SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I was just confused. No worries!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Watch the video again. This is not a case of mere fingerprints in the Ben Ham case. It was piece of evidence after piece of evidence that told who did it it. It is the same with why we know that there was no flood. It is piece of evidence after piece of evidence that tells us that there was no flood. It is rather hypocritical to claim that a video attempts to deceive people when if you watched it you would know that your analogy failed.
And you have no way to know that God was an eyewitness. You do not even know that he exists. All that you have is mere belief. Eye witness evidence is the lowest level of legally acceptable evidence. The evidence that supports my claims is much stronger.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Just go all the way with the magic then, instead of trying to make science fit your beliefs. That's the more honest way, if you ask me, since you're going to inject magic into the explanation once you run into a wall with science anyway. So what's the point?
Just know that magic has no explanatory power. Claiming "god did it" explains nothing. Unless you can explain how God did it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Please... you are making huge assumptions.
Where is your supportive evidence?
Here you are asking for evidence after 42 pages, and I have read answers to your questions, throughout those pages.
Do you read the Bible? Genesis 7:11; 8:13, 14
Now where do you suppose the waters went? They did not go to the moon, did they?
I don't remember saying that. I remember mentioning a nation with a reputation of erasing historical events from their annuls. However, I was told that the Romans kept almost accurate records.
However we choose to look at it, the evidence is there - recorded.
Like all records, including the Bible, you are well privileged to dismiss them according to your preferences.
I have no evidenced based reason to dismiss the evidence.
Now you will accept this history right? Why? It is accurate. Uh huh. Interesting.
I think it fair to say, you are assuming that what you believe is right, when it may well not be, and I may well be doing the same. We don't know.
Like I said, you cannot disprove the flood account simply by assuming that you are right. Perhaps it is simply that you don't want to believe it.
PS
@shunyadragon I'll also like to note, that while you are ready to dismiss historical records and repeatedly ask for physical evidence, you readily and willingly accept evolution from a common ancestor, for which there is no physical evidence of any common ancestor. Why is that?
Last edited:
No huge assumptions at all see below. The huge assumptions are on your part assuming that the huge huge amount of energy for mountains to form can happen in a few thousand years.
Where is your supportive evidence? [/quote]
Simple Newtonian physics of thermodynamics and basic physics concerning the amount of energy involved in raising these mountains up.
Here you are asking for evidence after 42 pages, and I have read answers to your questions, throughout those pages.
I have read Genesis and Genesis does not answer the questions as to where the water came from and where it went. It is physically impossible for that much water to come from the earth or from the heavens or from both.
For a ship that size absolutely no physical evidence that it was built.
Again . . . no iron untill after 1200 BCE.
Again . . . where is the physical evidence
Now you will accept this history right? Why? It is accurate. Uh huh. Interesting.
I think it fair to say, you are assuming that what you believe is right, when it may well not be, and I may well be doing the same. We don't know.
Like I said, you cannot disprove the flood account simply by assuming that you are right. Perhaps it is simply that you don't want to believe it.[/QUOTE]
When there is absolutely, and I mean absolutely no evidence that the flood happened or any of these ships existed, you have no coherent argument, except for the argument for the supernatural based on an 'argument from ignorance.'
Still waiting. . .
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Right. You do not know any of that stuff. I am sure you are not going to say you are God, and know all things, therefore...
I think we will also wait for the physical evidence of UCA.
Fair?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One does not need to be God to know how mountains formed. Events such as orogeny leave behind evidence and that evidence is easily read with the right training.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Exactly.
"I'm not relying on magic!"
Then how did the animals all get to the ark?
"God did it."
Then how did the animals all get to the ark?
"God did it."
nPeace
Veteran Member
I have already showed that different factors play a role in how mountains form - speed, shape, etc,.
However, that's not the argument. For one to state that they know the limit of energy, would seem to me, they are saying they know everything. That's God, or a god who knows everything there is to know relative to the supreme. Isn't it?
nPeace
Veteran Member
What is magic?Exactly.
"I'm not relying on magic!"
Then how did the animals all get to the ark?
"God did it."
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Then what in the world is the point of this thread?
Which renders the whole concept of appealing to "evidence" to support your belief in it a farce. Why not just admit the Biblical flood scenario doesn't work without several miracles and leave it at that?
Well duh.....no one can disprove anything that has a "God did it" component. Even if there's absolutely no evidence to support it and a host of evidence contradicting it, the flood believer can always say "God just made it look that way".
This thread is a great testament to the scientific vacuousness of the Biblical flood story.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Supernatural acts, or "miracles" if you will.
Geologic objective verifiable evidence has demonstrated how mountains are raised up of periods of hundreds of millions of years.
There are matter of fact Newtonian physics and thermodynamics that clearly demonstrate that the it is impossible for that much energy to cause the mountains to from in a few thousand years. There is matter of fact historical records and evidence that that the mountains existed at least by 1000 BCE.
To appeal to a Fideist belief that God simply made everything as to the specifications of the Bible is severely problematic, and requires a supernatural explanation for everything on earth. Therefore God created all the evidence that the earth is billions of years old, the mountains formed over a periosd of hundreds of millions of years, and Noah's flood occurred leaving no evidence, and a Bronze Age tribal people built an Ark requiring advanced technology.
According to the Bible the Ark was only held together by wooden pegs, which adds to the impossibility that such an Ark was sea worthy.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well, did you read the title?
Man. So you believe that magic is any supernatural act? Really?
How would you know what is magic then? Would that not mean that you would have to be able to identify a supernatural act? How would you go about doing that?
This not a coherent response. This is simple high school level physics and thermodynamics known since Newton, and applied simply in the energy relationships at to what would be required to form mountains. It is a mass and energy solution based on basic math you learned in high school.
Yes, of course, and there is no objective verifiable evidence that would support the history of our universe, the world, Genesis flood, history of life, nor the history of humanity.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yep, and like I said, the whole thing is a farce.
Perhaps you can clarify the situation....what's the point of trying to cite evidence for an event, if every time you encounter an obstacle you invoke magic/God did it/miracles?
Um, yeah. What else is it, if not magic?
Good question. Since you creationists are the ones invoking it so often, you should probably figure that out.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? I have only seen you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how mountains form.
For example even the claims of mountains forming "overnight" are wrong. They usually refer to a sea mount that has been growing for many years that finally breaks the surface of the ocean. What examples of rapid mountain building can you name? Can you think of any that are not volcanic? When it comes to mountains most of them are not volcanic in origin. You are dealing with the exceptions and not the mountains that clearly tell us that there was no worldwide flood.
nPeace
Veteran Member
See the information following Fast-Growing Mountains.
I am not seeing any logic here. There is evidence. Perhaps not what you accept, but what would be evidence to you?
I never read that. Where does it say that in the Bible? Are you assuming again, or just deliberately adding what you want to?
However, I read this...
Genesis 4:22 Also, Zillah gave birth to Tubalcain, who forged every sort of tool of copper and iron. . .
The Syracusia's hull was fastened with cooper spikes, and also lead sheets were used to cover the planks.
With the ark, tar covered the wood. The scriptures also confirm that the souls on the ark survived.
@Subduction Zone I don't recall saying anything about mountains forming overnight, but land can be pushed up in an instant. See above.
Was the argument about eroding mountains by a flood?
I wasn't aware that argument was being made. I thought it was about the relative age of mountains. I must have misunderstood.
Mountain Erosion
The tectonic forces that lead to mountain building are continuously countered by erosion due to intensified precipitation, wind and temperature extremes. These elements, aided by the force of gravity, are particularly powerful along the mountain ranges which form a barrier to the prevailing westerly winds that buffet New Zealand.
Imagine all the elements at work in an intense storm in the mountains. Gale force winds, lightning strikes, temperature extremes and a deluge of snow, hail or rain. These combined forces break up the rocks and erode the peaks into their stark, sculpted forms.
Falling ice, rocks and gushing water wear away at the mountain slopes. The ice and rock debris accumulates in the valleys and flows downwards as slow moving glaciers. When these melt, piles of rock debris called moraines are left behind.
The powerful earthquakes that are responsible for the uplift of New Zealand’s mountains also destabilise them, causing many rock falls and avalanches that help to wear them down.
- Strong winds pick up dust and abrade exposed rock surfaces.
- Lightning instantly vaporizes water and ice in rock fissures and literally blows rocks apart.
- Temperature changes thaw out and refreeze the ice in rock fissures, wedging them apart, whilst thermal expansion and contraction disintegrates exposed rock surfaces.
- Rock falls and ice avalanches scour mountain sides, further eroding the slopes.
These forces can cut a mountain peaks down quicker than it's built.
Taking that information, and transcending it back millions of years...
Please, show me an image that give evidence of erosion that took place millions of years ago.
Where are the countless rivers that should have formed?
What changes do we see on the highest mountains in just 86 years?
In realtime we can capture erosion.... and glaciers don't play.
A glacier's weight, combined with its gradual movement, can drastically reshape the landscape over hundreds or even thousands of years. The ice erodes the land surface and carries the broken rocks and soil debris far from their original places, resulting in some interesting glacial landforms.
One of the most striking examples of glaciated valleys can be seen in Yosemite National Park, where glaciers literally sheared away mountainsides, creating deep valleys with vertical walls.
Glacier surges have both fascinated and perplexed scientists for decades. "If you think of glaciers as a bank account, then a surge is a massive spending spree," Kääb says. All glaciers have to shed mass that has accumulated in their upper reaches. "Some glaciers just flow faster, but others are unable to for whatever reasons," he says. "They are kind of stuck until the mass accumulated for decades or even centuries gets unleashed in a spectacular way."
Just over 1% of our planet's glaciers—some 2300 in all—are known to undergo these precipitous movements, though the number is likely to rise as glaciers come under closer surveillance by remote sensing. They are concentrated in geographic hot spots including Svalbard, Canada's Yukon territory, Alaska, western Tibet, and the Karakoram and Pamir mountain ranges of Central Asia. This geographic pattern only deepens the puzzle. For instance, some experts think glaciers in the Karakoram are prone to surging because of their steepness; as mass builds up from heavy snowfalls near the top of a glacier, for example, gravity alone may trigger a surge. But this cannot explain why Svalbard, where the terrain is relatively flat, abounds in surging glaciers.
Even glaciers right next to each other can have totally different personalities. Jack Kohler, a glaciologist at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromsø, points to a pair of adjacent, massive glaciers on Svalbard: Kongsvegen and Kronebreen. "They are like twin brothers, but one surges and the other one doesn't," Kohler says. "It's a total mystery."
When I picture mountains millions of years ago. I don't see them.
Like everything else, mountains are born, grow, and die - become hills, and the cycle continues.
This is the way I see it.
How long does it take to erode away a mountain?
Disappearing Mountains
What about growth rate?
Can mountains shoot up rapidly?
That was the purpose of my post on how tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly.
I don't understand what the problem with it was. Anyways...
Fast-Growing Mountains
The most dramatic relief found on any of the continents, a difference of 22,740 feet between the Indus River in Pakistan and the summit of Nanga Parbat just 14 miles away, evolved through very rapid uplift, relatively speaking, of the mountains in that region, according to studies of tracks left in the rocks by particles ejected from atoms subjected to radioactive decay. The mountains appear to have risen an average of almost a half inch a year over the past million years, though erosion has prevented a corresponding growth in their total height.
The Sierra Nevada is an asymmetrical range with its crest and high peaks decidedly toward the east. The peaks range from 11,000 to 14,000 feet (3,350 to 4,270 metres) above sea level, with Mount Whitney, at 14,494 feet (4,418 metres), the highest peak in the coterminous United States. Summits in the northern portion are much lower, those north of Lake Tahoe reaching altitudes of only 7,000 to 9,000 feet.
The Sierra Nevada mountain range is growing at a rapid pace, says new research.
The team of researchers from the University of Nevada's geodetic laboratory in Reno and the University of Glasgow in the UK, found the mountains growing at about half an inch every 10 years.
This is about one to two millimeters per year along the entire range, reported MSNBC.
"Our data indicate that uplift is ... active and could have generated the entire range in less than 3 million years, which is young compared to estimates based on some other techniques," said lead researcher Bill Hammond,of the University of Nevada, according to the Associated Press.
"It basically means that the latest pulse of uplift is still ongoing."
Using GPS data and space-based radar, the researchers were able to get pinpoint accuracy.
"The exciting thing is we can watch the range growing in real time," said Hammond, according to Red Orbit.
"Using data back to before 2000 we can see it with accuracy better than one millimeter per year. Perhaps even more amazing is that these minuscule changes are measured using satellites in space."
The study suggests that the mountains likely formed less than three million years ago making them comparatively young.
Fast -forming mountain ranges
We usually assume that mountain ranges take tens of millions of years to form …
Mountain ranges are so big, and continental plates move so slowly, that common wisdom suggests they must take millions of years to form. This seems to have been confirmed in the past with limited data sets that show the timing of their uplift; however, a recent paper in Science and another in Earth and Planetary Science Letters have suggested that uplift may occur much more rapidly in some cases.
.............
Of course, isotopic data from precipitation could also be indicative of a changing climate. In particular, the changes in the δ18O composition they see could be indicative of enrichment of heavier isotopes by evaporation. This is where the carbonate δ18O data come in. These data indicate that, despite evidence for increased aridity, the trends in carbonate δ18O are opposite what one would expect if there was an increase in evaporation. They conclude that the central Andean plateau may have risen 1500m in as little as one million years.
Traveling half way around the world to Tibet, we are presented with a similar story. An article published in the June 15th issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters suggests that the Tibetan plateau may have risen much more rapidly than previously thought. Similar to the Andean plateau, most people believe the Tibetan plateau rose to its present elevation over tens of millions of years, but this study suggests that much of that elevation may have developed over the past two to three million years.
This study looked at isotopic data from the enamel of herbivores living two to three million years ago and compared it to the same isotopic data from modern herbivores. This isotopic data is indicative of the plants these animals were eating. The shift in δ13C from -12.0‰ to -7.9‰ indicates a shift in plants from C3 to mixed C3 and C4 grasses. This is consistent with a warmer climate and lower elevation. These δ13C data are supported by δ18O data that also point toward a warmer, wetter climate. They conclude that the Tibetan plateau was 2700m below its present elevation 2-3 million years ago.
All these references refer to millions of years. Your claim is a few thousand. Does not compute!