest that
the problem is with my abilities.

You claimed that the climate was "temperate".
Yet the vegetation is that of the arctic.

Cannot both be correct. So we have specimens
collected, identified, and published in many different
papers by specialists.

And we have your opinion.

There is, btw, a rather simple and well understood
reason that the far north could support more
grazing animals then, than it does now. I've
been aware of it for a number of years.
It has nothing to do with climate as such.

Now, your evidence of a different climate then,
other than blaming me for not seeing what is
not true?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I'm not...and won't, as long as there is evidence to be found.

How do you account for the dimensions of the Ark, given to Noah? They are perfect for the Ark's purpose! Shipbuilders have only reached this conclusion in the last two centuries!

How did Moses get it right? By a fluke? You'd love to believe that, I know, but coupled with the other evidences, it's hard to ignore!

You're not what?
Using science in an attempt to back up the ark story? You appear to be trying to do that.
Using God magic? You did that.

No Gish galloping here. Let's just try speaking to the point.

 

[Audie]

You're not what?
Using science in an attempt to back up the ark story? You appear to be trying to do that.
Using God magic? You did that.

No Gish galloping here. Let's just try speaking to the point.

A little show on the gish, as the OP was
a classic example.

I cant get him to stay on topic just for the
matter of vegetation / climate in mammoth days.

That may be undesirable as there is an answer to
that, very well documented.

 

[nPeace]

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me what a real God is, so that should I find a candidate I can tell whether it's God or not. Perhaps you can enlighten me, and then I can consider your question.

Have you read the Bible before?

 

[Audie]

For those with an actual interest in the
pleistocene in high latitudes, here is a video.

(Notice all the mosquitoes!! The vid does not
begin to show how bad they are. )

Pay particular attention to how tall grass will
replace tundra or boreal forest. I saw that
for myself, actually, in Alaska.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Incidentally, my question to you was: "Imagine if a falsifying discovery were made - the precambrian rabbit, for example, or a partially digested human being in a T. rex's stomach. The mountains of evidence that we have accrued to date doesn't go away. How would we account for the existence of all of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory?"

You really don't know?

For starters, Happy Birthday!

Actually, I do know. As I indicated, mine was a rhetorical question - a rhetorical device for making a statement in the form of a question. As I also already indicated, we would be forced to account for the sum of the mountains of preexisting evidence which all points compellingly to unguided, unplanned, naturalistic evolution plus the piece of evidence that falsified Darwin's theory, and that can only be done by postulating a very powerful agent or agents who went to great lengths to deceive us that nature, not them, created the tree of life. You didn't address that point when made last time (see immediately below)

That's an especially significant problem for Christian creationists - or ought to be. My question was rhetorical, meaning that it was not an effort to collect information, but to make a statement in the form of a question. I already know the answer: If you could falsify Darwin's theory, it would not do a thing for Christian creationism. One would be forced to assume that the evidence that had come before leading to the theory of evolution must have been planted by an extremely powerful and sophisticated source to appear as if evolution had occurred, which could conceivable be a god or gods, or an advanced alien race, which seems like a pointless and trivial thing for such agents to expend effort and resources on.

I have a friend who went to countless doctors. They all examined him, and no one seemed able to diagnose the problem. However, some looked at similar symptoms and used it as a basis to determine the problem. They were all wrong. Get the point?

No, I don't get the point, and can't see any relationship between my comment and your reply. We've reached the end of this line of inquiry.

We're not looking for answers of any kind, but rather, for useful answers - answers we can use. I described the usefulness of the theory of evolution - unifying observations, offering plausible mechanisms, accurate predictions, accounting for the similarities and differences of the tree of life, and applications to areas life medicine and agriculture.

I know of mechanics that have built some the most sophisticated machines. Why, and how? They studied mechanics - that's including all the working parts right down to the juice in a battery. If I studied chemistry, or biology, do you think I would make a good pharmacist? I'd like to think so. That's how we learn stuff right? We get our hand dirty - open up, examine, take apart, examine... When we learn how things work, we are learning from what's there. The order of the universe didn't come into existence while we were studying it. We studied the already existing universe, in order to learn how to navigate it. Sequencing genes helps us learn about the genes already in existence.

Once again, I fail to see the relationship between our two comments. Suffice it to say that we have no incentive to trade in an idea that is useful in the many ways I cataloged for one that can't be used at all. I could give many other examples of useful theories that will never go away even if they are tweaked a little, and will not be replaced by useless ideas. Religious ideas like biblical creationism just aren't useful. It can't do any of those things I listed. It can't explain anything or be put to use.

What useful contributions have creationists made in the areas of understanding where the universe came from, where the earth came from, how the first life appeared in the universe and on earth, and how did the family of life that we see on earth today come to be? None at all, correct? Perhaps you see the biblical answers as useful.

What answer do you want to go with?

The one I just gave. Creationism has no practical value and has added nothing to human culture but another creation story and a series of court cases resisting its imposition on school children.

I believe in going where the evidence leads, and I mentioned this before.

But you are unconvincing. It looks more like you work the evidence to conform to faith based beliefs. Almost without exception, unbelievers come to different conclusions than those getting answers from their Bibles. Why do you suppose that is if they're all using the same reasoning on the same evidence?

The answer is that they are not using the same reasoning on the same evidence. The two methods of evaluating evidence are very different. One should look at the evidence first - all of it - and come to sound conclusions from it, whatever those conclusions are.

The faith-based method begins with a premise that it attempts to present as a conclusion following from whatever argument is back engineered and placed in front of it. I call this premise masking as a conclusion a pseudo-conclusion.

Of course, if the premise is false, the evidence won't support it, and therefore needs to be massaged, sifting out whatever it is thought to support the pseudo-conclusion / premise following it, and disregarding that which is contradictory as we have seen in this thread. The evidence against the biblical flood is overwhelming, but all of that is ignored when filtered through the lens of a faith-based confirmation bias.

That's not going where the evidence leads.

Oh look! A living transitional! I should have known they were real.

Every living thing is a transitional form. Evolution never stops. It can't be stopped except with extinctions. Gene pools are always changing from generation to generation. Thus, you and I are a transitional forms between our ancestors and descendants.

If evolution is happening right before our eyes, then I should really be seeing thousands of these things right, because all don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time.
Each would be evolving at different periods of time right?

All living populations evolve at all times just as all living languages continually evolve.

Evolution fails to account for the animal you showed me, plus all the others discovered, and yet to be discovered - that shouldn't exist if evolution were true.

There is no known animal or any other living thing that exists but should not if Darwin's theory is correct. If that weren't the case, that organism would falsify the theory.

 

[Audie]

Actually, I do know. As I indicated, mine was a rhetorical question - a rhetorical device for making a statement in the form of a question. As I also already indicated, we would be forced to account for the sum of the mountains of preexisting evidence which all points compellingly to unguided, unplanned, naturalistic evolution plus the piece of evidence that falsified Darwin's theory, and that can only be done by postulating a very powerful agent or agents who went to great lengths to deceive us that nature, not them, created the tree of life. You didn't address that point when made last time (see immediately below)





No, I don't get the point, and can't see any relationship between my comment and your reply. We've reached the end of this line of inquiry.





Once again, I fail to see the relationship between our two comments. Suffice it to say that we have no incentive to trade in an idea that is useful in the many ways I cataloged for one that can't be used at all. I could give many other examples of useful theories that will never go away even if they are tweaked a little, and will not be replaced by useless ideas. Religious ideas like biblical creationism just aren't useful. It can't do any of those things I listed. It can't explain anything or be put to use.





The one I just gave. Creationism has no practical value and has added nothing to human culture but another creation story and a series of court cases resisting its imposition on school children.



But you are unconvincing. It looks more like you work the evidence to conform to faith based beliefs. Almost without exception, unbelievers come to different conclusions than those getting answers from their Bibles. Why do you suppose that is if they're all using the same reasoning on the same evidence?

The answer is that they are not using the same reasoning on the same evidence. The two methods of evaluating evidence are very different. One should look at the evidence first - all of it - and come to sound conclusions from it, whatever those conclusions are.

The faith-based method begins with a premise that it attempts to present as a conclusion following from whatever argument is back engineered and placed in front of it. I call this premise masking as a conclusion a pseudo-conclusion.

Of course, if the premise is false, the evidence won't support it, and therefore needs to be massaged, sifting out whatever it is thought to support the pseudo-conclusion / premise following it, and disregarding that which is contradictory as we have seen in this thread. The evidence against the biblical flood is overwhelming, but all of that is ignored when filtered through the lens of a faith-based confirmation bias.

That's not going where the evidence leads.



Every living thing is a transitional form. Evolution never stops. It can't be stopped except with extinctions. Gene pools are always changing from generation to generation. Thus, you and I are a transitional forms between our ancestors and descendants.



All living populations evolve at all times just as all living languages continually evolve.



There is no known animal or any other living thing that exists but should not if Darwin's theory is correct. If that weren't the case, that organism would falsify the theory.

Ya seems ta be arguin' wid yourself, bed.