Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Hockeycowboy]

the "warm climate" thing are off topic.

No, it is not. In fact, it's central to understanding what types of vegetation, once existed there. Maybe I should have said, "warmer climate."

Your links rely on the concept, "the present is the key to the past."

That's why these scientists frequently use the phrase, "associated with".... yes, now, but not then.

 

[Audie]

Please. This doesn't support your pov.
Perusal of your links revealed this (I'm sure you would have posted data that's most damaging to my OP, where is it?):
As per your second post, on Alaska....a " masto- don) **skeleton** from the Baldwin Peninsula, northwestern Alaska, is associated with
plant … consists of a mosaic of shrub thickets and tussock-birch-heath vegetation on hillsides …"

Does the skeleton have food in its stomach? Which is associated with the plants? The Mastodon skeleton...or Baldwin Peninsula?



Many of your links mention "pollen", so I searched and found this, apparently from someone with no religious agenda obviously:

"The stomach contents, according to an English-language account published in 1925, included several species of grass, sedges, mint, legume pods, wild poppies, and “seeds of the northern butter daisy (Ranunculus).” Somehow the butter daisy seeds morphed into flash-frozen buttercups still in bloom! This appears to be due to some phrasing in a report written by E. V. Pfizenmayer in August 1939 called “Les mammouths de Siberie,” which I have not read but which is cited frequently as the source for the buttercup claim. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, what was actually found was pollen from the buttercups, both between the teeth and in the stomach."

Source: Flash-Frozen Mammoths and Their Buttercups: Yet Another Case of Repetition and Recycling of Bad Data

You did not answer whether it would harm your
faith to find out if you are wrong.

As to the skeleton-

Pollen is near indestructible. The matrix
of dirt / ice around the mammoth contained
pollen,

They find pollen with dinosaur fossils.

With any scientific paper you find, the soild
and vegetation associated with frozen mammoths,
skeletons, of no animals at all, the vegetation is
and is always, as I have said. Never as you said.

You certainly have shown nothing to support your
position.

Every paper that identifies plants will say they are
as I said. None will indicate "Temperate only"
vegetation.

 

[Audie]

No, it is not. In fact, it's central to understanding what types of vegetation, once existed there. Maybe I should have said, "warmer climate."

Your links rely on the concept, "the present is the key to the past."

That's why these scientists frequently use the phrase, "associated with".... yes, now, but not then.

Sorry-ah, look again. Look harder. Vegetation then.
In, under, over and around the frozen carcasses,

The kind of vegetation that existed in the arctic during
the pleistocene is still there now, sure. That is not
in dispute. Only difference is relative abundance and
some details of distribution.

A species or two may have gone extinct; I dont know.

However, the species found in association with
the frozen mammoths is NOT "temperate only"
as you said.

I can repeat it as often as necessary, but you
have not, and will not find any scientific paper
that says otherwise.

 

[Audie]

Furthermore, the fact of animals' being flash-frozen requiring -150 F.... Even if none in this condition were found, -100F or -75F still would be a drastic change! So, any debate there is moot.

Uh, lets not say "fact" of being flash frozen. That
is speculation, with all evidence* being to the contrary.

It surely would! And it would be fascinating
if that proved to be true.

Minus 100 is not going to flash freeze a mammoth.

The coldest temperature recorded in Alaska is 80 degrees below zero.

(−128.6 °F; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983 by ground measurements.

In the event, since most of the mammoths are
found to be in an advanced state of putrefaction,
"horrendous stench", being an "associated"
phrase it *appears they were not frozen, or buried,
so very fast. Also, of course, many are heavily
scavenged, by wolves etc that should have b een
flash frozen but evidently were not.

 

[Audie]

Anyway, a lot of side issues.

Lets not get derailed.

The vegetation that the mammoths were eating
was not of a temperate, still less a "temperate only"
sort.

Pollen, seeds, plant tissue found with the mammoths
is ARCTIC.

Demonstrate that is incorrect, with an actual reserac
paper. If you can.

to paraphrase Nimitz-*

Where is your data? The world wonders.


*
Nimitz to Halsey

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS[8]

 

[nPeace]

It's certainly the case that if something or someone is real then you can show them to me, even if we have to use instruments. That's what real, having objective existence, means. If they're not real, the only other thing they can be is imaginary. Here the problem is worse than usual because though the unicorn is imaginary, it has a sufficient description, so that if we found a candidate, we could tell whether it were a unicorn or not. God doesn't even have an equivalent description.

How do you define 'real'?
That's correct. It was once true that the world was flat and the center of creation. That was the best opinion available. It was once true that fire was the product of phlogiston, and that light propagated in the medium of the lumeniferous ether. Now it's not true. The Higgs boson was imaginary until its reality was satisfactorily demonstrated, and after that it was real, and became real retrospectively. If we ever find out we were wrong with that identification, it will cease to be true, again retrospectively.

In science there are no absolute statements. Science works through empiricism and induction, and no conclusion of science is proof against a counterexample we may find tomorrow, or never find, no matter how persuasive the theory seems. As professor and commentator Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified.

What is reality?
This is how I see it. Please, consider...

Reality to me is what is.
So reality does not depend upon whether someone knows, understands, or believes that reality, but one can get to realize the reality.

For example, I might say, the reality is A, whether you believe A, or not. However, you may later come to realize A, and say, "Ah. The reality is A." If the reality is really A, then it does not become A only after you discover A. The reality was always A.

So let's apply that to 1. What I am saying, and 2. your bit about science and empirical evidence.
1. The Bible says A. You don't believe what the Bible says, so you call it all manner of ill - myth, fairytale, story of FSM, etc. Why do you take this position? You don't see what the Bible says - you don't see A, therefore, to you A is imaginary.
However, if what the Bible says is true - A is reality, then A is not imaginary.
It does not matter how much reasoning you use about your instruments not finding A, etc., which I honestly always find amusing that man knows - They know.... it's not to say they are ignorant to the fact. They know that their instruments, and knowledge are limited, and they are not the ultimate. They know that they advance in knowledge, and their instruments advance to higher levels... and yet they act as though they know everything, and they have the highest tech.
I'm speaking mainly of skeptics that are trying to argue from no evidence, though.

2. Logic says this. A cannot be A, and yet not A.
So put it this way, A cannot be true, and yet not true.
When you say, therefore, that what was true yesterday, is not true today, we have a problem with logic.
The problem isn't logic, the problem is philosophy.

If one says, "This is true: A - the earth is flat and is the center of the universe."
To then say, "This is true: B - the earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe."
A could not have been true.(If B is true, and A is not B, then A is not true)
If the earth was flat, and then it became round, then that's different.

We know that science is an ongoing study that is always gathers information, and throwing out and replacing information, useful to those who use that "instrument", but it clearly has its limits.
Notice that with all the talk about empirical evidence, and the scientific method, science does not always lead to realities.
I would like to say again, If the reality is really A, then it does not become A only after you discover A. The reality was always A.
If you discover A, and believe it is reality, only to discover tomorrow that B, not A is reality, then you did not discover reality when you discovered A - A is not reality.
If next week you find out that C, not B is reality, then really, you have not found reality,

So when you say

It's certainly the case that if something or someone is real then you can show them to me, even if we have to use instruments. That's what real, having objective existence, means. If they're not real, the only other thing they can be is imaginary.

This is not true, because despite the use of instruments, there are many realities no one has shown you, that are out there, waiting to be discovered.

The difference between those realities and the God reality, is that the God reality has already been discovered. No, forget your instruments, if that's the first place your mind went.

Saying that empirical evidence by means of science is what determines reality, we see that's not true.
However, that empirical evidence is used to determines reality, is certainly true.

Correct. The same goes of fairies, and Superman, and Elvis sharing a condo in Kamloops with Isaac Newton. But it means there's no basis for thinking it's real. No objective test can distinguish it from the imaginary. And in the case of God (as that lack of a sufficient description of a real god underlines) we don't even know what a real God is.
That's fair enough. The bible is unreliable as a history book. I don't mean just the Garden of Eden and Flood folk history. You're probably aware of the archaeological evidence strongly suggesting there was no Egyptian Captivity and no historical Moses (though the latter has long been suspected). In such cases things are as true as the evidence independently affirming them.
It's fair comment that Christians ─ active Christians ─ have faith, and this by definition means that the facts aren't there to determine the matter, no? I always twitch at the contradiction in the line from Pisco funerals I attend, 'the sure and certain hope of the resurrection' ─ either it's sure and certain or it's hope, and it's hope.

Normally I'd say, Yes, you might be right. There might be unicorns, or there might have been in the Middle Ages. But with God, the lack of any defined real thing to be right about means I can't.

Earlier, I asked you if you read the Bible.
Your response...

Not in its entirety, but a fair sampling.

So it seems you have already closed you mind to any objective evidence against what critics suggest, and therefore I can understand why you don't understand the faith described in the Bible, and why that faith allows us to have a sure hope. How can you have an objective measure?

It's no puzzle, really, and it is reality - it works... if you understand how it applies.
I'll help a bit.
Faith is not blind. It is reasonably and based on evidence. Hebrews 11:1; Romans 1:19, 20; Hebrews 3:4
Contrary to what critics say, the Bible is reliable where history is concerned - despite opposing opinions.

Hope that helps in some way.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Pollen, seeds, plant tissue found with the mammoths
is ARCTIC.

Demonstrate that is incorrect, with an actual reserac
paper. If you can.

I can debunk it without a paper....
with one statement, then one question:

They have found vast herds of megafauna, millions of these animals, that once lived in the Arctic and subarctic regions!

Where is the vegetation in these areas, that can support these huge numbers?

And I did present a paper, with the source, that shows they discovered pollen of the buttercup species in the Mammoth's mouth and stomach.

 

[Audie]

I can debunk it without a paper....
with one statement, then one question:

They have found vast herds of megafauna, millions of these animals, that once lived in the Arctic and subarctic regions!

Where is the vegetation in these areas, that can support these huge numbers?

And I did present a paper, with the source, that shows they discovered pollen of the buttercup species in the Mammoth's mouth and stomach.

You debunk nothing with phony facts and opinions.

A. "They" have NOT found "vast herds of millions".

B. I dont think your "buttercup" is in a scientific paper.

C. I told you,and so did that Pleistocene park vid,
that tall grass replaces tundra and taiga when
there are grazing animals or other disturbance.

Tall grass supports grazing animals.

D. You continue to fail to supply a scientific
paper that says your frozen mammoths ate
species restricted to temperate climates.

E You DID come up with a paper that says
the north country warmed up about the time
the mammoths died out, not that it got colder.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, it looks like this most recent "conversation" with @Hockeycowboy has ended the same as all the others, with him just walking away. So when I suggested that he needs to stop asking everyone else to justify the scientific POV, and start justifying his explanation by showing it to be a better explanation for the data, it just fell on deaf ears.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[Audie]

Here is a paper that presents a far more complex
picture than either of us has spoken of-

be sure to look up some of the unfamiliar terms, like "graminioid"

https://www.geobotany.uaf.edu/library/pubs/BlinnikovM2011_qsr_pagenumbers.pdf


BTW various mammoth carcasses radiocarbon date to tens of thousands of years apart.

 

[blü 2]

Reality to me is what is.
So reality does not depend upon whether someone knows, understands, or believes that reality, but one can get to realize the reality.

Then one difference between us is that you believe absolute statements about reality are possible, and I see no basis in history or reason for that conclusion. In my view we can only make meaningful statements about what we know, and what we know changes from time to time.

For example, I might say, the reality is A, whether you believe A, or not.

I could paraphrase that as, 'A accurately describes a real situation'. The way to determine whether that's true is to look at reality (the world external to the self / nature / the realm of the physical sciences) and see how well the statement accords with the facts as we find them.

If we can't do that then A may not be falsifiable, in which case it can't be shown to be an accurate statement about reality = can't be shown to be true.

However, you may later come to realize A, and say, "Ah. The reality is A." If the reality is really A, then it does not become A only after you discover A. The reality was always A.

That's the point I made last time. Truth is not absolute, merely retrospective ─ and remains true only so long as we don't know better.

So let's apply that to 1. What I am saying, and 2. your bit about science and empirical evidence.
1. The Bible says A. You don't believe what the Bible says, so you call it all manner of ill - myth, fairytale, story of FSM, etc.

More precisely, I said the history offered by the bible is only as good as the evidence independently corroborating it. That means some of it is acceptably accurate, and some of it is not. (This rule applies to all ancient documents, not just the bible.)

Why do you take this position? You don't see what the Bible says - you don't see A, therefore, to you A is imaginary.

Things are imaginary or real. Being imaginary doesn't mean it's impossible for them ever to be real ─ the odds on Elvis presently living in Kamloops with Isaac Newton are exquisitely tiny, but no absolute statement, no statement not based on probabilities, is possible. The Higgs boson was thought likely, and turned out to be true; but before then it remained imaginary ─ 'hypothetical' means the same thing.

However, if what the Bible says is true - A is reality, then A is not imaginary.

That is, the objective evidence supports what the bible says. But of course often enough it doesn't.

We know there was no Flood, because such a flood would leave colossal amounts of geological and biological evidence which is simply not there. (Meanwhile the tale from which the Flood story was taken had existed in Mesopotamia from at least the mid third millennium BCE.) The age of the earth, the fossil record, and the fact of evolution, make the Garden story impossible. Not only that, but archaeology shows that Yahweh didn't exist as a god until about 1500 BCE, and that originally he and his consort Asherah were members of the Canaanite pantheon ─ the reality check in action. The Tanakh frequently acknowledges the existence of other gods than Yahweh. 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' is an example.

And indeed there are serious difficulties in demonstrating that an historical Jesus existed. There's no clincher either way. And looked at with a cool eye, the biblical evidence for the resurrection is ─ to put it politely ─ extremely poor.

It does not matter how much reasoning you use about your instruments not finding A, etc., which I honestly always find amusing that man knows - They know.... it's not to say they are ignorant to the fact. They know that their instruments, and knowledge are limited, and they are not the ultimate. They know that they advance in knowledge, and their instruments advance to higher levels... and yet they act as though they know everything, and they have the highest tech.

Some people may, but science makes no such claim. Science is vividly aware how little science knows. BUT when it knows something, it also knows the basis on which it knows it, AND revisits that basis periodically to see if it's indeed sound. This is a kind of truth-testing self-correction that believers don't seem to make with the bible. (Aquinas' great contribution to Western thought was his affirmation of the principle that the bible should be verified not from itself but from without, from reality.)

2. Logic says this. A cannot be A, and yet not A.

Not at the same time, anyway. But 'The lumeniferous ether is the medium in which light propagates' once was A and is now not-A.

When you say, therefore, that what was true yesterday, is not true today, we have a problem with logic.

No, that doesn't work. Truth, as I keep saying, isn't absolute, simply our best understanding from time to time.
It's 1000 BCE in Canaan. You look around. You see that the earth appears generally flat. You see that the sun moon and stars go round it. You ask the best opinion available at your time and place. Yes, the earth is flat, and the sun moon and stars go round it, as you can see. This is the only cosmology found in the bible (evidence >here<).

Notice that with all the talk about empirical evidence, and the scientific method, science does not always lead to realities.

If religion were as scrupulous, as methodical, as objectively curious, in checking for errors, as science is, the bible would be read very differently.

This is not true, because despite the use of instruments, there are many realities no one has shown you, that are out there, waiting to be discovered.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact. (I happen to share it, but I know it for what it is.)

The difference between those realities and the God reality, is that the God reality has already been discovered.

BUT only in the imagination. Not only are you unable to show me a real god (which itself is a problem for any claim that God has objective existence), you're not even able to tell me what a real god is, so if I ever found one, there's no way I could check it out.

So it seems you have already closed you mind to any objective evidence against what critics suggest, and therefore I can understand why you don't understand the faith described in the Bible, and why that faith allows us to have a sure hope.

Goodness, you seem to want to blur the difference between things believed through faith, and things known by satisfactory demonstration! They are NOT the same.

How can you have an objective measure?

Reasoned enquiry seeks to maximize objectivity by using examinable evidence, so all can look, repeatable experiments, so all can verify, publication of results, so that all can offer criticism. I don't see religion doing that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There is a difference between buoyancy and seaworthiness. The study only established the design could float in perfect, thus unnatural, conditions. It never tested the design in simulated conditions present let alone any model of what a global flood would be like.

I can tell the study is crap because supposedly Ken Ham's Ark Museum's boat facade is rotting and it's NOT EVEN IN WATER.

We're not told, but Jehovah could've induced a state of hibernation or torpor, to keep them calm.

Enter a bear cave in the winter and see if your presence doesn't wake momma up.

We have precedent in the Bible, other accounts, describing God keeping people and animals from eating.

For a year?

Think about it, then you tell me.

So that's why God can't flood the earth again? All the rain fell and God can't restock the tank?

You know than Dr. Hong, huh?

I know Noah didn't have an ACE supply store to go get some sealant.

Many are. Or close to it. But then, most boats are powered, with steering.

Don't know of many box-type boats.

does anyone know of any re!iable.work at all by this supposed expert?

The internet tells me there are lots of Dr. Hong's. The only one who seems interested in the flood is from AiG.

There is an interesting study I found on Google Scholar about ship stability in flooding conditions, though:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...f_flooding/links/55896c5308ae6d4f27eb3ace.pdf

At any rate, everyone would've died of asphyxiation because Noah couldn't very well open the ONLY window on the boat during the downpour and the rest was supposedly sealed. Ken Ham can't even legally have any live animals in his Ark replica due to animal abuse concerns.

The good news is, his blasphemous tribute to stupidity keeps decreasing in attendance. I'd rather God flood it for irony, but making that charlatan broke will have to do.

Ought to start a thread of the merits of being in Slythern versus Hufflepuff.

*takes out my Bellatrix Lestrange wand and my Slytherin Hoodie* I shall come to the aid of my house, sir!

We both believe in miracles. They are just of a different nature.

Not really.

 

[Bear Wild]

I can debunk it without a paper....
with one statement, then one question:

They have found vast herds of megafauna, millions of these animals, that once lived in the Arctic and subarctic regions!

Where is the vegetation in these areas, that can support these huge numbers?

And I did present a paper, with the source, that shows they discovered pollen of the buttercup species in the Mammoth's mouth and stomach.

If you are aware of the patterns of the ice ages then you would have known there were warming periods in which sufficient flora including buttercup species. How is that so hard to believe? There would not be megafauna with out sufficient flora. This is very basic biology. Let me help. Plants capture the sun's energy then convert it to chemical energy. This chemical energy is utilized by the fauna. The vegetation was there including species of buttercups. It is amazing we have the knowledge and techniques to determine buttercup species pollen in the mammoth's mouth. It is not so amazing that it was there since mammoths are herbivores. That means they ate plants thus the presence of the pollen. Again nothing to do with a flood in which the rate of decomposing of organic matter is faster than it is when frozen. Evidently buttercups were that mammoths last meal.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Kelly of the Phoenix said:"I can tell the study is crap because supposedly Ken Ham's Ark Museum's boat facade is rotting and it's NOT EVEN IN WATER."

I hope you're not serious!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You DID come up with a paper that says
the north country warmed up about the time
the mammoths died out, not that it got colder.

Yeah, I know...which doesn't agree with other scientific conclusions. Lol.

It just seems there's no consensus on the topic.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you are aware of the patterns of the ice ages then you would have known there were warming periods in which sufficient flora including buttercup species. How is that so hard to believe? There would not be megafauna with out sufficient flora. This is very basic biology. Let me help. Plants capture the sun's energy then convert it to chemical energy. This chemical energy is utilized by the fauna. The vegetation was there including species of buttercups. It is amazing we have the knowledge and techniques to determine buttercup species pollen in the mammoth's mouth. It is not so amazing that it was there since mammoths are herbivores. That means they ate plants thus the presence of the pollen. Again nothing to do with a flood in which the rate of decomposing of organic matter is faster than it is when frozen. Evidently buttercups were that mammoths last meal.

Oh, grief! Why do you think some scientists promote a comet / asteroid theory, that caused a tsunami that decimated the mammoths?! That's one interpretation they have.

The problem is, there's no evidence, like a definite crater, that would support that view.

NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, it looks like this most recent "conversation" with @Hockeycowboy has ended the same as all the others, with him just walking away. So when I suggested that he needs to stop asking everyone else to justify the scientific POV, and start justifying his explanation by showing it to be a better explanation for the data, it just fell on deaf ears.

Such is the nature of creationism.

Please...you didn't answer my questions. You're trying to put me on the defensive; I know the tactic. But my posts stand.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, I know...which doesn't agree with other scientific conclusions. Lol.

It just seems there's no consensus on the topic.

Uh no hockey, the paper you cited does not agree with your
claim that the climate got colder.

No consensus that the climate has warmed since the
end of the ice age? There is a lol for you!

Of course it has warmed! That is kinda why the ice melted.
Speaking of no brainers!

I have and can continue to supply research papers
that show arctic (not temperate) vegetation in the far north, then, and now.

In your camp you have the likes of that flying-saucer
guy. Zero, none, nothing in any scientific publication.

When are you going to produce an actual research
paper that supports your claim? (lol)

 

[Audie]

Please...you didn't answer my questions. You're trying to put me on the defensive; I know the tactic. But my posts stand.

Speaking of not answering the question
and familiar tactics, you've been all over the place
except for one-the actual research paper that supports
your claim about the vegetation that only lives in a
temperate climate.

Check the map for Wrangall Island.
They had mammoths there, you will need
evidence of a nice pleasant climatg there too.

You ever going to even try to answer the question?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

@Kelly of the Phoenix said:"I can tell the study is crap because supposedly Ken Ham's Ark Museum's boat facade is rotting and it's NOT EVEN IN WATER."

I hope you're not serious!

Really-- the thin wood covering the modern Tyvec Plastic sheeting actually is rotting-- you can see the discoloration in recent photos.

Hamm's fake "ark" is just another Con Game, like all religious institutions.