Flood Evidences — revised

[Audie]

“A few thousand years old”? Nope. If you’d read the post, you would have read where I said ‘the rocks are old.’ Or similar.

One more time (hope it’s the last): I’m not a YEC.
Grief!

Nonyecism doesn't salvage the baloney about
erosion rate and effect that you trotted out again.

 

[shunyadragon]

What bounty is to be had from barren desert hills?
Could be that only bounty- hills is made of permanite

The hils of Palestine are where the Hebrews raised their sheep and goats.

 

[Jose Fly]

So it's apparent that @Hockeycowboy isn't going to walk us through the process by which a global flood results in well preserved frozen animal remains in the tundra.

Again I chalk this up to the differences between religious and scientific environments. In religious settings, you can make declarations and there won't be much expectation for you to support them. A preacher could stand up and declare that these specimens were the result of the flood and everyone would just nod and agree.

Conversely, in scientific settings the expectation is that all declarations must be supported, and if they're not they will be rejected and/or ignored. If a scientist declared at a conference that these specimens were the result of a global flood, they would get inundated with questions and demands for evidentiary support.

Two entirely different worlds....

 

[Audie]

The hils of Palestine are where the Hebrews raised their sheep and goats.

News of the obvious.
And unresponsive.

 

[shunyadragon]

News of the obvious.
And unresponsive.

It was the backbone of the early Hebrew pastoral society.

 

[Sheldon]

No, not all. Some are very old, no doubt existing millions of years before the Flood. From observation, it’s obvious: either very rounded due to weathering and other forces, such as the Smokey’s, or extremely eroded, like a few of the Argentine Andies. They look very different (much older), though, from the majority of the Rockies or Himalayas.

 

[Sheldon]

One more time (hope it’s the last): I’m not a YEC.
Grief!

No, not all. Some are very old, no doubt existing millions of years before the Flood.

So firstly there was no global flood, this is a geological fact, secondly when is it you're claiming this mythical flood occurred? Only the Barberton Greenstone Belt is the oldest and it's a bit more than millions of years older than a mythical biblical flood, try 3.6 Billion Years.

 

[Sheldon]

Wait a second. didn't you earlier try to claim that the mountain ranges formed during the flood?

By the way, why is there zero, nada, zilch, bupkis when it comes to geological evidence for the Flood? It would have left massive evidence behind.

Very good point, since a global flood would have left the same geological evidence in the same geological strata - globally.

Guess what, that's right it hasn't...thank you for playing stupid myths from archaic superstitions, you have won tonight's star prise, a bible - signed by Jesus Mary and Joseph, but wait, that's not all, you also get a scale model of Noah's ark, complete with all the million of animals it couldn't possibly have housed, let alone the food, and the environmental requirements, but not to worry, because we are throwing in a year's subscription to creationist monthly, which will explain it all away, and wait for it, a real scale model of the Holy Grail, filled to the brim with faith, an infallible defence against all those pesky facts and all that atheistic science.

 

[Audie]

It was the backbone of the early Hebrew pastoral society.

Whatevs

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very good point, since a global flood would have left the same geological evidence in the same geological strata - globally.

Guess what, that's right it hasn't...thank you for playing stupid myths from archaic superstitions, you have won tonight's star prise, a bible - signed by Jesus Mary and Joseph, but wait, that's not all, you also get a scale model of Noah's ark, complete with all the million of animals it couldn't possibly have housed, let alone the food, and the environmental requirements, but not to worry, because we are throwing in a year's subscription to creationist monthly, which will explain it all away, and wait for it, a real scale model of the Holy Grail, filled to the brim with faith, an infallible defence against all those pesky facts and all that atheistic science.

I used to constantly debunk the nonsense of @Hockeycowboy . He would make completely unsupported claims such as "the Rockies don't look old" as if he knows how they should look after millions of years. I think he finally did it when I pointed out that mountains are products of erosion. Without massive erosion there would only be a very high plane. For example the Himalayas are not only millions of years old, they are still growing today. They are still being formed by a combination of uplift and erosion.

And if you want to see what an old mountain range looks like look at the Urals or the Appalachians. Lower relief. Much more rounded than the Rockies. and a HUGE amount of material removed.

And then there is this pictures which shows that the erosion could not be from a fairy tale flood with a magic boat:

And of course some strata tell us that they are millions of years old for just that one strata. A good example is the Green River Formation. It was formed in a lake with annual varve layers:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

And why not one more. The Castile Formation in Texas has varves too. But in those the lake dried out each year and layers of evaporites formed. This formation is much shorter. It does not have the seven million annual layers or so of the Green River Formation. It has on the order of only 100,000. But still he has quite the project to explain how Noah's Flood dried up and reflooded 100,000 times.

Evapor-art from the Permian Castile Formation, west Texas

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I used to constantly debunk the nonsense of @Hockeycowboy . He would make completely unsupported claims such as "the Rockies don't look old" as if he knows how they should look after millions of years. I think he finally did it when I pointed out that mountains are products of erosion. Without massive erosion there would only be a very high plane. For example the Himalayas are not only millions of years old, they are still growing today. They are still being formed by a combination of uplift and erosion.

And if you want to see what an old mountain range looks like look at the Urals or the Appalachians. Lower relief. Much more rounded than the Rockies. and a HUGE amount of material removed.

And then there is this pictures which shows that the erosion could not be from a fairy tale flood with a magic boat:

And of course some strata tell us that they are millions of years old for just that one strata. A good example is the Green River Formation. It was formed in a lake with annual varve layers:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

And why not one more. The Castile Formation in Texas has varves too. But in those the lake dried out each year and layers of evaporites formed. This formation is much shorter. It does not have the seven million annual layers or so of the Green River Formation. It has on the order of only 100,000. But still he has quite the project to explain how Noah's Flood dried up and reflooded 100,000 times.

Evapor-art from the Permian Castile Formation, west Texas

The Ozark mountains are what very, very, very old mountains looks like.

That is an interesting observation about the varves. Glad you mentioned it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So it's apparent that @Hockeycowboy isn't going to walk us through the process by which a global flood results in well preserved frozen animal remains in the tundra.

Again I chalk this up to the differences between religious and scientific environments. In religious settings, you can make declarations and there won't be much expectation for you to support them. A preacher could stand up and declare that these specimens were the result of the flood and everyone would just nod and agree.

Conversely, in scientific settings the expectation is that all declarations must be supported, and if they're not they will be rejected and/or ignored. If a scientist declared at a conference that these specimens were the result of a global flood, they would get inundated with questions and demands for evidentiary support.

Two entirely different worlds....

Do you think the energy released by such a tremendous downpour along with the increased pressure heats the animals to the point that bacteria are killed off and the tissue becomes fixed due to chemical products in this warm gooey pond of a global ocean? I'm thinking here. Perhaps when all the extra water was ejaculated into space so that the flood would abate, it took with it some vital elements that are associated with normal decomposition? And voila, perfectly preserved specimens. Or at least the claim that they are. I saw some pictures of reasonably well preserved looking varmints, but I couldn't tell what they were. So not perfect.

I cannot imagine anything plausible that could be offered to support the claims I have seen, but I am an open-minded and optimistic skeptic. Maybe there is something plausible that has been missed. I'm not that optimistic though.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic advice.

I'm a human my life is important as the human.

I see it rain. I see it non stop rain and flood.

I know as a human on earth it floods. I have to see flooding to say now yes it does flood.

If I look at held water mass I can say seems like it sure rained a lot. And not be told I'm lying.

As it's not lying.

And I have also to be a human to say to another human look it floods or look it is flooding. No one else is saying it.

Therefore if I say I can look and know instant snap freeze isnt water. Then I can say seems like water can snap freeze.

We know snap freeze happens inside of a heavens. Therefore a human says that advice is a warning.

 

[KWED]

No, not all. Some are very old, no doubt existing millions of years before the Flood. From observation, it’s obvious: either very rounded due to weathering and other forces, such as the Smokey’s, or extremely eroded, like a few of the Argentine Andies. They look very different (much older), though, from the majority of the Rockies or Himalayas.

OK. So there were mountains on which people could take refuge at the time of the flood. Therefore the flood had to be deep enough to cover them. Such a flood categorically did not happen.
Simply claiming that the water appeared and disappeared by magic without leaving any evidence is the same as admitting it never happened.

 

[KWED]

“A few thousand years old”? Nope. If you’d read the post, you would have read where I said ‘the rocks are old.’ Or similar.

One more time (hope it’s the last): I’m not a YEC.
Grief!

Never claimed you were. You seemed to be claiming that the high on which people and animals could have taken refuge did not exist at the time of the flood, which was no more than a few thousand years ago, according to the Biblical narrative.
However, you have just admitted that such high ground did exist, thus making the flood story incoherent.

 

[Audie]

Never claimed you were. You seemed to be claiming that the high on which people and animals could have taken refuge did not exist at the time of the flood, which was no more than a few thousand years ago, according to the Biblical narrative.
However, you have just admitted that such high ground did exist, thus making the flood story incoherent.

In the past when I pointed out some such
incoherence our hero would vanish.
Almost like a miracle, you might say.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Never claimed you were. You seemed to be claiming that the high on which people and animals could have taken refuge did not exist at the time of the flood, which was no more than a few thousand years ago, according to the Biblical narrative.
However, you have just admitted that such high ground did exist, thus making the flood story incoherent.

No, you misunderstand. There was no “high ground” as you put it. At least not very high. From the amount of water that we observe on the Earth now, there were probably no more higher elevations than 7500 ft. above the sea levels that existed then. (Just a guess, considering the volume of water that currently exists. Because if the Earth’s topography were completely leveled out — “smooth as a cue ball”, if you will — the waters we now have on Earth would cover the landmass to a depth of 2 1/2 miles
(And more water is constantly being discovered within the crust and mantle. That could have played a role, don’t know. I don’t need it, to support the model.)

But along with the formation of deeper “valleys”, there was an uplift of landmasses, both caused by the Flood as described in Psalms 104, and these mountains which obviously existed prior to the Flood due to their extreme weathering and erosion details, were just raised to higher elevations…which they did not have prior to the Flood.

So no, there’s no contradiction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you misunderstand. There was no “high ground” as you put it. At least not very high. From the amount of water that we observe on the Earth now, there were probably no more higher elevations than 7500 ft. above the sea levels that existed then. (Just a guess, considering the volume of water that currently exists. Because if the Earth’s topography were completely leveled out — “smooth as a cue ball”, if you will — the waters we now have on Earth would cover the landmass to a depth of 2 1/2 miles
(And more water is constantly being discovered within the crust and mantle. That could have played a role, don’t know. I don’t need it, to support the model.)

But along with the formation of deeper “valleys”, there was an uplift of landmasses, both caused by the Flood as described in Psalms 104, and these mountains which obviously existed prior to the Flood due to their extreme weathering and erosion details, were just raised to higher elevations…which they did not have prior to the Flood.

So no, there’s no contradiction.

This is all speculation with no evidence to support it and much that nullifies it.

You say you are not a YEC, yet you want everyone to believe that the world was some sort of static lowland for millions and billions of years and then suddenly, it all changed. Continental drift, mountain formation, canyon formation, and so on. And not any evidence for this nor an explanation of how anything would have survived such a vast and rapid release of incredible energy.

You don't have a model. You have speculation.

Any thought on how that Siberian critter carcass evidence is only explainable by a global flood? Could you elaborate on what perfect preservation is and how the examples being found fit what you mean by that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

disappeared by magic

“Water....disappeared by magic”? Nope. My previous response to you, post #957, answered this.

But now you’ve revealed a belittling closed-minded attitude.

So be it.
Take care.

And for the record, no one here has ever “debunked” any of the evidences I posted. Presenting counter-arguments is not debunking. In fact, the arguments given amount to “arguments of incredulity”. Was it not a Divinely-inspired event? Trying to explain it by natural means, then, will always be inadequate.

But we can observe, all over the Earth, it’s after effects…. the evidences it left behind. Discoveries from which geology and many other sciences can’t explain in depth. (Like most of the evidence in my OP and follow-up posts.)
But the Flood scenario perfectly explains, ie., “fits” them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Water....disappeared by magic”? Nope. My previous response to you, post #957, answered this.

But now you’ve revealed a belittling closed-minded attitude.

So be it.
Take care.

And for the record, no one here has ever “debunked” any of the evidences I posted. Presenting counter-arguments is not debunking. In fact, the arguments given amount to “arguments of incredulity”. Was it not a Divinely-inspired event? Trying to explain it by natural means, then, will always be inadequate.

But we can observe, all over the Earth, it’s after effects…. the evidences it left behind. Discoveries from which geology and many other sciences can’t explain in depth. (Like most of the evidence in my OP and follow-up posts.)
But the Flood scenario perfectly explains, ie., “fits” them.

Yes your arguments have been thoroughly debunked. You know this since you run away from the rebuttals. I predict it will happen again.

For example the 957 nonsense is rebutted by the fact that we can determine the age of mountains.

Here is your problem. You have no scientific evidence for your beliefs. That means the weakest argument that uses scientific evidence refutes them. Too bad that you refuse to even learn what qualifies as scientific evidence.