Flood Evidences — revised

[Audie]

My point was, there is evidence, in order for these degreed geologists to believe such things. Their interpretation of it just differs from mainstream.

Honestly, I’ve never studied YEC’s interpretation of the geologic evidences.
It does seem faulty.

But not so, the Flood!
Also to @Jose Fly ....
What high-elevation mountain ranges look like they’ve experienced millions of years of erosion to you both?
As an example...
The granite Huangshan range has been abraded for eons — but it is no where similar to the Himalayas (dolomitic limestone) or Canadian Rockies, both of which exhibit sharp, well-defined (I.e. , new-looking) features.

No,it is NOT evidence, but religious dogma required
in order to believe such things as "flood". ONLY
fundys believe in it.
That is not coincidence.

Actually, the point is that they, like Dr. Wise, go
in with the "fact" of creoism, and try to make things
fit; that is intellectually dishonest.

But more to the point still, they are like Dr. Wise
in another more crucial way- "if all the evidence in the
universe turned against creoism, I'd still be a creo
for lo, such is what I think the bible seems to indicate".

As in no evidence needed. To hell with evidence.

AND- all such are required by their dogma to disregard
and deny all the ways "flood" is disproved by inconvenient
facts-like polar ice.

You are right; that is not "mainstream". It is cult
pseudoscience.

As for your thing about mountains it is so
vague and general and about how someone
like you thinks things look that it is unarguable.

If you care to get specific about something
it can be discussed.

You are under the impression that
erosion always and only produces rounded
surfaces, for example?

"Fresh" surfaces and sharp ridges, steep
sides are signs of "young" mountains?
How old is "young"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Allow me to demonstrate how silly the uniformitarian theory really is.
The Himialya is 5 miles high.
Therefore the Earth must have been 5 miles higher in radius.
Now answer me this insurmountable stupid question I am asking now.

If erosion, where did all this soil go?
Think, If the Earth was 10 miles whider, and erosion made it the size today, where is the rubble?

Is this actually a serious question?

Did you attend high school at all?

(that WAS a serious question)

This is what I mean about insurmountable stupidity!

I agree, but probably for different reasons......

 

[Audie]

But there are a few geologists who accept a global Flood as reality. In fact, some geologists are even YEC’s. (They are not in a mutually exclusive group, though.)

I’ve got other, more important things to do now.

A person could do perfectly good geology of certain sorts
if they thought volcanoes are a myth, or that they are
the poop of Tilkut the Bear God.

"Old Bill there is a darn good wellsite geologist!
Kind of a crank tho, when it comes to volcanoes."

 

[Audie]

Is this actually a serious question?

Did you attend high school at all?

(that WAS a serious question)



I agree, but probably for different reasons......

I kinda guessed who you were conversatin' with, but
I had to check

I am saving that bit of nuttiness along with the one
about the excess water from the flood being wafted to
Neptune, to shine as a warning beacon against incoming
rogue angels.

At least that one does not require that the author
claim that all the geologists in the world are bonkers
or stupid as a possum

 

[Jose Fly]

My point was, there is evidence, in order for these degreed geologists to believe such things. Their interpretation of it just differs from mainstream.

Normally this is where I point out how that's what every believer in every crackpot idea says...."we're just interpreting the data differently!" But in your case, you can't even say that. Your approach has consistently been "when the data is problematic, that's when I fall back on 'God did it'".

Also to @Jose Fly ....
What high-elevation mountain ranges look like they’ve experienced millions of years of erosion to you both?
As an example...
The granite Huangshan range has been abraded for eons — but it is no where similar to the Himalayas (dolomitic limestone) or Canadian Rockies, both of which exhibit sharp, well-defined (I.e. , new-looking) features.

Sorry, not following your point here.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If all the animals going into Noah's ark were vegetarian, including big predators like lions, tigers and bears and all the fossils are supposed to be the result of everything that died in the flood, how do you explain fossil evidence of predation?

First of all, some fossils are very old, like trilobites from the Cambrian. And others, throughout the distant past.(ive got a lot in my home.)

Remember, I don't believe the Earth is young. Not the humans on it, though.

Fossils showing predation? (Some appear that way, as in fish eating fish.) Or is it scavenging?

I do believe most, if not all, were omnivores, not just vegetarians...they supplemented their diet w/ meat, from scavenging.

Yes, I believe the animals died, prior to the Fall.

 

[Audie]

Normally this is where I point out how that's what every believer in every crackpot idea says...."we're just interpreting the data differently!" But in your case, you can't even say that. Your approach has consistently been "when the data is problematic, that's when I fall back on 'God did it'".


Sorry, not following your point here.

SEDI, or, Same Evidence, Different Interpretation,

They SEDI-enthusiasts are always coming from
the woo woo side of the tracks of course.

The part they never ever attempt it to do an interpretation
a that is,
a) fully consistent with all relevant data
or easier
b) at least not directly falsified by any data.

One of our friends darts about like a, well,
hockey puck when actual specific data is the
topic, let alone any that falsifies his fantasies.

 

[Audie]

First of all, some fossils are very old, like trilobites from the Cambrian. And others, throughout the distant past.(ive got a lot in my home.)

Remember, I don't believe the Earth is young. Not the humans on it, though.

Fossils showing predation? (Some appear that way, as in fish eating fish.) Or is it scavenging?

I do believe most, if not all, were omnivores, not just vegetarians...they supplemented their diet w/ meat, from scavenging.

Yes, I believe the animals died, prior to the Fall.

Angler fish lured carrion?

These teeth dont look good for eating carrots.
viper fish - Google Search

And of course, the ambush predator body plan, or
the high speed of a cheetah / hawk seems unsuited
for catching carrion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your approach has consistently been "when the data is problematic, that's when I fall back on 'God did it'".

The thing is, it's not problematic in most of the evidence. Some, yes. (Like with the vegetation surviving under the waters for a year.)

But the account itself, in every cultural retelling of it (which number in the hundreds), always describes it as having a supernatural origin. So, yeah!

Grief! That's my whole point in discussing ghosts, people talking w/ spirit gods, et.al.; many of these incidents are genuine! And it's foolish (and arrogant) to say the forces
(behind the genuine ones) doesn't exist!

In the Biblical account...who brought the animals to Noah? "Goddidit". Who gave Noah the Ark's blueprints (which, BTW, provides for the design of a very seaworthy vessel)? Goddidit". Who closed the door? "Goddidit".
Who caused the waters above to fall and the waters below to rise? "Goddidit.

However, God didn't do anything else? Lol.

 

[Jose Fly]

SEDI, or, Same Evidence, Different Interpretation,

They SEDI-enthusiasts are always coming from
the woo woo side of the tracks of course.

The part they never ever attempt it to do an interpretation
a that is,
a) fully consistent with all relevant data
or easier
b) at least not directly falsified by any data.

One of our friends darts about like a, well,
hockey puck when actual specific data is the
topic, let alone any that falsifies his fantasies.

SEDI....I like that. Thanks!

 

[Jose Fly]

The thing is, it's not problematic in most of the evidence. Some, yes. (Like with the vegetation surviving under the waters for a year.)

As I've noted throughout, given how you're apparently trying to convince people that the Biblical flood is empirically supported, as soon as you invoke "God did it" you've negated your own argument.

But the account itself, in every cultural retelling of it (which number in the hundreds), always describes it as having a supernatural origin. So, yeah!

And that's fine for religious beliefs. Empirically-based reasoning though? It's a deal-breaker.

Grief! That's my whole point in discussing ghosts, people talking w/ spirit gods, et.al.; many of these incidents are genuine! And it's foolish (and arrogant) to say the forces
(behind the genuine ones) doesn't exist!

I'm sure that's what you believe.

In the Biblical account...who brought the animals to Noah? "Goddidit". Who gave Noah the Ark's blueprints (which, BTW, provides for the design of a very seaworthy vessel)? Goddidit". Who closed the door? "Goddidit".
Who caused the waters above to fall and the waters below to rise? "Goddidit.

However, God didn't do anything else? Lol.

Like I said, that's all well and good for religious beliefs, but it's a non-starter for empirically-based reasoning. It's really no different than Last Thursdayism.

 

[sooda]

First of all, some fossils are very old, like trilobites from the Cambrian. And others, throughout the distant past.(ive got a lot in my home.)

Remember, I don't believe the Earth is young. Not the humans on it, though.

Fossils showing predation? (Some appear that way, as in fish eating fish.) Or is it scavenging?

I do believe most, if not all, were omnivores, not just vegetarians...they supplemented their diet w/ meat, from scavenging.

Yes, I believe the animals died, prior to the Fall.

You cannot believe anyone over the age of ten would believe the Bible stories of the OT are real. The insistence that any adult believe such fantasy is what is killing Christianity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First of all, some fossils are very old, like trilobites from the Cambrian. And others, throughout the distant past.(ive got a lot in my home.)

Remember, I don't believe the Earth is young. Not the humans on it, though.

Fossils showing predation? (Some appear that way, as in fish eating fish.) Or is it scavenging?

I do believe most, if not all, were omnivores, not just vegetarians...they supplemented their diet w/ meat, from scavenging.

Yes, I believe the animals died, prior to the Fall.

I accept the evidence that Homo sapiens is a recent species.

Tooth marks on bones. Comparisons of the size and placement of those marks with contemporary predator jaws. That sort of thing. It does not speak of an entire fauna of vegetarians prior to the flood.

It is just too bad that no evidence leads to your belief.

I have no idea what you mean by your last statement in relation to the evidence of predation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have no idea what you mean by your last statement in relation to the evidence of predation.

Some professed Christians claim that before Adam’s rebellion, i.e., Adam’s Fall, there was no death, period....not even among the animals.

(Most who believe that are probably YEC’s, if not all.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some professed Christians claim that before Adam’s rebellion, i.e., Adam’s Fall, there was no death, period....not even among the animals.

(Most who believe that are probably YEC’s, if not all.)

And many Christians realize that the Adam and Eve story is a morality tale or other literary tool. They know that it does not represent reality.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You cannot believe anyone over the age of ten would believe the Bible stories of the OT are real. The insistence that any adult believe such fantasy is what is killing Christianity.

No, hypocrisy is doing that; the bad reputation they’ve accrued in killing other Christians.
Actually, JW’s are growing, and all 8.4 million of us believe the Flood was literal. As did Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, hypocrisy is doing that; the bad reputation they’ve accrued in killing other Christians.
Actually, JW’s are growing, and all 8.4 million of us believe the Flood was literal. As did Jesus.

Really? You are claiming that Jesus was just a man. Are you sure that you want to take that route? Most Christians realize that it is a morality tale. They do not believe in a lying God.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Actually, the point is that they, like Dr. Wise, go
in with the "fact" of creoism, and try to make things
fit; that is intellectually dishonest.

But more to the point still, they are like Dr. Wise
in another more crucial way- "if all the evidence in the
universe turned against creoism, I'd still be a creo
for lo, such is what I think the bible seems to indicate".

As in no evidence needed. To hell with evidence.

One man doesn’t speak for all, lol.

You shouldn’t paint w/ such broad strokes.

Not even within specific fields of science, does that happen.

B.A.N.D. bird paleos are a prime example.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As I've noted throughout, given how you're apparently trying to convince people that the Biblical flood is empirically supported, as soon as you invoke "God did it" you've negated your own argument.


And that's fine for religious beliefs. Empirically-based reasoning though? It's a deal-breaker.


I'm sure that's what you believe.


Like I said, that's all well and good for religious beliefs, but it's a non-starter for empirically-based reasoning. It's really no different than Last Thursdayism.

Yet you admitted that some posters here could be having genuine conversations w/ invisible entities: spirit guides and such.

Or are you gonna renege on that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That there was a real Adam, actually the first man, is verified in the genealogy of Jesus at Luke 3.

This should suffice, for Christians.

The account is not allegorical.

The Apostle Paul spoke of Adam in his writings.