The Flood & Worldwide Festivals of the Dead — the connection.

[Subduction Zone]

I think I clearly stated it.
Amount of erosion....or lack of.
Also the range’s make up
Everest has much soft rock, like marble & limestone: 3.5 - 4 on Moh’s scale. Weathering would show faster results on Everest, than say a range with more granite.
And yet, we see little erosion, not millions of years..

This thread is about a different set of evidence. Not gonna get sidetracked anymore.

Good night.

Weathering depends upon a lot more than "hardness". In crystallography hardness only measures resistance of a mineral to being scratched. There are other factors to consider. Toughness, or how well it resists fracturing is important. And there are numerous ways to measure that. But when it comes to sedimentary rock the key factor is how well indurated, or cemented it is. Limestones tend to be very well indurated. Though any sedimentary rock will have a range in values. But of all of them limestone is one of the toughest. Sandstone can vary from very soft. Where I grew up you would take a shovel to outcrops of St. Peter Sandstone if you wanted a sample but that too can be extremely well cemented. Shale generally is one of the softest of rocks.

If you see a sedimentary rock cliff it is quite often limestone, and a bit less often sandstone. And very rarely shale. That has far more to do with how difficult it is to erode than hardness. Calcite is a three on the Moh' s hardness scale. Quartz is a seven. If you bet which one would resist erosion better based only on hardness you would lose far more often than you would win.

 

[Aupmanyav]

BTW, Himalayas are mostly packed sediments. Only the vegetation keeps them together. They break at the slightest disturbance.

 

[Jedster]

Did you not tell me that even among Jews there are diverse beliefs?
They can’t all understand their religion….otherwise, there’d be agreement.

They can’t all be right. (However, they could all be wrong.)

Actually they can all be right.
Proof (it's 11 seconds long)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I knew this was coming....

@Left Coast said “ However we have no evidence that a flood ever covered the entire globe in actuality.”

I guess you haven’t read the thread
Flood Evidences — revised

There's no evidence in that thread.
Everything that has been proposed has been thoroughly debunked and refuted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok that's your response. I find the Bible to be far more trustworthy and accurate in its record of history than àny other book I know about. Including its culture over thousands of years.

I guess this tells us something about the amount of books you are aware about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who says with evidence that there was no worldwide flood?

The geological record.

This is not just some opinion.

You? By the way, what evidence supporting your conclusion do you have?

The geological record.
A global flooding event would show up.
It doesn't.

Therefor the prediction of the model fails.
Therefor the model isn't accurate.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There's no evidence in that thread.
Everything that has been proposed has been thoroughly debunked and refuted.

That’s flat-out wrong, and you should know that.

Science is at a loss to explain the many well-preserved Pleistocene megafauna, found deep inside the Permafrost! Science has no consensus on those extinctions, either.

Explaining the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions: Models, chronologies, and assumptions

“Everything..... has been horoughly debunked and refuted”? Not even close. Counter arguments and interpretations do not debunk. Facts & unbiased observation do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That’s flat-out wrong, and you should know that.

It's not.

Science is at a loss to explain the many well-preserved Pleistocene megafauna, found deep inside the Permafrost! Science has no consensus on those extinctions, either.

1. this is greatly exaggerated

2. science not having any answers, does not in any way, shape or form, lend credence to fantastical tales that have no evidence.

Explaining the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions: Models, chronologies, and assumptions

This does not honestly reflect your statement about it at all.

Secondly, the arguments and data that this paper presents as arguments against the model it argues against, aren't compatible with your biblical tales. So one can only wonder why you cite an article to make your point, while the article is incompatible with your actual larger point.

Talk about opportunistic intellectual dishonesty.........

“Everything..... has been horoughly debunked and refuted”?

Yes.

Not even close. Counter arguments and interpretations do not debunk. Facts & unbiased observation do.

False.

Pointing out invalid reasoning in an argument, also debunks that argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s flat-out wrong, and you should know that.

Science is at a loss to explain the many well-preserved Pleistocene megafauna, found deep inside the Permafrost! Science has no consensus on those extinctions, either.

Explaining the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions: Models, chronologies, and assumptions

“Everything..... has been horoughly debunked and refuted”? Not even close. Counter arguments and interpretations do not debunk. Facts & unbiased observation do.

Do you know that you are relying on a gap in knowledge as a pillar to support your claims? You aren't offering a viable argument for the existence of those remains. You are just hoping no one else finds a reasonable solution for their being there based on the evidence. As long as that is the case, you can keep your gap alive and fill it with a global flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s flat-out wrong, and you should know that.

Science is at a loss to explain the many well-preserved Pleistocene megafauna, found deep inside the Permafrost! Science has no consensus on those extinctions, either.

Explaining the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions: Models, chronologies, and assumptions

“Everything..... has been horoughly debunked and refuted”? Not even close. Counter arguments and interpretations do not debunk. Facts & unbiased observation do.

All of your claims have been debunked. And how does your source help you? Your last scientific source did not do so. You appear to be reading titles or parts of abstracts at best. You clearly are not even reading or understanding the entire abstract of the article much less the article itself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you know that you are relying on a gap in knowledge as a pillar to support your claims?

No, I am not. If it was only the permafrost / mammoth evidence, yes. But I’m considering all the other evidences, too. The weight of them all, is my pillar. And now, it also includes what I recently discovered about the *many* festivals of the dead being celebrated on or near “the 17th day of the second month” (as stated in Genesis 7:11), whichever day that happens to correspond with on those ancient & modern cultures’ respective calendars. It just strengthens that pillar. (With most of us in the Northern hemisphere, it’s November 2nd. In Ancient Rome, it fell on May 11th. The excerpt of Garnier’s book in the OP explains why.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not. If it was only the permafrost / mammoth evidence, yes. But I’m considering all the other evidences, too. The weight of them all, is my pillar. And now, it also includes what I recently discovered about the *many* festivals of the dead being celebrated on or near “the 17th day of the second month” (as stated in Genesis 7:11), whichever day that happens to correspond with on those ancient & modern cultures’ respective calendars. It just strengthens that pillar. (With most of us in the Northern hemisphere, it’s November 2nd. In Ancient Rome, it fell on May 11th. The excerpt of Garnier’s book in the OP explains why.)

Well at least you have corrected that a little bit. Yes, fall festivals tend to occur in the fall. No need for a magical boat story for that to happen.

When a concept is explainable by logical means vs. invoking a magical explanation rationally thinking people tend to favor the logical explanation and not the magical one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I am not. If it was only the permafrost / mammoth evidence, yes. But I’m considering all the other evidences, too. The weight of them all, is my pillar. And now, it also includes what I recently discovered about the *many* festivals of the dead being celebrated on or near “the 17th day of the second month” (as stated in Genesis 7:11), whichever day that happens to correspond with on those ancient & modern cultures’ respective calendars. It just strengthens that pillar. (With most of us in the Northern hemisphere, it’s November 2nd. In Ancient Rome, it fell on May 11th. The excerpt of Garnier’s book in the OP explains why.)

What other evidence? An old book with dubious claims about fall festivals? The Chinese character for boat? You do not have any evidence for the global flood.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You do not have any evidence for the global flood.

You say that, and each time I show otherwise. Butt you keep on saying that. Sorry but It seems like you need to convince yourself. Maybe you should just ignore this thread; because really, you accept the “dubious claims” of naturalism before anything the Bible states. We’re at opposite ends. But still friendly. I’d like to keep it that way.

I do have a question for you though: the volume of the Grand Canyon that’s been eroded is determined to be 4.17 trillion cu. meters of material, almost 1000 cu. miles of missing sediment. Where is it? Why is it missing? If it were only the Colorado River, then to transport the debris, the Colorado would need to be flowing extremely fast … this would mean that prior to entering the GC region, the Colorado River was descending from a much higher elevation. There’s no evidence . In fact, where the Colorado meets the Little Colorado, the elevation is substantially lower!

So where is it?

There’s too much evidence which the Flood explains perfectly, for me to dismiss it!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You say that, and each time I show otherwise. Butt you keep on saying that. Sorry but It seems like you need to convince yourself. Maybe you should just ignore this thread; because really, you accept the “dubious claims” of naturalism before anything the Bible states. We’re at opposite ends. But still friendly. I’d like to keep it that way.

I do have a question for you though: the volume of the Grand Canyon that’s been eroded is determined to be 4.17 trillion cu. meters of material, almost 1000 cu. miles of missing sediment. Where is it? Why is it missing? If it were only the Colorado River, then to transport the debris, the Colorado would need to be flowing extremely fast … this would mean that prior to entering the GC region, the Colorado River was descending from a much higher elevation. There’s no evidence . In fact, where the Colorado meets the Little Colorado, the elevation is substantially lower!

So where is it?

There’s too much evidence which the Flood explains perfectly, for me to dismiss it!

Let us say that the old book you quoted is correct and there are festivals of the dead on roughly the same day in different places. It could be evidence of a global flood, but it could be evidence of something else. You are just claiming it as evidence for something you want to be true.

I do not believe that a doctrine based on the notion that we are supposed to ignore the gifts of God and follow some man's interpretation of the Bible just because.

That is a Gish question. If I can't answer the question, then what you want to believe must be true. I had no idea you considered me to be so powerful. That my answer to a single question or lack of an answer is the pivotal piece that determines reality. Even if we do not have an answer about the Colorado River (and I suspect that even if we do, you will deny it) that does not mean that anything that a person wants to believe is suddenly the correct answer. That is gap thinking. A gap exists. Any belief can fill it. At least until the gap gets filled with evidence and understanding.

There is nothing that is explained by an event that cannot be shown to have happened. What you ignore is the evidence that must be there, but is not. You ignore the physics that says that such an event would have destroyed all life on earth and all life in boats too.

The amount of water required to have a global flood that covers the mountains cannot be reasonably explained until a creationist claims the mountains didn't exist prior to the flood. A claim for which there is no evidence. How does this explain anything?

How is it that you do not see that you keep having to seek ever more obscure, highly questionable and dubious sources of evidence for something that you claim is so easily seen?

Once again, I remind you that I am a scientist. According to you, I am part of a global conspiracy where I have to actively engage in lying and follow a doctrine of agreeing to keep God out of science.

I am not involved in any conspiracy and I have never had to sign a document or swear to keep God out of explanations about the natural world.

If I can overlook that insult, you can overlook a Christian that disagrees with your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You say that, and each time I show otherwise. Butt you keep on saying that. Sorry but It seems like you need to convince yourself. Maybe you should just ignore this thread; because really, you accept the “dubious claims” of naturalism before anything the Bible states. We’re at opposite ends. But still friendly. I’d like to keep it that way.

I do have a question for you though: the volume of the Grand Canyon that’s been eroded is determined to be 4.17 trillion cu. meters of material, almost 1000 cu. miles of missing sediment. Where is it? Why is it missing? If it were only the Colorado River, then to transport the debris, the Colorado would need to be flowing extremely fast … this would mean that prior to entering the GC region, the Colorado River was descending from a much higher elevation. There’s no evidence . In fact, where the Colorado meets the Little Colorado, the elevation is substantially lower!

So where is it?

There’s too much evidence which the Flood explains perfectly, for me to dismiss it!

Aren't you assuming that the was carved out in one year or less? If it was carved out over 5 million years, it would not need to be shooting water along at escape velocity. A slow erosion over long time makes more sense. In what you believe to be true, ever more outrageous events have to continually be occurring.

Even if a global flood were to cause it, the sediment would be somewhere wouldn't it? Are you saying it has just vanished?

Isn't Lake Mead about a third full of this sediment? So, it didn't just vanish.

Are you suggesting that a global flood caused sediment to vanish? If you are, then you are saying that even you do not know where it is.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do not believe that a doctrine based on the notion that we are supposed to ignore the gifts of God and follow some man's interpretation of the Bible just because.

Since God is claimed as the Author, what is His ‘interpretation’? Don’t you think that should be the goal, to get His meaning & understanding? (Like why the Flood had to be worldwide. Only the Bible can explain that…. no other documents give us a rational reason.)

Jesus said it’s possible to gain that accurate knowledge. - Luke 10:21

What you ignore is the evidence that must be there, but is not.

I know what you’re saying, but I’m posting evidence that is there. You know, God was the cause of the Flood. (Jesus supported its reality.) With that understanding — which is the correct one, that God was the Source of it, right? — there are some expectations regarding natural evidence that would be altered.

You ignore the physics that says that such an event would have destroyed all life on earth and all life in boats too.

Only if God was out of the picture. He wasn’t. Why take God out of the Event that He caused?

How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?

The amount of water required to have a global flood that covers the mountains cannot be reasonably explained until a creationist claims the mountains didn't exist prior to the flood.

This is what God’s Word has said since the time Psalms 104 was written.
It’s not what anybody else came up with.

How is it that you do not see that you keep having to seek ever more obscure, highly questionable and dubious sources of evidence for something that you claim is so easily seen?

This evidence of festival dates, isn’t easy to see. Because of varying calendars.
Much of the evidence isn’t clearly discerned.
I think a couple are, though.

Once again, I remind you that I am a scientist.

Yes, an entomologist, right? That’s cool. Do you have a favorite bug? I think the different species of praying mantis are fascinating!

According to you, I am part of a global conspiracy where I have to actively engage in lying and follow a doctrine of agreeing to keep God out of science.

No, I have close friends who are scientists. But they recognize Jehovah’s part as Creator, and the deficiencies of science in using materialism to explain creation.

and I have never had to sign a document or swear to keep God out of explanations about the natural world.

Well, that’s good, but isn’t that an unwritten rule? I mean, try getting a paper published that gives God the credit as Designer.

If I can overlook that insult, you can overlook a Christian that disagrees with your claims.

I didn’t mean to insult....I didn’t mean to imply you were involved in lying.

You got it! I’d like to share a couple beers with you, someday.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say that, and each time I show otherwise.

And every time you do that, 1 to 5 people respond to you explaining how you are incorrect.

Butt you keep on saying that

Well, you keep pretending to have evidence...

Sorry but It seems like you need to convince yourself.

My irony meter just exploded.

Maybe you should just ignore this thread; because really, you accept the “dubious claims” of naturalism before anything the Bible states.

Evidence based science always wins from stories in ancient books.

I do have a question for you though: the volume of the Grand Canyon that’s been eroded is determined to be 4.17 trillion cu. meters of material, almost 1000 cu. miles of missing sediment. Where is it? Why is it missing? If it were only the Colorado River, then to transport the debris, the Colorado would need to be flowing extremely fast … this would mean that prior to entering the GC region, the Colorado River was descending from a much higher elevation. There’s no evidence . In fact, where the Colorado meets the Little Colorado, the elevation is substantially lower!

So where is it?

How the canyon formed is well studied and well understood.
Go read up from a source that doesn't make its authors sign a "statement of faith" where they promise to start with the answer and then try to paint the bullseye around the arrow.

ie, go read up on geology.

There’s too much evidence which the Flood explains perfectly, for me to dismiss it!

There is none whatsoever and there are massive amounts of evidence against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since God is claimed as the Author

Euh... no?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How the canyon formed is well studied and well understood.

Wow…. really?
In your mind, maybe?


“Scientists Are Still Uncovering The Grand Canyon's Geological 'Secrets'”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/08/12/grand-canyon-national-park-centennial

I appreciated how the geologist stated “…one of the current ideas…”

…which implies the understanding can change. IOW, what is ‘currently understood,’ could be in error.

So your “well understood” is just another of your statements that inflates the facts.