Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Most do not want to explore any interpretation allowing for a supernatural answer! They discount it out of hand!.

Of course! How much consideration would YOU give, if someone came up to your door, handing out flyers that preached the Beauties Of The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and how She Created The Cosmos, and All That We Can See?

Or how quickly do you dismiss photographs of Unidentified Flying Objects that purport to be from light years away?

Sometimes, the idea is so ludicrous, that dismissing out of hand is the only sane approach.

Life's too short to listen to crackpots.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I suppose it would be clever to ask what the evidence is for the validity of Hitchens' Razor, so I will refrain.

To a logical, rational mind? It's actually kind of obvious. A sort of self-evident statement, that when first perceived, you go: "well... DUUUHH".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I must post this:

I will not respond anymore to posts obfuscating the details of the OP and berating my character or education. (What are we, in 3rd grade?)

I've put some on ignore for this reason.

If you want to respond with reason, and discuss the evidence I've presented....I'm all for it!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

At least thanks for providing a counter argument w/ references....other than just ranting and raving!



As per your link, on pg. 729, it says "> 4,000 years of age."
And that the oldest known tree is "Currey Tree," which is close to 4900 years of age.

You're close, but you misrepresented it. (Hey, it's your link.) Why?
It's neither here nor there, though.... it still fits an interpretation of the Flood timeline.

As far as the genetic/generational evidence, I'll get back to this.
I know genetics are pretty accurate in discovering from where a person's ancestors originated, but as to how far back the lineage goes, I'm sure there are problems and discrepancies with that. Genetics is a relatively new field, I know you're aware of this.

There is an Olive Tree, near the land of Israel, that is older than all of recorded human history. I forget just how old...8,000? Something like that.

I'd post a photo of it, but it is so bothersome to do that here, as the photo is on my computer, not on some random unreliable interwebs thing.

I'll try to find an example, though-- and edit that in if I am able.

Edit-- I could not find my source, re: olive trees. Most of them are a mere 2000+ years old, alas.

But. I found THIS: 5066 years old, going back BEFORE the Old Testament was even oral history, and therefore, pre-dating the "flood".

The oldest tree in the world was alive when Stonehenge was under construction and around the time humans developed their first writing system

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of course! How much consideration would YOU give, if someone came up to your door, handing out flyers that preached the Beauties Of The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and how She Created The Cosmos, and All That We Can See?

Or how quickly do you dismiss photographs of Unidentified Flying Objects that purport to be from light years away?

Sometimes, the idea is so ludicrous, that dismissing out of hand is the only sane approach.

Life's too short to listen to crackpots.

Life's too short? Then how come I read one post after another from you, repeating yourself?

 

[Vee]

Lastly you cannot have scientific evidence for a concept if you do not put that concept in the form of a testable hypothesis.

The next time I see you presenting evolution as a fact I'm going to remind you of this sentence.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you want to respond with reason, and discuss the evidence I've presented....I'm all for it!

Go for it! Present some actual, scientific peer-reviewed evidence and let's have a go!

Note: Posting anything from a creationism site, is automatically not evidence, because of their Statements Of Belief right there on their home pages.

But anything from National Geographic, Nova, PBS, and so forth.

University websites-- make that accredited University websites are especially good. Example: Stanford, Yale or Oxford. Good.

Bob Jones "university" or Oral Roberts "university"? Bad.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We are still studying.....

Yes, this I agree with. Humankind is still in the infancy stage of learning. But many think they know the facts of everything.

That's why they are closed-minded.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Life's too short? Then how come I read one post after another from you, repeating yourself?

I have found that when dealing with someone who's mentally defensive of a Cherished Belief?

Repeating the facts is the only hope for getting through the Dogma that was forced into their brains when they were children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must post this:

I will not respond anymore to posts obfuscating the details of the OP and berating my character or education. (What are we, in 3rd grade?)

I've put some on ignore for this reason.

If you want to respond with reason, and discuss the evidence I've presented....I'm all for it!

No one has berated your character, at least not undeservedly. I pointed out quite correctly that you did not even understand the concept of evidence and offered to go over it with you. Instead you took an observation of your obvious ignorance as a personal attack.

You cannot debate properly if you do not understand the nature of evidence. All you can do is to make your arguments look ridiculous.

 

[metis]

Or so you’ve been led to believe.

I just posted evidence.

I do objectively-derived science only when it comes to scientific information, but if I want religious information then I don't do science to derive that. To confuse the two is a mistake because science (real science that is) uses a very different process than does religion. The former we can test through objectively-derived evidence, the latter we simply cannot.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that evolution was evil, and I left that church and, fortunately, eventually found a denomination that accepts science-- real science that is. I could never go back to the ignorance and dishonesty that I was brought up to believe in many decades ago.

BTW, I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught the subject for 30 years, so I've spent gobs and gobs of hours doing the research, which I still do even now at the age of 73.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, this I agree with. Humankind is still in the infancy stage of learning. But many think they know the facts of everything.

That's why they are closed-minded.

Now you are describing yourself at best. Did you not complain about "ad homs" earlier?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have found that when dealing with someone who's mentally defensive of a Cherished Belief?

Repeating the facts is the only hope for getting through the Dogma that was forced into their brains when they were children.

"Repeating the facts"?! You don't repeat facts....you repeat abuses.

And it's the "facts", as you've been told them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do objectively-derived science only when it comes to scientific information, but if I want religious information then I don't do science to derive that. To confuse the two is a mistake because science (real science that is) uses a very different process than does religion. The former we can test through objectively-derived evidence, the latter we simply cannot.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that evolution was evil, and I left that church and, fortunately, eventually found a denomination that accepts science-- real science that is. I could never go back to the ignorance and dishonesty that I was brought up to believe in many decades ago.

BTW, I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught the subject for 30 years, so I've spent gobs and gobs of hours doing the research, which I still do even now at the age of 73.

In regards to the OP Dr. Frank Hibbins was cited as a source. The article given was not even close to being reliable. Doing a Google Scholar search on the man I did find that he did some work once in the Alaska "muckfields" From reading that I could see that he was talking about the Alaska permafrost. Unfortunately the body of the article was behind a paywall. Do you know anything about that work as an anthropologist? It is hard to check out a supposed source when nothing reliable is given to begin with.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do objectively-derived science only when it comes to scientific information, but if I want religious information then I don't do science to derive that. To confuse the two is a mistake because science (real science that is) uses a very different process than does religion. The former we can test through objectively-derived evidence, the latter we simply cannot.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that evolution was evil, and I left that church and, fortunately, eventually found a denomination that accepts science-- real science that is. I could never go back to the ignorance and dishonesty that I was brought up to believe in many decades ago.

BTW, I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught the subject for 30 years, so I've spent gobs and gobs of hours doing the research, which I still do even now at the age of 73.

Twice you mentioned "real science" -- real science requires observation. This has verified small changes in organisms. Micro evolution. Anything beyond that, is not real science, but rather, philosophy and guessing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The next time I see you presenting evolution as a fact I'm going to remind you of this sentence.

Why do you think that is some sort of contradiction? Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The theory of gravity explains gravity. Are you going to try to claim that gravity is not a fact? By the same standards evolution is a fact. Though science does not "prove" things as abused by so many creationists if one goes by the legal standards of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution has been proven. I get tired of creationists that abuse terms they do not understand. There is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and no scientific evidence at all for creationism. Or perhaps I should say that no creationist seems to be able to produce any scientific evidence for their beliefs. Understanding those basic concepts is key to understanding how to debate this topic. Of course if one understands those terms one quickly realizes that there is no more debating against the concept of evolution than there is debating against the concept of gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Twice you mentioned "real science" -- real science requires observation. This has verified small changes in organisms. Micro evolution. Anything beyond that, is not real science, but rather, philosophy and guessing.

Wrong, at least not in the way that you stated it. Real science involves creating a hypothesis and then testing it by observing how it reacts to tests. And marcoevolution has been directly observed. This only demonstrates that you do not once again understand the terms that you use.

 

[Skwim]

I just posted evidence. Many evidences.

Now you're just consoling yourselves...I guess you believe if you belittle the opposition enough, you're pov's will poof into truth, and you'll scare others into submission.

Attack the evidence I presented, not me! Grief!

Yes you have posted evidence; however, it isn't credible. Heck, you've even included "evidence" that speaks against the flood event.

"Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes

Basic physics suggests that an ark carrying lots* of animal cargo could float, but science doesn’t support other facets of the biblical tale"
​

and

"University of Leicester physics students says Noah’s Ark would have floated with two each of 35,000 species of animal"
​

Students for god's sake. STUDENTS! This is really reaching.

Plus the fact that they say only 35,000 species of animals. Do you know how many animal species there are on earth? An estimated 7.77 million, and in pairs that would mean 15.5 million animals had to have gone aboard the ark.** Plus all the plant and mushroom species that would have to have been saved.

Nope. you submitted evidence alright, but it's hardly useful. In fact, some of it is down right damaging to your proposition.

* "lots" hardly describes fifteen and a half million animals.

** source



.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, this I agree with. Humankind is still in the infancy stage of learning. But many think they know the facts of everything.

That's why they are closed-minded.

So....back to my question.

Is there a distinct earth event that I can pick up as a supernatural cause without reading the bible?

For example, I don't need math book to know two and two is four. While if I were younger, I wouldn't have the words but we can still make sense of it regardless my ignorance.

How is this connection seen in earth events that's not dependent on the bible in order to connect it to anything supernatural, none less the Christian god out of all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you have posted evidence; however, it isn't credible. Heck, you've even included "evidence" that speaks against the flood event.

"Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes

Basic physics suggests that an ark carrying lots of animal cargo could float, but science doesn’t support other facets of the biblical tale
​

and

"University of Leicester physics students says Noah’s Ark would have floated with two each of 35,000 species of animal"
​

Students for god's sake! This is really reaching.

Plus the fact that they say only35,000 species of animals. Do you know how many animal species there are on earth? An estimated 7.77 million, and in pairs that would mean 15.5 million animals.* Plus all the plant and mushroom species that would have to have been saved:

Nope. you submitted evidence alright, but it's hardly useful. In fact, some of it is damaging to your proposition.

* source



.

Excellent point. In the sciences one is not allowed to ignore the evidence that contradicts one's claims. But that is what @Hockeycowboy is trying to do by not properly presenting his concept as a testable hypothesis. All he has are ad hoc explanations for a vague event that keeps changing at the evidence comes out that shows it is wrong. All that he has done is to show that he is worse than wrong. In the sciences one can learn by being wrong. By avoiding using a testable hypothesis he has entered the realm of being "Not even wrong".