Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Hockeycowboy]

You going to ignore your phony clam claim?

No. Have you yourself ever seen pics of them?

 

[Audie]

No. Have you yourself ever seen pics of them?

There are marine fossils of various sorts to be found
at the top, and, in between all the way to the bottom
of various mountains. I've done better than look at
photos. I have been in mountains, and collected
some fossils.

Regardless, their presence is not the point of what I said.

Your claim was that if the clam is found to be closed,
that meant flood, rapid burial while alive, all that.

I pointed out that anyone who has dug clams knows
that is not so.

First, because experience tells you that a lot, sometimes
most of the clams you dig look find till you find they
are dead, full of silt.

Second, a moment's thought tells you that as clams
are not immortal, they die, but, how is the shell to
open when buried in the mud?

So, my question is-can you concede that the thing
about the shells being closed tells you nothing about
whether there was a "flood'?

 

[Audie]

No, I do not think I will win any awards or sell what I wrote for any monetary gain. I did say that it is my opinion that that some features of earth are not as old as some feel it is. So yes "this is just what I think." But, does what anyone say on here have any value beyond what they think and believe?

Your opinion is about, based on, what you feel. The "old earth" understanding is
based on the detailed work of many thousands of resesrchers.

Not things like a photo of a mountain and how someone feels about it.

 

[Looncall]

What'you talking 'bout bro?

I won't be able to tell you anything about features, but there are a few pieces of evidence that argues for the rapid plate tectonic movement, and formation of igneous rock, and of mountain ranges.
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html
Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy. Today, that opinion has reversed - plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory. Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1 The statements in Genesis 1:9-10 about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.

Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted that evidence for rapid field reversals would be found in lava flows thin enough to cool in a few weeks. He suggested that such rapid reversals could have happened during Noah's flood. Such evidence for rapid reversals was later found by the respected researchers Coe and Prvot.Their later work confirmed these findings and showed that the magnetic reversals were “astonishingly rapid.”

Dr. John Baumgardner, working at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (New Mexico), has used supercomputers to model processes in the Earth's mantle to show that tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly, and “spontaneously.” This concept is known as catastrophic plate tectonics. At the time of writing, Baumgardner, a creation-scientist, is acknowledged as having developed the world's best 3-D super-computer model of plate tectonics.

There is a model you can use, and there is another here that deals with fold and thrust belt, or geologic fold.

You have a nerve citing those nests of liars. I suggest you check out the "statements of faith" that their members sign on to. Statements that require them to lie "through their teeth", as the saying goes.

Those people make their livings conning the gullible religious.

 

[Audie]

Yes, seeds can be carried by the wind and establish themselves in new places. The problem with this idea with regards to a global flood, however, is that those seeds would have been submerged in brackish water for at least a year and would not have been viable. No viable seeds...no plants.

It is not a good story for those who think about details.

 

[Audie]

You have a nerve citing those nests of liars. I suggest you check out the "statements of faith" that their members sign on to. Statements that require them to lie "through their teeth", as the saying goes.

Those people make their livings conning the gullible religious.

The statement of faith is simply a commitment to
intellectual dishonesty. I would enjoy seeing one of
our creos explain why it is not.

It is of course, simply impossible to be both
well informed, and intellectually honest while
holding creoviews.

I am a bit surprised-or maybe not- that our creos
do not more often quote Dr. K Wise, a genuine
PhD in paleontology, and, a yec.

His statement here would do as an encyclopedia
entry on intellectual dishonesty or maybe cognitive
dissonance, or both.

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
[Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See Why use apologetics for evangelism?]

Kind of amusing that the editor feel he has to hasten to
say it is not blind faith!

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace :

View attachment 25164

Do these peaks look very weathered, ie., with rounded features? Or do they look relatively new (with very little weathering), having crisp, sharply-defined characteristics?

The rocks themselves are old, yes. But these ridges and other features they’ve formed are geologically young-looking.

There are many like this, all over the world!

Hey
Sorry, I can't give an expert opinion on whether mountains appear weathered or not. I'll have to do some research on it. Unfortunately not today
If I had to give my amateur opinion though, they look relatively young. I'll give my reason later, along with my findings.

@Audie thanks for responding to my post with something I can respond to. I really hate when people just respond by calling the people liars, and the source lied, rather than addressing the "lies" with what they view to be the truth.
So I thank you, and will respond to it later.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are marine fossils of various sorts to be found
at the top, and, in between all the way to the bottom
of various mountains. I've done better than look at
photos. I have been in mountains, and collected
some fossils.

Regardless, their presence is not the point of what I said.

Your claim was that if the clam is found to be closed,
that meant flood, rapid burial while alive, all that.

I pointed out that anyone who has dug clams knows
that is not so.

First, because experience tells you that a lot, sometimes
most of the clams you dig look find till you find they
are dead, full of silt.

Second, a moment's thought tells you that as clams
are not immortal, they die, but, how is the shell to
open when buried in the mud?

So, my question is-can you concede that the thing
about the shells being closed tells you nothing about
whether there was a "flood'?

What should I concede? That these clams died from old age, ie., normally? Or that they died from a cataclysm? The majority of these organisms died suddenly, observed all over the Earth. Was it the Flood? I can't prove it....but what catastrophe do you suggest? The Flood scenario fits the facts.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

1. Explain how salt water fish and fresh water fish could possibly survive in brackish water.
2. Explain how just all the species in the Amazon could fit on such a small ark, much less all the species of the world.
3. Explain how animal from the Americas and Australia made it to the Ark.
4. Explain how Noah had room enough to put food for all those animals for 40 days.
5. Explain how so few people could handle feeding and cleaning up the waste of all the species of the earth each day.
6. Explain why there isn't a uniform level of sediment around the world.
7. Sloths and koalas can only eat very specific plants. How did Noah get those plants?
8. Why is there no evidence for the flood in tree rings?
I could go on and on. A global flood story not only defies basic logic, but ignores the effects of plate tectonics.

I think we could all go on and on. To me the animal kinds were in hibernation for a year.
How about two different aquariums for the fish - just kidding.
Remember it rained for 40 days but the waters did Not subside for a year.
After Noah is resurrected he'll just have to make a video explaining everything for us.
In the meantime, just as Jesus believed in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-38) that the people took No note.
I find that is often the case today. Most people don't think there will be divine involvement in mankind's affairs.

 

[Audie]

What should I concede? That these clams died from old age, ie., normally? Or that they died from a cataclysm? The majority of these organisms died suddenly, observed all over the Earth. Was it the Flood? I can't prove it....but what catastrophe do you suggest? The Flood scenario fits the facts.

From your OP

clams, some measuring 5 feet or more across, found in the closed position, indicating (again) that these creatures experienced a catastrophic event, leading to their quick death. (Clams in natural death, die w/ their shells open.)

Did you forget what you posted?

Do you actually not understand why this part in bold
is simply false?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I do not think I will win any awards or sell what I wrote for any monetary gain. I did say that it is my opinion that that some features of earth are not as old as some feel it is. So yes "this is just what I think." But, does what anyone say on here have any value beyond what they think and believe?

The way I see it, there's a difference between someone in here putting up a "this is my opinion" post, and putting up a "this is my opinion and here is evidence that supports that opinion" post. I enjoy challenging my assumptions and views and forums like this are one way to do that. But I'm far, far more likely to change my views in response to a well-supported argument than due to unsubstantiated opinions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do these peaks look very weathered, ie., with rounded features? Or do they look relatively new (with very little weathering), having crisp, sharply-defined characteristics?

The rocks themselves are old, yes. But these ridges and other features they’ve formed are geologically young-looking.

There are many like this, all over the world!

Again it's evident how your approach to subjects like this is very, very different than mine. Apparently in your world, simply posting a picture of mountains and saying "they don't look old" is a compelling reason to question the scientific consensus on their age. Conversely, in my world if you're going to question the consensus, you have to describe the specific conditions of those mountains (e.g., the rock type, the specific geologic characteristics of the strata, etc.), the specific erosional forces at play, and then demonstrate how your model explains those things.

But as I noted earlier, given our extremely different backgrounds, it's hardly surprising that we approach this subject in completely different ways.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

From your OP

clams, some measuring 5 feet or more across, found in the closed position, indicating (again) that these creatures experienced a catastrophic event, leading to their quick death. (Clams in natural death, die w/ their shells open.)

Did you forget what you posted?

Do you actually not understand why this part in bold
is simply false?

After their death, why would their deteriorating adductor muscle not allow them to open? Because they were encased in mud! They couldn't escape!

Does that indicate a normal death to you, or one caused by a catastrophe?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again it's evident how your approach to subjects like this is very, very different than mine. Apparently in your world, simply posting a picture of mountains and saying "they don't look old" is a compelling reason to question the scientific consensus on their age. Conversely, in my world if you're going to question the consensus, you have to describe the specific conditions of those mountains (e.g., the rock type, the specific geologic characteristics of the strata, etc.), the specific erosional forces at play, and then demonstrate how your model explains those things.

But as I noted earlier, given our extremely different backgrounds, it's hardly surprising that we approach this subject in completely different ways.

I know what erosion does....it's obvious, when seen.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know what erosion does....it's obvious, when seen.

I hope you appreciate how "it's obvious" isn't a compelling argument at all.

I'm curious....have you ever read a scientific paper on geology?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

First, did Ken Ham use "resinous wood", or a wood type similar to the wood used by Noah? Did he mean for his facsimile to float? Didn't he make an entrance in the side of it, with doors? Yeah, it would sink. Lol.

Ken Ham built the thing to imply that it proves the Ark is historically accurate. That he can't do it proves him wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm curious....have you ever read a scientific paper on geology?

What?
Many times!
Grief...it's because of my study of geology (and understanding the Bible), that I'm not a YEC. But, I am an OLD-Earth creationist.

Geology and minerals -- especially minerals / gemstones -- are two of my favorite subjects.

 

[Jose Fly]

What?
Many times!
Grief...it's because of my study of geology (and understanding the Bible), that I'm not a YEC. But, I am an OLD-Earth creationist.

Geology and minerals -- especially minerals / gemstones -- are two of my favorite subjects.

So if you understand how actual geologists make a case (i.e., by getting into very specific detail), why are you relying on things like "it's obvious" and "it looks young" here?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So if you understand how actual geologists make a case (i.e., by getting into very specific detail), why are you relying on things like "it's obvious" and "it looks young" here?

Because observation is the bedrock of science!

I'm not posting on a geology magazine, so no need for geo lingo.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because observation is the bedrock of science!

It's the first step. You don't observe something, declare your conclusion about it to be "obvious", and nothing else.

I'm not posting on a geology magazine, so no need for geo lingo.

I'm not talking about using jargon, I'm talking about what I've been trying to get across to you for weeks now....the need to do more than post vague, empty assertions.