Flood Evidences — revised

[TagliatelliMonster]

You keep forgetting that they have to support naturalism, in every facet of evolution, despite the evidence.

No. They "have to" support their claims with evidence. "Evidence" is the have-to, here. The must -have.

Sounds like you are just complaining that all evidence ever only support naturalistic models and never the supernatural ones that you happen to like.

Well, tough luck.


Ironically also.... it's actually the "creationist journals" that require people to commit a priori to answers before even asking the questions. They require you to sign a "statement of faith" in which you pretty much have to commit a priori to creationist drivel and then publish about that.

No science organization or university or journal makes your sign a "statement of faith" that requires you to commit a priori to evolution or any other scientific model.

Instead, they only require you to be honest, not forge your results, have full disclosure of your data and methods, and play by the rules in general.

So.... if you are so against making people commit to any particular model a priori, then you should be against pretty much any creationist organization out there.

No matter how much complexity is discovered, some process attributed to evolution will always be the cause.

Complexity is exactly what models like evolution explain.

But what you seem unwilling to recognize, is there are no “answers”…. it’s always “it must have happened this way…”, or “it’s likely that…”. (I’m speaking of the arrival of complex features.) That’s in the realm of philosophy, and guesswork.

Again, that's an extreme misrepresentation of a body of work of over 300.000 science papers culminating in a period of over 2 centuries, done by thousands of scientists all around the world.

This is yet again pure denialism.

As far as “finding evidence “… it is really all around us.

Point out your best piece of evidence and explain how it's evidence for your beliefs.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

And just how much of the land & muck, from Siberia & Alaska, has been dug up? Based on the frequency of how often animals have been found, the number is extrapolated.
Over the past years, ships have already dredged up from the Bering and North Seas, tons and tons of Mammoth tusks, alone.

So what? This still doesn't support your flood idea, because none of the rest of the information matches up. It's amazing to me that you point to this and go "It seems like they all froze in seconds and that matches the flood story!" What? You are just basically reaching so far on this one as to pull your arms out of your sockets. I'm surprised you can type at this point, but I guess your ego keeps them in place since you have the audacity to use science so loosely to support completely unsupported conclusions and then ignore things like Carbon dating. Also...an article from 1990? Really? You do know it's 2021 right? That was 31 years ago and yes the field has progressed and shown accuracy within 1% of items in which the dates are known. So basically you'll use science when convenient, but ignore it when inconvenient. Typical.

Of course they exist! That’s part of the evidence...especially from those cultures that existed or are existing in dry, arid environments, and without contact or influence from River-based cultures. “Plagiarized”? But the Biblical account just happened to include an Ark vessel w/ just the right ratios. Yeah, right.
And you didn’t comment on the tests performed on the Ark’s hull ratios, by the South Korean-based KRISO, spearheaded by Dr. Seok Won Hong

You mean besides my direct reply saying "So what? All it indicates is that the dimensions of the craft, with the animals would have floated...not that it did happen, or that it would float for a year or would stay seaworthy for that long without falling apart. For proof, I reference the largest wooden ship ever built by professional ship builders, the Wyoming. It was not as long or as wide as the Ark (only 350x50), used modern materials like metal cross brackets, bolts, modern techniques by the best ship builders in the world at the time...and it still suffered from tremendous troubles and constantly leaked, had a mechanical water pump on board constantly running to keep it dry, but eventually sank killing all hands on board. According to the bible the Ark used "Gopher wood", "Pitch" and wooden nails. To say it would last a year, under tremendous weight and with waves pounding it, with no water pumps on board is wishful thinking at best." But I'll add to this that the dimensions aren't impressive at all if you look at the history of ship building especially in Mesopotamia during that period, in which they build large barges for trading animals Ships and shipbuilding in Mesopotamia (ca. 3000-2000 B.C.), so someone taking the measurements of these barges and then just increasing the size using simple math....come on man...it's not that difficult. The Epic of Gilgamesh written around 2100 BC, actually had far more detailed mathematical dimensions than what is in the bible. Either way, my points still stand, saying "This boat has the right dimensions to float", doesn't mean it did, or that it could withstand waves and storms for a year in open water. So are you going to keep pretending I didn't address this point?

Certain ranges, are...extremely! The Rockies, Andes, and others.
Not all, though; some are very old....Myo. Byo even. All don’t need to be. Just one , and it actually seems there are several.
We might as well include the lack of erosion the seems to be missing from the Grand Canyon. Where did the Colorado River put it? Very little is found, where there should actually be 4.17 trillion meters of sediments, deposited nearby.
Don’t present another strawman, I beg ya! I’m not saying the GC strata was laid down by the Flood. (I’m not a YEC.) But the Flood cut through them!

I don't even know how to respond to this since I didn't even talk about the GC. So once again you are accusing me of a strawman that wasn't even in my post at all. You sure you're responding to the right person? Either way, I can't respond to nonsense. The erosion in the GC and mountains and the CR are exactly as geologists expect and the only outliers are a minority opinion that work at the ICR or Answers in Genesis who get paid to say that "The earth is young" and unfortunately are dishonest and irrelevant non-practicing former scientists who basically all have failed careers. ICR and AIG are where scientists who can't make it go to make a dollar. It's sad.

The author of the page, states (about the Chinese character 8, included in denoting the ship Chinese character): “I have my own hypothesis...”
Of course.

Fine, instead of a rebuttal from someone writing an opinion, here's the Etymology of the character 船 - Wiktionary Read it for yourself....spoiler alert...it does not support the translation the creationists say it does.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are just basically reaching so far on this one as to pull your arms out of your sockets

No, I’m combining it with all the other evidences..

Regarding ships (I’m really getting tired of repeating myself but it is thought provoking), the 30:5:3 ratio is what is stated. And it has proven seaworthy in other modern ships. Google “S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien”, or “Great Britain” built by I.K.Brunnel.

Since such knowledge back then was unknown (the ark ratio in Gilgamesh was 9:9:12!), how did Moses know 30:5:3 is ideal?
It’s a valid question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I’m combining it with all the other evidences..

Regarding ships (I’m really getting tired of repeating myself but it is thought provoking), the 30:5:3 ratio is what is stated. And it has proven seaworthy in other modern ships. Google “S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien”, or “Great Britain” built by I.K.Brunnel.

Since such knowledge back then was unknown (the ark ratio in Gilgamesh was 9:9:12!), how did Moses know 30:5:3 is ideal?
It’s a valid question.

Moses is only claimed as the author and not as a ship designer. There could be many reasons that the dimension ratio came to be as it is. Most of those reasons have nothing to do with there being an actual ark. Maybe the people that adapted the older story updated it with more recent knowledge of ship design for the Genesis version.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Fine, instead of a rebuttal from someone writing an opinion, here's the Etymology of the character 船 - Wiktionary

I read it. And edited it for syntax, too.

Read it for yourself....spoiler alert...it does not support the translation the creationists say it does.

it doesn’t seem to support anything.

It does support the fact that the Proto Sino (Chinese) language evolved.

Which is quite prevalent in philology.

And?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Moses is only claimed as the author and not as a ship designer.

No, God is claimed as the Author.

Maybe the people that adapted the older story updated it with more recent knowledge of ship design for the Genesis version.

If that’s the case, then really, there’s nothing in the Scriptures we can trust.

Fortunately, like Sir Newton, I’ve only found interpretations to make the Scriptures seem profane, not the Scriptures themselves.

Do you think the ancient Jews were deceptive?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, God is claimed as the Author.

Men are the authors. Inspiration does not mean dictation.

If that’s the case, then really, there’s nothing in the Scriptures we can trust.

Fortunately, like Sir Newton, I’ve only found interpretations to make the Scriptures seem profane, not the Scriptures themselves.

Do you think the ancient Jews were deceptive?

Mistakes happen. People embellish. Translations errors. And so on.

You are wrong. This does not mean that there is nothing in the scriptures that can be trusted. There is no loss to God or man from interpreting Genesis as allegory.

Demanding that it all be taken literally is an impossibility and borders on man usurping the role of God. The same is true of pretending to understand it completely and without flaw.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

Read it. And edited it for syntax, too.



it doesn’t seem to support anything.

It does support the fact that the Proto Sino (Chinese) language evolved.

Which is quite prevalent in philology.

And?

And we're done here...because you obviously didn't read it, the point was that the direct translation of 8 people in a boat, isn't supported by the Etymology, but I'm wasting my time with you, because you don't acknowledge anything, even when provided direct evidence contrary to your points. You aren't an honest person...you severely lack integrity in favor of your beliefs. Arrogance and ignorance go together like flies and honey and you are chock full of it. So I will waste no more time on you.

 

[Wandering Monk]

And we're done here...because you obviously didn't read it, the point was that the direct translation of 8 people in a boat, isn't supported by the Etymology, but I'm wasting my time with you, because you don't acknowledge anything, even when provided direct evidence contrary to your points. You aren't an honest person...you severely lack integrity in favor of your beliefs. Arrogance and ignorance go together like flies and honey and you are chock full of it. So I will waste no more time on you.

And he will claim victory anyway.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

an article from 1990 [on C14 dating]? Really? You do know it's 2021 right?

Yeah I noticed that too.
Alright….
Here’s one from last year, recognizing a problem with accuracy.

You know nothing about me. So don’t impugn my character.

Obviously, you don’t like the evidences I presented, and the interpretations that I think explain them. I can’t help that.

But don’t lash out at me. I just report the news.

I’ve got something I’m going to repost, you may have missed it.

But don’t resort to ad Homs.
That just serves to weaken the argument of the person engaging in it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And he will claim victory anyway.

Nope.
This isn’t a contest. Not for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah I noticed that too.
Alright….
Here’s one from last year, recognizing a problem with accuracy.

You know nothing about me. So don’t impugn my character.

Obviously, you don’t like the evidences I presented, and the interpretations that I think explain them. I can’t help that.

But don’t lash out at me. I just report the news.

I’ve got something I’m going to repost, you may have missed it.

But don’t resort to ad Homs.
That just serves to weaken the argument of the person engaging in it.

You forgot your link. I hope you found a proper source.

Without seeing it I am betting that it explains conditions when you cannot use carbon dating and why. If one uses a screwdriver as a hammer that does not mean that screwdrivers do not work.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Men are the authors. Inspiration does not mean dictation.

No it doesn’t of necessity mean that, but It certainly could include dictation!
Isaiah 55:11.
Isn’t it called the Word of God?

You stated: “Mistakes happen. People embellish. Translation errors. And so on.”

I’m glad you recognize the original manuscripts as inspired.
But really, if Jehovah made the effort to inspire it, it isn’t logical to conclude that He wouldn’t protect it from excessive contamination or ensure its survival.

In examining copies over 2000 years apart (per DDS), we find remarkable harmony. Which is what we should expect from genuinely inspired texts.

Take care, cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@People_Lack_Integrity , here is a copy of post #107 in the thread, “How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s Flood”.


Here’s some more evidence supporting the Flood….

I link an article which includes an excerpt of a fascinating book!

In part, the article’s author says:
“I read about a strange connection between Halloween and the global flood mentioned in the Genesis account. It made me wonder… if the global flood has some link to a practice people are still doing.

In his book “ The Worship of the Dead,” Colonel John Garnier wrote, “The mythologies of all the ancient nations are interwoven with the events of the Deluge ... the force of this argument is illustrated by the fact of the observance of a great festival of the dead in commemoration of the event, not only by nations more or less in communication with each other, but by others so widely separated, both by the ocean and by centuries of time. This festival is, moreover, held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the deluge took place, the seventeenth day of the second month — the month nearly corresponding with our November.” “

(Source: WRIGHT WAY: The Great Halloween Trick? )

I can provide more of John Garnier’s discovered revelations, taken from leading anthropologists and archaeologists of his day... I have the book.

Taken in combination with all the other evidences, the sum total is too much to arbitrarily conclude they are mere coincidences!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesn’t of necessity mean that, but It certainly could include dictation!
Isaiah 55:11.
Isn’t it called the Word of God?

You stated: “Mistakes happen. People embellish. Translation errors. And so on.”

I’m glad you recognize the original manuscripts as inspired.
But really, if Jehovah made the effort to inspire it, it isn’t logical to conclude that He wouldn’t protect it from excessive contamination or ensure its survival.

In examining copies over 2000 years apart (per DDS), we find remarkable harmony. Which is what we should expect from genuinely inspired texts.

Take care, cousin.

So we can agree, obviously with all of its errors, self contradictions, bad morals, etc. the Bible is clearly not inspired by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@People_Lack_Integrity , here is a copy of post #107 in the thread, “How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s Flood”.


Here’s some more evidence supporting the Flood….

I link an article which includes an excerpt of a fascinating book!

In part, the article’s author says:
“I read about a strange connection between Halloween and the global flood mentioned in the Genesis account. It made me wonder… if the global flood has some link to a practice people are still doing.

In his book “ The Worship of the Dead,” Colonel John Garnier wrote, “The mythologies of all the ancient nations are interwoven with the events of the Deluge ... the force of this argument is illustrated by the fact of the observance of a great festival of the dead in commemoration of the event, not only by nations more or less in communication with each other, but by others so widely separated, both by the ocean and by centuries of time. This festival is, moreover, held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the deluge took place, the seventeenth day of the second month — the month nearly corresponding with our November.” “

(Source: WRIGHT WAY: The Great Halloween Trick? )

I can provide more of John Garnier’s discovered revelations, taken from leading anthropologists and archaeologists of his day... I have the book.

Taken in combination with all the other evidences, the sum total is too much to arbitrarily conclude they are mere coincidences!

Mythology is not evidence for a flood. The problem is that first you never come up with a proper model for the Flood. That alone means that you do not technically have any evidence and it absolutely means that you do not have any scientific evidence. In the world of science one first needs a testable model,a hypothesis, without a model you have nothing to test and no evidence as a result.

By the way this brings us to another gross error of yours. Quite often you falsely accuse others of "strawman" arguments when they refute your beliefs. There cannot be a strawman if you refuse to come up with a proper model. People are forced to substitute reality instead, and reality refutes the Flood myth easily.

Okay, back to your error about mythology being evidence for the flood. Even informally it fails because there is a better explanation. Do you know what it is?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No it doesn’t of necessity mean that, but It certainly could include dictation!
Isaiah 55:11.
Isn’t it called the Word of God?

You stated: “Mistakes happen. People embellish. Translation errors. And so on.”

I’m glad you recognize the original manuscripts as inspired.
But really, if Jehovah made the effort to inspire it, it isn’t logical to conclude that He wouldn’t protect it from excessive contamination or ensure its survival.

In examining copies over 2000 years apart (per DDS), we find remarkable harmony. Which is what we should expect from genuinely inspired texts.

Take care, cousin.

The Word of God does not mean that what is written was literal. Christ used parables. People write from a perspective they understand. So declaring it the Word of God is not the end of the matter.

What God allows is God's decision and not mine to declare for Him.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Mythology is not evidence for a flood.

Okay, back to your error about mythology being evidence for the flood

I assume you are responding to the “worship of the dead” festivals that are found throughout the World…What you’re calling mythologies are facts, verified by many different archaeologists and anthropologists.
The point though was, not that they exist (which would only verify or support the idea, that cultures honor their dead), but that these festivals are held at the same time of the year that the Bible reveals the Flood occurred!!

The problem is that first you never come up with a proper model for the Flood.

If it’s only through testable models & the ability to falsify theories, that an explanation of evidence can be allowed, no judicial system could work….no courts’ judgement of any evidence would ever be accepted!

But fortunately, there is testable evidence for the design of the Ark….

Since your bias won’t allow you to accept the 1993 scientific analysis of the Director of the Daejeon, South Korean-based KRISO, Dr. Seok Won Hong’s, after the experiments of the Biblical Ark’s hull (released in the study entitled “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway”,
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je) [BTW, in May ‘05, Dr. S.W. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI, formerly KRISO]….

we have this scientific study….
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

You can’t do this w/ the Gilgamesh Ark / box!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assume you are responding to the “worship of the dead” festivals that are found throughout the World…What you’re calling mythologies are facts, verified by many different archaeologists and anthropologists.
The point though was, not that they exist (which would only verify or support the idea, that cultures honor their dead), but that these festivals are held at the same time of the year that the Bible reveals the Flood occurred!!

No, you appear to be confused. Archaeologists have only confirmed the existence of local floods. Some of them sizable. They have never confirmed the mythical flood of Noah. And what "festivals" are you talking about? Now it appear s that you are claiming some new nonsense. Remember, you need to find valid sources when making claims. Creationist sources do not cut it.

If it’s only through testable models & the ability to falsify theories, that an explanation of evidence can be allowed, no judicial system could work….no courts’ judgement of any evidence would ever be accepted!

Nope. even in trials one's ideas need to be testable. You probably do not understand how they would be tested. And in science matters it is an absolute. All that you have so far is handwaving and no testable model. That means that you really cannot properly claim that people use a strawman when they refute your nonsense since you refuse to provide a proper model.

But fortunately, there is testable evidence for the design of the Ark….

Since your bias won’t allow you to accept the 1993 scientific analysis of the Director of the Daejeon, South Korean-based KRISO, Dr. Seok Won Hong’s, after the experiments of the Biblical Ark’s hull (released in the study entitled “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway”,
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je) [BTW, in May ‘05, Dr. S.W. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI, formerly KRISO]….

we have this scientific study….
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

You can’t do this w/ the Gilgamesh Ark / box!!

LOL Your first example can and has been refuted through genetics. . And watch the false accusations. That is against the rules of the forums. It is not my supposed bias that causes me not to accept it. It is the fact that it is not a peer reviewed article from a well respected professional journal. When I checked that out in the past it was a bogus article commissioned by Ken Ham. That made it worthless. To be of any value it needs to pass real peer review.

Your first example is refuted by one word "Cheetahs". Do you understand why?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Subduction Zone ,
You may be correct about that study overseen by Dr. Seok Won Hong(?), or Dr. Seon Won Hong(?).
I really don’t know….I can’t seem to verify the study, independent of a religious source. I found the link to it, and the content, copied numerous times though…which means nothing.

I can understand why it would be suppressed!

But I do know you didn’t acknowledge my second link, about the study performed at University of Leicester. Why?

You think I falsely accused you of something, but did I?
Your omission of the U of L study seems to support my statement.

Regarding the Cheetah’s, do we understand everything about DNA? Or bottlenecks for that matter?