Flood Evidences — revised

[Jose Fly]

It has occurred to me that "God did it"--implying the supernatural nature of these claimed phenomena--pretty much takes skeptics off the hook for questioning the events. By their very nature, supernatural events would not leave natural evidence, so there is absence of malice on the part of skeptics for noting this lack of evidence and calling these events into question. It is an honest response to claims without evidence and honesty that creationists should recognize given the philosophical compulsion for the optimization of such honesty that many creationists claim forms the basis of their beliefs.

Good points. If the gods really did do it (whatever "it" is), then the event is firmly in the realm of "beliefs" and outside the purview of science. Yet creationists keep trying to have it both ways, arguing that "it" is scientifically valid while also invoking the gods whenever needed to cover for a lack of evidence (or existence of contrary data).

In my personal faith, I see God as allowing things to play out naturally so that there is observable evidence and we can learn and grow as His people and not deify a static position. Among the questions I ask myself are "Why would he give us intelligence and senses to observe reality or draw our own conclusions if He did not want us to use that capacity to come up with explanations?". Another is "Why would God expect His people, advancing their knowledge and understanding of the natural world, to maintain ancient views of the world that have diminishing application?".

That's very rational and thoughtful. Unfortunately, fundamentalists tend to not value those things and instead prefer faith and loyalty to that faith.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My post with the sci-fi content wasn't intended to be taken seriously. It was satire.

If a centimeter of rainfall releases approximately 320,000 kJ of energy per square kilometer, then that same rain over the entire 510 million square kilometer surface of the Earth would release 163,200,000,000,000 kJ of energy. And that is just a single centimeter of rain. Is your answer that this energy does nothing? Keeping in mind that even with the fountains of the deep (whatever those are) it isn't likely that 40 days and nights of rain would be a single centimeter of rain, that is a lot of energy being released. How do you explain how that much energy leads to freezing of the Siberian mammals. Again, how did the flood sort them out so that only animals from that region would be right where you would expect to find their remains? How come there are no kangaroos in that mess? No armadillos, tapirs, whitetail deer, etc.?

What is the mechanism that would cause freezing of those animals that is so obvious, it should be easy to see, understand and explain while clearly it is none of those things?

Oh my goodness.
You didn’t factor in the absorption of that energy from the waters below. And the extreme atmospheric temperature drop in higher latitudes (which would occur, due to Earth’s greenhouse’cover’ suddenly disappearing) no doubt played a factor. Some high-latitude cold areas certainly got colder….immediately!

The event has never been repeated, never will again, so what would actually occur is guesswork.
On top of that, since it was a supernatural event, we can only study the evidence that resulted.
And it’s there.

You have basically presented arguments from incredulity, in my book.

Good day, my friend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It depends on the amount of rain over what period of time. Got any estimates?

Unfortunately no… the Bible reveals no percentages between the waters that fell and the waters rising up from the underground springs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's fine as a religious belief, but removes it from the realm of science. So preach away that the flood happened, just don't try and argue that it's scientifically supported. Can't have it both ways.

My arguments are based on the evidences. Like the one you presented below

Um.....you're the one arguing that these "perfectly preserved specimens" were the result of the flood, so let's hear your explanation for how that is so.

I would add “specimens *found within the ice*” At least many of them.

And I’ve asked you (and others) to provide an alternate explanation. The evidence needs an explanation of how it got there.
The Flood fits.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You jut claimed that the water canopy meant the earth was much warmer than today - so how was there any permafrost.
Also, if the permafrost was "already there", anything frozen in the permafrost was there before the flood.

“IS already there”!! I didn’t say was! The evidence is already there! Grief, you should just stop.

 

[Jose Fly]

My arguments are based on the evidences.

Except when it's not, at which point you fall back on God doing things....which is exactly my point.

And I’ve asked you (and others) to provide an alternate explanation. The evidence needs an explanation of how it got there.
The Flood fits.

I'm going to take your repeated dodging as an indication that you have nothing except empty assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“IS already there”!! I didn’t say was! The evidence is already there! Grief, you should just stop.

But you only have an ad hoc explanation which means technically there is no evidence for it. But we all know why Flood believers will not follow the fairly easy to understand rules of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my goodness.
You didn’t factor in the absorption of that energy from the waters below. And the extreme atmospheric temperature drop in higher latitudes (which would occur, due to Earth’s greenhouse’cover’ suddenly disappearing) no doubt played a factor. Some high-latitude cold areas certainly got colder….immediately!

The event has never been repeated, never will again, so what would actually occur is guesswork.
On top of that, since it was a supernatural event, we can only study the evidence that resulted.
And it’s there.

You have basically presented arguments from incredulity, in my book.

Good day, my friend.

Then factor it in for me and show me the math.

An event that never happened can't be repeated.

Not at all. I'm not the one that lobs out claims and then never supports or explains them after everybody and their uncles ask him to.

Why is it that unearthed, Siberian mammal carcasses are only explained by a global flood and by no other explanation?

How on earth could an event that unleashes so much energy it would lead to the boiling of the waters, yet freezes instantly anyway according to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“IS already there”!! I didn’t say was! The evidence is already there! Grief, you should just stop.

What evidence and what is your explanation of that evidence that says flood and nothing else?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My arguments are based on the evidences. Like the one you presented below
I would add “specimens *found within the ice*” At least many of them.

And I’ve asked you (and others) to provide an alternate explanation. The evidence needs an explanation of how it got there.
The Flood fits.

We can't provide and alternative explanation, since you haven't offered any explanation of your own. You just said it was only evidence for a flood and left it at that.

How does the flood fit? You haven't demonstrated this freezing you claim. You haven't explained yourself to any degree I can determine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my goodness.
You didn’t factor in the absorption of that energy from the waters below. And the extreme atmospheric temperature drop in higher latitudes (which would occur, due to Earth’s greenhouse’cover’ suddenly disappearing) no doubt played a factor. Some high-latitude cold areas certainly got colder….immediately!

The event has never been repeated, never will again, so what would actually occur is guesswork.
On top of that, since it was a supernatural event, we can only study the evidence that resulted.
And it’s there.

You have basically presented arguments from incredulity, in my book.

Good day, my friend.

The transfer of that energy to the waters below is the whole point. It would have been a lot of energy and the waters below would have heated up beyond the capacity of the magical freezing process you claim but seem to find so difficult to explain and defend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except when it's not, at which point you fall back on God doing things....which is exactly my point.


I'm going to take your repeated dodging as an indication that you have nothing except empty assertion.

If I was claiming evidence for a global flood and it was only evidence for such a flood and couldn't be explained otherwise, I would identify the evidence, explain how it is evidence and how no other explanation addresses that evidence. I wouldn't ignore questions and take every effort to divert the conversation to something else. I wouldn't throw out layers of logical fallacies either.

Frankly, I am very disappointed. And I should be.

 

[rational experiences]

If water recedes it evaporates.

Or it flows into dips not previously a water holding.

It receded water is stopped.

Freezing first stop water. Yet ice in human life already existed if you talk God talk.

It's a human owned only subject.

Extinction was a huge earth heavens cosmic cause. Advice men said was water held by frozen in space.

Earth itself once was frozen. As it owned no alight atmosphere.

How else were gases kept to earth?

Space colder. Earth mass cooled.

Men's study says huge eruptions... indentations sink holes earth quakes plus star fall were involved.

Why would men quote they saw a huge water mass lift up off the earth?

The history of causes is why the exact same science practice caused a different earth outcome.

What scientists owned no thesis about it controlled what mass bodies changed.

Yet you try to make it a thesis is nonsense. It's not science said the bible. God meaning mass changed caused it. Isnt a human saying anything other than what a human witnessed.

Water released out of stone mass with earthquakes also causes mushy ground. That you cannot walk upon.

Cold blooded life responded differently in the freezing event. It was instant you knew it was. Being 0 zero is cosmic themes.

Space cold. No scientist owns.

Humans know ice can shift and suddenly fall in a desert with a snap freeze. So you know the iced poles can shift. Science is who preaches it as science is who causes it.

Volcanic breakthrough of old sealed tunnels would be the reason. You were told don't cause new sink holes disintegration of plates mass. Man's sin.

In human words. Brother theist scientist ....God the earth owned ice you didn't. So don't theory in your life. As after it had existed a man's warm blooded life lived. It's about its natural presence as no man is God advised.

It's not scientific in other words. It was causation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It would have been a lot of energy

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.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Frankly, I am very disappointed.

Me too.

 

[Jose Fly]

If I was claiming evidence for a global flood and it was only evidence for such a flood and couldn't be explained otherwise, I would identify the evidence, explain how it is evidence and how no other explanation addresses that evidence. I wouldn't ignore questions and take every effort to divert the conversation to something else. I wouldn't throw out layers of logical fallacies either.

Frankly, I am very disappointed. And I should be.

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but......it's the same pattern in every "discussion" with creationists. Creationists make claims and the rest of the "discussion" is people like us chasing them around, trying to get them to back up those claims while the creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

So I can't really say I'm disappointed. I've seen this play out far to many times to expect anything different. Maybe one day a creationist will surprise us all, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

You keep saying that, but dodge every request for you to explain how the existence of permafrost and animals frozen in it = global flood.

Do you understand the difference between saying something is so, and demonstrating it to be so?

no one attempts to propose a feasible explanation for one of the biggest evidences of all … the Permafrost and its features.

Seriously? You honestly have no idea what the standard explanation is for the existence of permafrost? None at all?

But yet, I don’t answer questions.

You don't. It's a matter of record, so as ol' Barbarian would say....no sense in denying it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Seriously? You honestly have no idea what the standard explanation is for the existence of permafrost? None at all?

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

”But yet, I don’t answer questions.” You don't. It's a matter of record, so as ol' Barbarian would say....no sense in denying it.

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but......it's the same pattern in every "discussion" with creationists. Creationists make claims and the rest of the "discussion" is people like us chasing them around, trying to get them to back up those claims while the creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

So I can't really say I'm disappointed. I've seen this play out far to many times to expect anything different. Maybe one day a creationist will surprise us all, but I'm not holding my breath.

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.