Flood Evidences — revised

[Dan From Smithville]

No, and you didn’t propose one..the, uh, “standard explanation.”

Lol. Yeah, the record is there….on me answering respectful questions. I don’t respond to questions expressing belittlement, derision or contempt.

i will, however, discuss it with you in an amicable atmosphere…But I doubt that will happen.

How is it that you can claim that your evidence fails to be explained by any other reason than the biblical flood and not know the accepted explanations of science?

Do you not understand or just don't care?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Me too.

You have no reason to be disappointed that I can determine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you know that? Maybe the majority of the water came from underground. We aren’t given the percentages. What we do know is that the rain was spread over 40 days, and with the atmosphere drastically cooling, this leads to the conclusion that such energy was absorbed and dissipated.

It is really a moot point to discuss, the Flood being in God’s control.

But the evidence is there. (Interesting that you don’t answer my questions concerning the origin of the Permafrost and propose an alternate explanation of its creation… and how the megafauna remains are within it.)

If it is a moot point, then why are you here persistently showing us that you do not think it is a moot point?

That is rich coming from the person that has so far avoided answering anyone's questions. I haven't made any claims about the origin of the permafrost or its contents and haven't got a burden to provide one. Even if I did, I haven't seen anything to provide an alternative explanation for. You refuse to provide your explanation, you just abandoned your claims and then went to it is magic anyway.

I don't see much point in continuing this. My conclusion is that you don't really understand what it is you are claiming and are just repeating a claim you found somewhere. I could be wrong, but you won't ever show us that I am.

I remain disappointed in how this turned out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it is a moot point, then why are you here persistently showing us that you do not think it is a moot point?

That is rich coming from the person that has so far avoided answering anyone's questions. I haven't made any claims about the origin of the permafrost or its contents and haven't got a burden to provide one. Even if I did, I haven't seen anything to provide an alternative explanation for. You refuse to provide your explanation, you just abandoned your claims and then went to it is magic anyway.

I don't see much point in continuing this. My conclusion is that you don't really understand what it is you are claiming and are just repeating a claim you found somewhere. I could be wrong, but you won't ever show us that I am.

I remain disappointed in how this turned out.

When a person puts someone on ignore because they repeatedly refute their claims it is never a good sign.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When a person puts someone on ignore because they repeatedly refute their claims it is never a good sign.

Oh, I am right there in agreement with you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When a person puts someone on ignore because they repeatedly refute their claims it is never a good sign.

I don’t have you “on” ignore, lol. I just ignore you, as I do those who persist in making disparaging comments.

@Dan From Smithville is not purposely belittling in our discussions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If it is a moot point, then why are you here persistently showing us that you do not think it is a moot point?

That is rich coming from the person that has so far avoided answering anyone's questions. I haven't made any claims about the origin of the permafrost or its contents and haven't got a burden to provide one. Even if I did, I haven't seen anything to provide an alternative explanation for. You refuse to provide your explanation, you just abandoned your claims and then went to it is magic anyway.

I don't see much point in continuing this. My conclusion is that you don't really understand what it is you are claiming and are just repeating a claim you found somewhere. I could be wrong, but you won't ever show us that I am.

I remain disappointed in how this turned out.

OK, Dan.
What do you think would happen to the higher-latitude ground when it flooded from waters falling down and waters rising from below, and saturated it?

And I also stated that the “waters above”, formed a canopy enveloping Earth’s entire atmosphere; staying intact, it would form what? It would create somewhat of a greenhouse effect. If it was suddenly ruptured, what would happen in the higher latitudes? That falling water, as ice crystals, would be devastating, and the surrounding air temperature would abruptly chill, to put it mildly!

But the waters from the underground springs, as stated in the account, as it came in contact with the abruptly-cooling atmosphere, would engulf any life on the surface and freeze it.
There would probably be instantly-formed microclimates everywhere, with extreme weather phenomena including eddies and vacuums occurring worldwide.

It was a catastrophic event, for heavens sake! We see the after effects.

If you don’t agree, propose a different scenario. One that explains the Permafrost & the carcasses. Some areas of the Permafrost, btw, are as deep as 1000 m in parts of Siberia. With many animal remains within it...not on top of it. Which requires an explanation. (Those near the top, have been scavenged at times, during warmer periods.)

EDIT: I’ve been researching how a vapor / ice / water canopy, prior to the Flood, would hold up under foreign objects such as asteroids entering and penetrating the atmosphere . Especially one like the Dino-killer of 65 myo. I’ll see what I can find.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, and you didn’t propose one..the, uh, “standard explanation.”

Well it's not that complicated. The permafrost is just water on or under the earth's surface that is frozen for two years or more. It exists in places like the tundra because those areas are cold enough to keep the water frozen.

I trust I don't have to walk you through the reasons why those areas are cold?

Lol. Yeah, the record is there….on me answering respectful questions. I don’t respond to questions expressing belittlement, derision or contempt.

That excuse doesn't fly here. When you claimed the flood was a better explanation for the existence of permafrost and the preserved organisms in it, I simply said that you'd piqued my curiosity and asked you to walk me through the processes.

i will, however, discuss it with you in an amicable atmosphere…But I doubt that will happen.

I see you've posted a brief description to Dan, which is a start. Do you want to go through some of the specifics of that scenario, or is this going to be yet another case where whenever you can't explain something you'll just say God did that part and call it good?

 

[Jose Fly]

I know it is the same pattern over and over, but I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could think it is production and unnoticed. Having been spoiled by actual science discussions and meetings, I suppose I expect better.

Yup, and from what I can tell, the creationists here are just as baffled by science.

It really does seem to be a case of two very different ways of thinking.

 

[Sheldon]

So, the existing Permafrost and the remains of megafauna within it…. Next to the Flood stories in so many diverse cultures, in scope it is probably the largest piece of evidence for the Flood.
And while the prolific Flood legends are attributed to coincidences (same with the ‘Day of the Dead’ festivals), no one attempts to propose a feasible explanation for one of the biggest evidences of all … the Permafrost and its features.
But yet, I don’t answer questions.

The geological evidence proves irrefutably that no global flood ever occurred.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well it's not that complicated. The permafrost is just water on or under the earth's surface that is frozen for two years or more. It exists in places like the tundra because those areas are cold enough to keep the water frozen.

Oh. my. goodness! Grief!
I didn’t ask *what* the Permafrost was, did I?
I asked how it began, and why are those animals found within it?
And exactly how did it get to be 1000m deep in places?


It must have happened suddenly, to have so many well-preserved specimens being discovered!

I trust I don't have to walk you through the reasons why those areas are cold?

You “trust” you don’t have to explain why it’s cold in “those areas”?
You just couldn’t help yourself, could you?

That excuse doesn't fly here.

See above.

When you claimed the flood was a better explanation for the existence of permafrost and the preserved organisms in it, I simply said that you'd piqued my curiosity and asked you to walk me through the processes.

No, you’ve been snide with me quite a few times. Sad, really.

Do you want to go through some of the specifics of that scenario, or is this going to be yet another case where whenever you can't explain something you'll just say God did that part and call it good?

Is it not recorded as a divine event, in Scripture?
So what should be expected?

That’s why I point out the evidences we can see of its aftermath.

The geological evidence proves irrefutably that no global flood ever occurred.

Like what geologic evidence, exactly?
(And please, no YEC stuff.)

 

[Sheldon]

I don’t have you “on” ignore, lol. I just ignore you, as I do those who persist in making disparaging comments.

The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My father was into genealogy and tracing family history. As a kid, we would go to cemeteries looking for the graves of our "ancient" ancestors. I remember looking at some of the larger cemeteries and with my child logic, wondering how all those people died so suddenly and at the same time.

But they didn't. It just looks that way on the surface to the untrained or willful eye. As I got older and gained more information, my childish misunderstanding was washed away. The stones have dates on them. Evidence that all those people buried there did not die at the same time.

I still like cemeteries and lament that there are no intellectual versions where unsupported claims can go when they die.

 

[metis]

I still like cemeteries

Yep, and I'm just dying to go there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, and I'm just dying to go there.

Very popular destination "tourism".

 

[Sheldon]

I still like cemeteries and lament that there are no intellectual versions where unsupported claims can go when they die.

Brilliant, kudos for that, I shall plagiarise this shamelessly.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.

So….you’ve got nothing, outside of debunking YEC.

Got it.

 

[ppp]

So….you’ve got nothing, outside of debunking YEC.

Got it.

Not enough water. End of story,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.
The geological evidence proves no global flood ever occurred.

I'm not sure why that would be perceived as only debunking a young Earth version and not all versions of the flood. No evidence is no evidence regardless of how old you think the Earth is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure why that would be perceived as only debunking a young Earth version and not all versions of the flood. No evidence is no evidence regardless of how old you think the Earth is.

The flood does make predictions, even if Flood believers are too cowardly to develop a properly there are ways that we can test those beliefs. But since they refuse to properly define their flood there are some questions I will ask before I debunk it.