Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Jose Fly]

Please...you didn't answer my questions.

Sheesh. Again, you're trying to make the case that the Biblical flood better explains the data around mountain formation than science's models. You don't do that by demanding that the rest of us support the scientific model. You do that by first summarizing the specific data around mountain formation and then describing how the flood explains it. You haven't even taken the first step.

You're trying to put me on the defensive; I know the tactic. But my posts stand.

Seriously? To repeat....

You're trying to make a positive case that the Biblical flood is the best explanation for the state of the world around us, and you're attempting to do so to a bunch of empirically-minded people, some of whom are actual scientists. So imagine yourself at a scientific conference. You're introduced, the title of your presentation is up on the screen, and you walk on stage. Now what?

What you've done so far in this thread would be the equivalent of your "presentation" consisting of you demanding the audience make their case for the scientific model, and if they can't, the Biblical flood wins.

Do you honestly think you're doing well here? Do you believe you've made a good, solid case for the Biblical flood?

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Unlike the flood, about which there is a 200+ year old consensus among earth and life scientists (hint....it didn't happen).

 

[Jose Fly]

Another indication of how the Biblical flood isn't supported by the data is the fact that oil companies don't utilize any sort of flood model or framework in their exploration activities. Instead, they utilize the standard old earth, non-flood framework that's been around for a very long time.

Why is that? Oil companies don't care about orthodoxies, allegiances, scientific dogma, or anything other than making money. So surely if the Biblical flood better accounted for the geologic data, they would use it, right? But they don't.

How come @Hockeycowboy ?

 

[Audie]

Sheesh. Again, you're trying to make the case that the Biblical flood better explains the data around mountain formation than science's models. You don't do that by demanding that the rest of us support the scientific model. You do that by first summarizing the specific data around mountain formation and then describing how the flood explains it. You haven't even taken the first step.


Seriously? To repeat....

You're trying to make a positive case that the Biblical flood is the best explanation for the state of the world around us, and you're attempting to do so to a bunch of empirically-minded people, some of whom are actual scientists. So imagine yourself at a scientific conference. You're introduced, the title of your presentation is up on the screen, and you walk on stage. Now what?

What you've done so far in this thread would be the equivalent of your "presentation" consisting of you demanding the audience make their case for the scientific model, and if they can't, the Biblical flood wins.

Do you honestly think you're doing well here? Do you believe you've made a good, solid case for the Biblical flood?

"Mountain formation" is kind of a big topic.
He did, though, state that erosion produces
"rounded" mountains and that sharp ridges
and spires are signs of youth, a lack of erosion.

In the very long run, and depending a bit on the
type of rock*, you will get mountains worn low and
more or less smooth, eventually worn away completely.

* "Old Baldy" type mountains will form by
exfoliation. This shows the process clearly-
exfoliation dome - Google Search:

However, erosion does an excellent job of making
knife ridges and sharp peaks, as is so readily shown
that even the most recalcitrant will be able to see it.
(wont they?)


As for erosion only making things smooth, let one
but make a wonderfully smooth slope to his lawn,
and then let it rain.

On a larger scale-

headward erosion - Google Search:

Bigger still-

karst mountains - Google Search:

 

[Jose Fly]

"Mountain formation" is kind of a big topic.

Well, I tried to narrow it down to having @Hockeycowboy just explain the Himalayas. But it's gone pretty much the same as your attempts with the temperate veg.

He did, though, state that erosion produces
"rounded" mountains and that sharp ridges
and spires are signs of youth, a lack of erosion.

In the very long run, and depending a bit on the
type of rock*, you will get mountains worn low and
more or less smooth, eventually worn away completely.

* "Old Baldy" type mountains will form by
exfoliation. This shows the process clearly-
exfoliation dome - Google Search:

However, erosion does an excellent job of making
knife ridges and sharp peaks, as is so readily shown
that even the most recalcitrant will be able to see it.
(wont they?)


As for erosion only making things smooth, let one
but make a wonderfully smooth slope to his lawn,
and then let it rain.

On a larger scale-

headward erosion - Google Search:

Bigger still-

karst mountains - Google Search:

There ya' go again, citing science and data. Folks like Hockeycowboy just don't deal in that currency.

 

[Audie]

Well, I tried to narrow it down to having @Hockeycowboy just explain the Himalayas. But it's gone pretty much the same as your attempts with the temperate veg.


There ya' go again, citing science and data. Folks like Hockeycowboy just don't deal in that currency.

Sheesh, how long have I been making that mistake?

Like these sharks-

far side shark cartoon - Google Search:

 

[nPeace]

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.

Okay, so you don't know that you use a device to connect to www, so I will not make that absolute statement, since it changes from time to time. Is this reality? Maybe 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.

You could create a hypothesis, and test it. It doesn't mean it is correct.

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.
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.

In any case, for something to be true, it must be proven beyond any doubt.
True : in accordance with fact or reality.
Fact : a thing that is indisputably the case.
Of course I understand that this is not absolute.

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.)

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

Bare in mind that when persons deny the historical accuracy, it is mainly due to lack of evidence, which doesn't mean there is no evidence.

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.

How could you know there was no flood, if you weren't there?
If your circumstantial evidence is not accurate and complete, you can arrive at a conclusion that is incorrect.
You assume there was no flood.

You again use incorrect circumstantial evidence that leads to a wrong conclusion.
Neither the

age of the earth, the fossil record, and the fact of evolution

make the account of the Garden of Eden impossible.
The Yahweh you are referring to, is not the God of the Tanakh. Inaccurate information hurts conclusions.

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.

There will always be those who agree and disagree.
Most agree that a historical Jesus existed.
It is not expected that a resurrected person would leave a trail in the dirt for archaeologists to find, but an accurate record has been preserved by eyewitnesses.
So what makes the evidence poor, if it isn't doubters who have no evidence against it being reality?

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.)

Again, misinformation leads to inaccurate conclusions.
May I inform you... Believers actually do truth testing, and correcting. Moreover, they don't limit their scope.

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.
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<).

Sorry. You did it again.
I'll try to keep up though.
When people say the sun rose and set, or the sun came up and went down, or the sun and moon moved across the sky, I don't hear anyone complaining.
Yet, they have a problem with the Bible writers.

If religion were as scrupulous, as methodical, as objectively curious, in checking for errors, as science is, the bible would be read very differently.
That's a statement of faith, not of fact. (I happen to share it, but I know it for what it is.)
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.
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.
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.

I'm sure you agree that head butting a wall is no fun.
Yet you believe all life descended from one common ancestor.
You can't show me LUCA but you want me to show you God. You want me to believe in LUCA, but don't believe in God. You can't show me that descent happened, but you want me to believe it.

 

[Jose Fly]

How could you know there was no flood, if you weren't there?

Jehovah's Witness defense lawyer: "How could the jury know if my client committed the murder if they weren't there? I rest my case."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

Certainly it has warmed, since the end of the ice (the start and end of such happened quickly)! Never said it didn’t.

However, erosion does an excellent job of making
knife ridges and sharp peaks, as is so readily shown
that even the most recalcitrant will be able to see it.
(wont they?)

It depends on the cause of the erosion...glacier, water, or wind.

Glaciers cause the ridges...wind (which is mostly what the Himalayas experience) smooths.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you honestly think you're doing well here? Do you believe you've made a good, solid case for the Biblical flood?

Taking all into consideration, yes.

 

[Audie]

Certainly it has warmed, since the end of the ice (the start and end of such happened quickly)! Never said it didn’t.



It depends on the cause of the erosion...glacier, water, or wind.

Glaciers cause the ridges...wind (which is mostly what the Himalayas experience) smooths.

Not that this is more than partly correct, but at least
you are walking back your earlier claim about erosion
only producing "smooth, rounded" features.

And you seem to have indirectly accepted it that
mammoths lived in a colder climate than that of
today's arctic.

You've not gotten to the fact that frozen mammoths
date to tens of thousands of years apart in age.

 

[Audie]

Taking all into consideration, yes.

You sure you got to all the religious / creationist / woo woo sites?

You said all you could find were such as those, so "all" does not
include such as research papers, geology books etc.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And you seem to have indirectly accepted it that
mammoths lived in a colder climate than that of
today's arctic.

No, not at all! ‘Colder than today’s arctic’? Where did you get that?!

If that were true, then there would currently be “vast herds”of grazing animals there, now!

You've not gotten to the fact that frozen mammoths
date to tens of thousands of years apart in age.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the age discrepancies, not only between the animals themselves, but between the Ice Age timeline and the Bible’s.

Simply put, the global Flood changed the make-up of the atmosphere. Prior to the Flood, the waters ‘above the Earth’ provided a greenhouse effect for the Earth, that helped produce the huge amounts of vegetation needed for supporting those discovered vast herds of mega grazers.

There was more carbon dioxide in, and less cosmic rays bombarding, the lower atmosphere, which would by default result in many inaccurate readings of 14C.

And these inaccuracies have been documented.
A partial study:
Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

Here’s some further info:
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia

“...when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

(Biased much?)

And, of course, mainstream scientists are anathema to propose any dating results agree with the Bible’s timeline!

You and I, we’re both using a stacked deck, which favors your POV and opposes mine.

I know what you’ll say...that that proves your interpretation fits the facts, more than mine.

But if that were true, there’d be consensus among scientists. But there isn’t. And the facts as the Bible presents them, is just ignored.

Based partly on crazy, faulty assumptions, like “water had to cover the world to the height of Mt. Everest!”

I wouldn’t believe the Flood happened, either, if I thought that was the case!

 

[nPeace]

No, not at all! ‘Colder than today’s arctic’? Where did you get that?!

If that were true, then there would currently be “vast herds”of grazing animals there, now!





I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the age discrepancies, not only between the animals themselves, but between the Ice Age timeline and the Bible’s.

Simply put, the global Flood changed the make-up of the atmosphere. Prior to the Flood, the waters ‘above the Earth’ provided a greenhouse effect for the Earth, that helped produce the huge amounts of vegetation needed for supporting those discovered vast herds of mega grazers.

There was more carbon dioxide in, and less cosmic rays bombarding, the lower atmosphere, which would by default result in many inaccurate readings of 14C.

And these inaccuracies have been documented.
A partial study:
Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

Here’s some further info:
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia

“...when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

(Biased much?)

And, of course, mainstream scientists are anathema to propose any dating results agree with the Bible’s timeline!

You and I, we’re both using a stacked deck, which favors your POV and opposes mine.

I know what you’ll say...that that proves your interpretation fits the facts, more than mine.

But if that were true, there’d be consensus among scientists. But there isn’t. And the facts as the Bible presents them, is just ignored.

Based partly on crazy, faulty assumptions, like “water had to cover the world to the height of Mt. Everest!”

I wouldn’t believe the Flood happened, either, if I thought that was the case!

You got to it before I did. I was waiting too... but I don't mind you beat me to it.

 

[Bear Wild]

No, not at all! ‘Colder than today’s arctic’? Where did you get that?!

If that were true, then there would currently be “vast herds”of grazing animals there, now!





I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the age discrepancies, not only between the animals themselves, but between the Ice Age timeline and the Bible’s.

Simply put, the global Flood changed the make-up of the atmosphere. Prior to the Flood, the waters ‘above the Earth’ provided a greenhouse effect for the Earth, that helped produce the huge amounts of vegetation needed for supporting those discovered vast herds of mega grazers.

There was more carbon dioxide in, and less cosmic rays bombarding, the lower atmosphere, which would by default result in many inaccurate readings of 14C.

And these inaccuracies have been documented.
A partial study:
Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

Here’s some further info:
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia

“...when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

(Biased much?)

And, of course, mainstream scientists are anathema to propose any dating results agree with the Bible’s timeline!

You and I, we’re both using a stacked deck, which favors your POV and opposes mine.

I know what you’ll say...that that proves your interpretation fits the facts, more than mine.

But if that were true, there’d be consensus among scientists. But there isn’t. And the facts as the Bible presents them, is just ignored.

Based partly on crazy, faulty assumptions, like “water had to cover the world to the height of Mt. Everest!”

I wouldn’t believe the Flood happened, either, if I thought that was the case!

The article for inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating does not reject the use of radioactive carbon dating only points out that there are variables than may need to be applied for greater accuracy. These differences do not make the radioactive carbon dating incorrect but rather point out that the new variables found should be considered for accuracy.

The bible's timeline does not match the Earth's timeline. You would have to have no knowledge of geologic processes such as plate tectonics which I am not sure you believe in. No understanding of the fossil record. No understanding of radioactive dating. and for you to come up with the flood changing the make up of Earth's atmosphere then no understanding of climate science. A flood to eliminate all life except on the ark would not need to reach the top of Mt. Everest to be ridiculous and without proof. You would still need to address what happens to all of the plants that would be flooded which were not addressed in the myth of Noah's ark. As the impossible problems such as plants surviving, animals not eating for 80 days, the problem with salinity, the lack of any evidence in the Earth's record of such an event and how the variations in humans alone developed so quickly after the flood make it clear that the story is a myth. Believing it actually happened the way it happened is fantasy. As a myth it teaches a concept to those of that religions as the absolute truth it looses all meaning.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no evidence that shows a flood.

And I just posted 8 lines of evidence that support it!

Did you not read them? If you still don't think so....tell me, how did Moses know those dimensions of the Ark given to Noah, were ideal for a non-powered vessel, whose only purpose was to float?

(Evidences #2 & #3)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You got to it before I did. I was waiting too... but I don't mind you beat me to it.

Feel free! I appreciate the help you've given.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sheesh

Sheesh

Now, this is strange. You're not the same person....your styles of writing are different.

One must becoming a follower of the other? Eh?

 

[Bear Wild]

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

The lack of evidence is why the idea has not been accepted just like there is no evidence for the great flood with Noah's ark unless you are trying to say that god sent a comet/asteroid to cause the flood for Noah but that still would not create enough water for all previous life except on the arc to perish. Looking for unproven ideas in science to may the arc float better does not help your argument.

 

[Bear Wild]

There's too much contradictory scientific information, to reach any accurate conclusion!

In fact, this review of one:
(PDF) Book Review: Mammoths and the Environment

....makes no sense! It says the "warm climate" destroyed the ecosystem supporting the mammal fauna. Since when?! A warm climate allows vegetation to flourish; it may kill some cold-weather species, but other edible vegetation will replace it and thrive!

Then, there's this amalgamation of conflicting ideas (I've posted before):
NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

Did you really read the articles carefully?. Rapid changes in climate whether getting warmer or colder often changes the flora pattern which then alters the food available. We cannot say for sure that was the cause but yes it does make sense if you understand ecology and climate change which you do not seem to understand.