Flood Evidences — revised

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly! That “crank site” was the “feeble attempt” I was talking about!

That was your feeble attempt. Don't blame scientists for your sources. Try to find a reliable source.

But you have to admit, even that "feeble attempt" is better than your explanation. It does not take too much to refute a belief in magic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence is there!
What do you think the OP is all about?

complete refusal to look at the evidence objectively. So be it.

I don't question that there are carcasses being found in the permafrost, but I have been given no valid reason to consider that they are evidence for a global flood. They are of different ages. They are species that would be expected to be where they are found. Other reasons for their presence are being dismissed as if those reasons have been invalidated when they haven't been addressed.

You aren't looking at that evidence objectively. You are using a bias to twist it to fit a desired outcome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mystery of the Mammoth and the Buttercups | Geophysical Institute :


“In the early part of this century the famous Beresovka mammoth carcass was discovered in Siberia. Nearly intact, the animal was found buried in silty gravel sitting in the upright position. The mammoth had a broken foreleg, evidently caused by a fall from a nearby cliff 10,000 years ago. The remains of its stomach were intact and there were grasses and buttercups lodged between its teeth. The flesh was still edible, but reportedly not tasty.

No one has ever satisfactorily explained how the Beresovka mammoth and other animals found frozen in the subarctic could have been frozen before being consumed by predators of the time. Some have proposed a sudden change in climate, but this hardly seems a likely explanation. The scientist who uncovered the Beresovka mammoth conjectured that the animal fell into a snow-filled ravine that protected the body until it was perhaps covered by gravel during a summer flood.”

And here’s a feeble attempt to debunk it (all the author does is ramble on & on, providing excepts of documents which really really end up denying his attempt):

Younger Dryas Myth-Busting: Flash-Frozen Mammoths Edition – Watts Up With That?

‘That’s all he has to say’….yep, lol.

mammoth on display:
The Best-Preserved Woolly Mammoth Goes on Display in Japan, But Should We Resurrect it?

You offered this many pages back and it was refuted then. Did you forget or just hope we did? The mammoth in question was not flash frozen with the last meal of buttercups still in its mouth. It was not in a state that would have lead anyone to conclude it had been flash frozen. In the original descriptions, the only indication was that food particles were stuck in the teeth and not uneaten buttercups. This is a story that has morphed in the retelling so that this fictional version supports flood claims.

Flash-Frozen Mammoths and Their Buttercups: Yet Another Case of Repetition and Recycling of Bad Data

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You offered this many pages back and it was refuted then. Did you forget or just hope we did? The mammoth in question was not flash frozen with the last meal of buttercups still in its mouth. It was not in a state that would have lead anyone to conclude it had been flash frozen. In the original descriptions, the only indication was that food particles were stuck in the teeth and not uneaten buttercups. This is a story that has morphed in the retelling so that this fictional version supports flood claims.

Flash-Frozen Mammoths and Their Buttercups: Yet Another Case of Repetition and Recycling of Bad Data

Aha!
An excerpt from the article comments:
“The Pfizenmayer book is available online at:
Les mammouths de Siberie; Le decouverte de cadavres de mammouths prehistoriques sur les bords de la Berezovka et de la Sanga-Iourakh - Digital Repository of Scientific Institutes

It's in DJVu format, and I found the HTML5 browser support painfully slow, so you may want to try one of the other options. The section on the mammoth's food starts at page 139 [= page 146 in the online viewer].

The relevant passages seem to be (my translation):
"The remains of forage in the mouth, just like the partly-intact food remains in the stomach (of which remains we were subsequently able to conserve about 15 kilos) consisted exclusively, as I have already said, of herbaceous species and larger flowering plants which still revealed parts of seed capsules; on the other hand, there were found no conifer remains, as a result of which it must be admitted that needle-leaved trees did not feature in the menu of our pachyderm.
Later, at the botanical museum of the Academy of Sciences, there was success in identifying a number of the plants in the stomach contents.
...
One could identify, among the various representatives of this northern flora, some sedges (types of carex). Among the higher flowering plants, one could clearly recognise thyme (Thymus serpillum), a labiate very widespread on the heathlands of Europe; then the yellow poppy of the Alps (Papaver alpinum var. xanthopetala); the bitter sharp buttercup ["renoncule amère tranchante"] (Ranunculus acer borealis) which is also preserved in the Alps as a survivor of the glacial period; a species of gentian and a species of cypripedium (orchid); Thalictrum alpinum; Atragene alpina var. sibirica and various other plants which are still to be found today in northern Siberia.

15 kilos of pollen is most improbable, so I think substantial amounts of the actual plants (though not necessarily the petals) were preserved.”

And the author of this article that you posted, Jason Colavita, acknowledged in reply:
“Isn't it interesting how nobody ever seems to know what they're talking about once you get beyond the first generation or so of copyists? It certainly sounds, though, like the remains weren't in a state of preservation to qualify as freshness-sealed, though apparently in much better condition than some later scientific writers assumed. The buttercups aren't in the mouth, though, and seem to have been frozen alongside all the other stomach contents. I wonder why, other than the fact that they are flowers, fringe writers seized on the buttercups and nothing else, not even the poppies?

I wonder if the discrepancy in the later scientific accounts stems from the plant remains decaying after they were thawed out, leaving only seeds and pollen to study?”



That’s it.
Where’s the debunking attribution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aha!
An excerpt from the article comments:
“The Pfizenmayer book is available online at:
Les mammouths de Siberie; Le decouverte de cadavres de mammouths prehistoriques sur les bords de la Berezovka et de la Sanga-Iourakh - Digital Repository of Scientific Institutes

It's in DJVu format, and I found the HTML5 browser support painfully slow, so you may want to try one of the other options. The section on the mammoth's food starts at page 139 [= page 146 in the online viewer].

The relevant passages seem to be (my translation):
"The remains of forage in the mouth, just like the partly-intact food remains in the stomach (of which remains we were subsequently able to conserve about 15 kilos) consisted exclusively, as I have already said, of herbaceous species and larger flowering plants which still revealed parts of seed capsules; on the other hand, there were found no conifer remains, as a result of which it must be admitted that needle-leaved trees did not feature in the menu of our pachyderm.
Later, at the botanical museum of the Academy of Sciences, there was success in identifying a number of the plants in the stomach contents.
...
One could identify, among the various representatives of this northern flora, some sedges (types of carex). Among the higher flowering plants, one could clearly recognise thyme (Thymus serpillum), a labiate very widespread on the heathlands of Europe; then the yellow poppy of the Alps (Papaver alpinum var. xanthopetala); the bitter sharp buttercup ["renoncule amère tranchante"] (Ranunculus acer borealis) which is also preserved in the Alps as a survivor of the glacial period; a species of gentian and a species of cypripedium (orchid); Thalictrum alpinum; Atragene alpina var. sibirica and various other plants which are still to be found today in northern Siberia.

15 kilos of pollen is most improbable, so I think substantial amounts of the actual plants (though not necessarily the petals) were preserved.”

And the author of this article that you posted, Jason Colavita, acknowledged in reply:
“Isn't it interesting how nobody ever seems to know what they're talking about once you get beyond the first generation or so of copyists? It certainly sounds, though, like the remains weren't in a state of preservation to qualify as freshness-sealed, though apparently in much better condition than some later scientific writers assumed. The buttercups aren't in the mouth, though, and seem to have been frozen alongside all the other stomach contents. I wonder why, other than the fact that they are flowers, fringe writers seized on the buttercups and nothing else, not even the poppies?

I wonder if the discrepancy in the later scientific accounts stems from the plant remains decaying after they were thawed out, leaving only seeds and pollen to study?”



That’s it.
Where’s the debunking attribution?

It had junk stuck in its teeth. Not uneaten mouthfuls of flowers as if it died instantly between bites. Do you expect that wild animals brush and floss? There is nothing to support the flash frozen idea except a desire by some to force it into existence in support of their personal beliefs.

That article also points to a plausible explanation for the death of the animal. There was no indication of flash freezing.

Do you have any evidence that doesn't require a suspension of disbelief and have a history as bad as this one does?

 

[ppp]

Aha!
An excerpt from the article comments:
“The Pfizenmayer book is available online at:
Les mammouths de Siberie; Le decouverte de cadavres de mammouths prehistoriques sur les bords de la Berezovka et de la Sanga-Iourakh - Digital Repository of Scientific Institutes

It's in DJVu format, and I found the HTML5 browser support painfully slow, so you may want to try one of the other options. The section on the mammoth's food starts at page 139 [= page 146 in the online viewer].

The relevant passages seem to be (my translation):
"The remains of forage in the mouth, just like the partly-intact food remains in the stomach (of which remains we were subsequently able to conserve about 15 kilos) consisted exclusively, as I have already said, of herbaceous species and larger flowering plants which still revealed parts of seed capsules; on the other hand, there were found no conifer remains, as a result of which it must be admitted that needle-leaved trees did not feature in the menu of our pachyderm.
Later, at the botanical museum of the Academy of Sciences, there was success in identifying a number of the plants in the stomach contents.
...
One could identify, among the various representatives of this northern flora, some sedges (types of carex). Among the higher flowering plants, one could clearly recognise thyme (Thymus serpillum), a labiate very widespread on the heathlands of Europe; then the yellow poppy of the Alps (Papaver alpinum var. xanthopetala); the bitter sharp buttercup ["renoncule amère tranchante"] (Ranunculus acer borealis) which is also preserved in the Alps as a survivor of the glacial period; a species of gentian and a species of cypripedium (orchid); Thalictrum alpinum; Atragene alpina var. sibirica and various other plants which are still to be found today in northern Siberia.

15 kilos of pollen is most improbable, so I think substantial amounts of the actual plants (though not necessarily the petals) were preserved.”

And the author of this article that you posted, Jason Colavita, acknowledged in reply:
“Isn't it interesting how nobody ever seems to know what they're talking about once you get beyond the first generation or so of copyists? It certainly sounds, though, like the remains weren't in a state of preservation to qualify as freshness-sealed, though apparently in much better condition than some later scientific writers assumed. The buttercups aren't in the mouth, though, and seem to have been frozen alongside all the other stomach contents. I wonder why, other than the fact that they are flowers, fringe writers seized on the buttercups and nothing else, not even the poppies?

I wonder if the discrepancy in the later scientific accounts stems from the plant remains decaying after they were thawed out, leaving only seeds and pollen to study?”



That’s it.
Where’s the debunking attribution?

There is no possibility of a global flood until you can produce the water.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no possibility of a global flood until you can produce the water.

i have to ask, are you illiterate? Or you just prefer to comment without knowing the details?

It was dealt with & explained way back in the OP!!!
55 pages ago!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That was your feeble attempt. Don't blame scientists for your sources. Try to find a reliable source.

But you have to admit, even that "feeble attempt" is better than your explanation. It does not take too much to refute a belief in magic.

Lol!
That was your mistake, but you just can’t own it, can you?

Typical, I expected no less.
That is one of the reasons I ignore your rantings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol!
That was your mistake, but you just can’t own it, can you?

Typical, I expected no less.
That is one of the reasons I ignore your rantings.

I did not choose a poor source. You did. Why is it so difficult to own up to errors for you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I did not choose a poor source. You did. Why is it so difficult to own up to errors for you?

I’m more than willing to apologize for errors, when I make them. That’s what I did when I revised the “Flood Evidences” thread.

I remember you arrogantly tried to correct me when I used the word ‘evidences’; you said there was no such word.
But it was pointed out to you by another member, the word does exist.
Did you own up to it? Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m more than willing to apologize for errors, when I make them. That’s what I did when I revised the “Flood Evidences” thread.

I remember you arrogantly tried to correct me when I used the word ‘evidences’; you said there was no such word.
But it was pointed out to you by another member, the word does exist.
Did you own up to it? Nope.

Incorrect. You were using the word improperly. In this case the plural of evidence is "evidence". It is rarely used as you used it. The word "evidences" most of the time is a synonym for "shows" or "demonstrates". But as you used it is was still incorrect.

There was nothing to own up to in my case.

Abd a proper apology would be to acknowledge that there is no scientific evidence for a flood.

Do you know what you need to even have scientific evidence? The first thing that you need is a testable hypothesis. That is a way of putting your money where your mouth is.

What is your flood hypothesis and what is at least one test based upon its predictions that could show that it is wrong. One should not base it on something that we already know. I can give you some examples from the theory of evolution. where there wee things that we did not know, the theory predicted them, and we found those predictions. You need something on that order to even have evidence.

 

[ppp]

i have to ask, are you illiterate? Or you just prefer to comment without knowing the details?

It was dealt with & explained way back in the OP!!!
55 pages ago!

Do you mean this bit of drivel?

The question is raised — and properly so: “How could a Global Flood cause such freezing temperatures?” Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere....the troposphere?...the mesosphere?...the stratosphere? The Bible doesn’t say, it is silent. (Maybe from all five.) But the waters existing above the Earth prior to the Flood, resulted in mild temperatures, and pleasantly warm.... similar to a greenhouse effect, worldwide. (That’s why Adam & Eve could go naked, and be very comfortable.) Yes, the Bible indicates there were seasons, but apparently mild ones.

What part of not enough water molecules do you not understand?

 

[Sheldon]

Slow processes do not preserve animals; preservation requires quick action, to prevent decay.

it’s an obvious conclusion, for thinkers.

The geological evidence demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred.

It’s an obvious conclusion, for thinkers.

 

[Sheldon]

complete refusal to look at the evidence objectively. So be it.

Ahem!!!!

The geological evidence demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The geological evidence demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred.

It’s an obvious conclusion, for thinkers.

My favorite picture:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahem!!!!

The geological evidence demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred.

Me latest favorite formation when it comes to the flood. By the way, how many times did the Earth dry out? Just once? Oh, not hundreds of thousands of times?

Stop II-7: Permian Reef Complex Virtual Field Trip

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I am not an engineer, and I know the ark was built with wood from trees that were at least 1500 years old. Again, if you demand that the Ark should be built from steel, you are actually building a strawpuppet, but this time from steel.

I’m reminded of replicas that aren’t and will never be sea worthy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here's the bigger picture problem with the old argument @Hockeycowboy is putting forth. He's making it seem as if these well-preserved specimens are the norm. They aren't. In fact, they are very rare exceptions. The vast, vast majority of specimens recovered as the tundra melts are in various stages of decomposition and decay.

So one would think if these handful of well-preserved specimens were the result of a massive, region wide flash-freezing event, then all (or at least most) of the specimens would be well-preserved.

But that requires thinking, and the Biblical flood is a belief.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So one would think if these handful of well-preserved specimens were the result of a massive, region wide flash-freezing event, then all (or at least most) of the specimens would be well-preserved.

Not necessarily …because you refuted your own statement here:

The vast, vast majority of specimens recovered as the tundra melts are in various stages of decomposition and decay.

“As the tundra melts”, which is currently happening on an unprecedented scale, the formerly well-preserved organisms are decaying. Throughout the centuries, there have been previous warming trends which allowed predators to reach them, too. But that doesn’t deny the fact that there are still well-preserved specimens found. And it doesn’t address the issue that there are animals, preserved or not, being discovered within it.

But that requires thinking, and the Biblical flood is a belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

“As the tundra melts”, which is currently happening on an unprecedented scale, the formerly well-preserved organisms are decaying.

Citation please.

Throughout the centuries, there have been previous warming trends which allowed predators to reach them, too. But that doesn’t deny the fact that there are still well-preserved specimens found.

You're just repeating yourself. We all acknowledge that there are well-preserved specimens. The point is, those specimens are quite rare and the majority of them are not well-preserved, which conflicts with your belief that they were all flash frozen in a singular large scale event.

And it doesn’t address the issue that there are animals, preserved or not, being discovered within it

You're not making sense.