Was the Real Flood in Genesis or Gilgamesh?

[SpecialFrog]

Presumably he will also indicate that he doesn't actually understand the topic and will therefore be restrained in claiming it as evidence for his beliefs.

I wouldn't presume ABC would claim he doesn't understand the topic

My last statement probably should have included a smiley.

 

[featherwinglove]

In science, there is no point in holding inaccurate ideas. We want our theories and hypotheses to reflect the real world as best as possible. Thus, why would you believe anything so widely accepted, would be in place if not accurate?

If I knew the writings of Richard Dawkins better (i.e. I can barely stand the guy), I could probably find a juicy quote on the possibility of mass deception (he wrote at least one book on the topic.) As it stands, we can look at contemporary events, such as the destruction of the World Trade Center, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or the Apollo Program and those who believe that it did not land astronauts on the Moon. It is clear that many people are deceived in each of these cases. We can also look to the Bible, where in 1 Corinthians 2:18-27 the modern situation regarding the Gospel is predicted and described.

In a nutshell, certain ideas are much more attractive to some people than others, whether they are accurate or not. I know a song about it. To be clear, I'm not linking this to support the case of the Gospel (although I'm pretty sure that's the performer's intention), but to show the attractiveness of the Gospel from the perspective of someone who takes it seriously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhnoralqVA

Bill Nye acknowledges an aspect of the Gospel's attractiveness, and Ken Ham quoted him on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yQEG7mlTU&t=8m15s

I've always been fascinated by the process of human creation, how (and I'm deliberate in my wording here), wire-and-strut cloth/wood propeller aircraft evolved into all-wood aircraft, into corrugated aluminum aircraft, then machined wood aircraft, machined aluminum aircraft with jet engines, and on the high-performance end, advanced aerodynamic principles discovered by Richard Whitcomb and applied to an actively refrigerated machined aluminum aircraft with fly-by-wire. (Sadly, that evolution was interrupted on 1959 February 20, and from 1959 June to 1997 September, this type of aircraft was extinct.)

Biological Evolution (I capitalize it when I'm referring to the grand scheme and stick to lowercase when referring to the observable process) resembled this process, and for a time, I believed that God might have used the same evolution process we human designers do. But, I found a number of differences, which form problems for Evolution. First, all life forms are made at the same level of technology at the molecular level (DNA, mRNA, tRNA, amino acids chained into proteins and then folded into shape), while there is a definite progression in human technology, especially in electronics: from Leyden jars to batteries, electromechanical relays and coherers to thermionic and then discrete semiconductors followed by integrated semiconductors, within such there is evolution equivalent to several histories of everything prior to Kilby and Noyce's prototype microchips. The second problem is that natural evolution requires scrap to work on outside of natural selection: junk DNA and vestigial organs.

An Evolution advocate came up with a really, really cool "Blind Watchmaker" program and arranged it to the song that was in my first coincident song experience (that was in May 2004; in May 2009 they started coming thick and fast, and I now have a couple dozen of them. I thought it was very interesting that this naturalism advocating video was arranged to a song that, for me personally, affirms the existence of God outside my own consciousness.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

This program's natural selection algorithm only selects out damaging mutations, not neutral ones, and so there is a bunch of scrap mutations that lead to the leaps observed in the program's output: "This gear does nothing. ... I will no longer display such gears."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&t=6m30s

Science is learning that there is no such thing in biology. Vestigial organs are useful: the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids are parts of the immune system and are not in the process of being "evolved away" as once thought. Similarly with "junk DNA" we are discovering a bewildering array of regulatory switches that turn genes on and off, and that DNA has genes valid when it is read forward and backwards, something an 702 computer could theoretically do with its tapes but I've never heard of being done successfully. Without this scrap material for mutations to work on shrouded from natural selection's watchful eye that it can later present for "inspection", I can't see how Evolution can work as described. There is nothing faith-based about that reasoning.

While I'm not arguing against the concept of scientific conspiracies (and with all the religious conspiracies, do I need to?), the attractiveness of a delusion does not require a conspiracy for people to believe in it. However, in the process, they forsake rationality. Actually, this might explain the attractiveness of apistivism: without evidence of God (face it: you won't find Him by looking in the wrong places with the wrong methods), theism doesn't work. Without Evolution (which is challenged by the scientific evidence), atheism doesn't work either. Were I left in such a position where I had to have faith to take either position, I'm pretty sure I'd be a hard agnostic or an apistevist.

[Constant production C14 calibration] is untrue. It has been known for decades that the rate of creation of C14 is not constant. That is why C14 is calibrated with dendrochronology. In addition, this gets back to Rumraket’s point, all these dating methods, which are used in different fields of science, correlate with each other. How do you explain that besides invoking a conspiracy?

Unfortunately, dendrochronology is both unrelated to radioisotope decay and also unreliable. It is possible for trees to produce more than one ring in a season, and occasionally, not produce a ring in a given year (this would probably happen a lot if you put an arboretum in the South Pole base, lol!) Someone (Creationist, Evolutionist, or otherwise) can stack unreliable on unreliable and, from assumptions based on their faith) reason themselves into any corner. The "uninformed public" (which would include scientists expert in other areas and unable to check the work in a meaningful way) would lose sight of what is actually being measured and focus instead on what it means, or rather, what Someone (Creationist, Evolutionist, or otherwise) thinks it means (e.g. the age of the universe ... what's actually being measured is redshift, from which we assume that the universe is expanding and from which we derive distance, we know the speed of light and the distance, find a cosmic background, measure its redshift, derive its distance, and from that come to 13.82 billion years.) No conspiracy is required, only collective ignorance.

But in addition to that, you have to understand that there are insurmountable volumes of disproof against the global flood from every relevant field of study...

This is a difficult statement to deal with, although it would be much harder to deal with without the word "insurmountable" (i.e. the opposition is left with the lesser burden of proof of showing that the volumes of disproof might not be so insurmountable to destroy the statement's credibility. Without the word "insurmountable", they need to debunk every single point of disproof because the scientific method as I was taught in school requires only one disproof to discredit a theory.)

Correct. Now do you have that one piece of evidence that would overturn 200+ years of observation and experimentation (your black swan)? I would not have worded that how AronRa did, but he is correct.

I'm looking forward to it (please add one for Mars if you can, since global flooding there is so visually obvious that "Noachian" is on official maps made since 1971.)

(Emphasis added.)

Citation needed. I keep seeing this from creationists, yet have never seen proper citation for it. [/quote]

I guess you'd need a citation to say that the Earth has liquid water on its surface then.

When you look at global views of Mars, you can see craters with tails indicating eddies, vast riverbeds (which Spirit and Curiosity landed in), and floodplains that might once have been seas (visited by every other successfully landed probe on Mars.)

Also, visually obvious doesn't necessarily mean that the visually obvious interpretation is correct (e.g. I live in Regina, Saskatchewan, where it is visually obvious that the Earth is flat. The Earth is not as flat in Banff, Alberta.) Did all this flooding happen at once? Was water the medium that created this impression? Good reason to send probes, I think, and those probes have only affirmed the action of water of Mars (mostly because we've deliberately avoided the areas where we don't think it will because we're more interested in water than in wind or lava.)

I'd capitalize Flood for the same reason I capitalize Evolution when distinguishing those aspects of philosophical naturalism from observable genetics and documented experimental science regarding evolution. "Evolution", the grand scheme vs. "evolution", what we can accomplish on the farm or in the lab. "Flood", the global catastrophe that wiped out everything vs. "flood", what happened to Calgary since I moved away (it might also be convenient to distinguish and compare Genesis 6-9 from other accounts that are probably of local floods.)

Distinguish between flood/Flood however you wish, but there are terms available for you to use when it comes to evolution and evolutionary theory. As you point out evolution is observable, however, it appears your problem is with evolutionary theory, universal common descent, deep time, and the geological record. Please note this for future posts, because the established vocabulary should be used in a discussion of this nature.

That doesn't solve it. Most of what you refer to refers to what it refers to and not Evolution or evolution. "Evolutionary theory" can mean theories regarding what we observe today in genetics, selective breeding and contemporary natural selection (e.g. Darwin's finches), "evolutionary theory", or what we think about the past and why we see fossils in the layers that we do, "Evolutionary theory". Is there "established vocabulary" to make that distinction? Ken Ham used the term "molecules-to-Man" to make this distinction, the grand scheme which includes abiogenesis, deep time, and universal common descent. I've also used "Evolution" to refer to the unobserved process of mutations and natural selection either adding information to genetic code or producing a new, incompatible or "higher order" life form (quotes because I don't understand what that means; no matter how "simple", it seems to me that all organisms are on the same level of order.) There should probably be a different word for that as well.

 

[featherwinglove]

Except that (1) you don't even know what theory you're talking about. ... ["...not one iota of support..."] If you think you can disprove my comment, then do it.

AronRa, if you are going to refute me with such illiteracy, there is no way to lose. These two statements are both debunked by the topic title.

I repeat: If you give me specific references for all of your alleged erroneous dates on C14, I will look up the original literature and show you that that's not what it really said

Why don't you just start with that, instead of repeating it?

My apologies to Rumraket, who actually has started with that. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to hang out here and it's taking a while to get around to it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The appendix is vestigial. Vestigial just doesn't mean useless:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/23/vestigial-learn-what-it-means/

And despite some claims arising from the ENCODE project, most of our DNA is still considered to be junk:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2011/05/whats-in-your-genome.html

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

In science, there is no point in holding inaccurate ideas. We want our theories and hypotheses to reflect the real world as best as possible. Thus, why would you believe anything so widely accepted, would be in place if not accurate?

If I knew the writings of Richard Dawkins better (i.e. I can barely stand the guy), I could probably find a juicy quote on the possibility of mass deception (he wrote at least one book on the topic.) As it stands, we can look at contemporary events, such as the destruction of the World Trade Center, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or the Apollo Program and those who believe that it did not land astronauts on the Moon. It is clear that many people are deceived in each of these cases. We can also look to the Bible, where in 1 Corinthians 2:18-27 the modern situation regarding the Gospel is predicted and described.

I covered this in the response you are replying too.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]In science, there is no point in holding inaccurate ideas. We want our theories and hypotheses to reflect the real world as best as possible. Thus, why would you believe anything so widely accepted, would be in place if not accurate? In order for this to be the case, you would have to invoke a conspiracy across the world to support this idea. Scientists are in the business of debunking ideas. Thus, if there was a worldwide conspiracy of Dr. Spins propping up C14 dating (which appears to be what you are suggesting) all it would take is one scientist (or group of scientists) to come along and expose it with their actual findings.

Please address the point I made.

Biological Evolution (I capitalize it when I'm referring to the grand scheme and stick to lowercase when referring to the observable process) ...

I covered this as well:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Distinguish between flood/Flood however you wish, but there are terms available for you to use when it comes to evolution and evolutionary theory. As you point out evolution is observable, however, it appears your problem is with evolutionary theory, universal common descent, deep time, and the geological record. Please note this for future posts, because the established vocabulary should be used in a discussion of this nature.

Use proper terminology in a discussion like this. It saves so much time down the road so one is not confused and can argue against the actual point made.

First, all life forms are made at the same level of technology at the molecular level (DNA, mRNA, tRNA, amino acids chained into proteins and then folded into shape), while there is a definite progression in human technology, especially in electronics: from Leyden jars to batteries, electromechanical relays and coherers to thermionic and then discrete semiconductors followed by integrated semiconductors, within such there is evolution equivalent to several histories of everything prior to Kilby and Noyce's prototype microchips. The second problem is that natural evolution requires scrap to work on outside of natural selection: junk DNA and vestigial organs.

I do not understand how either of these are problems.

Science is learning that there is no such thing in biology. Vestigial organs are useful: the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids are parts of the immune system and are not in the process of being "evolved away" as once thought

Learning this? As SpecialFrog already pointed out, scientists have known this for over 100 years. Your problem is that you are using an inaccurate definition of vestigial. Vestigial never meant useless, but mean that an organ has lost most, if not all of its original function. However, we do have structures, such as the mussels in our ears that are completely useless as well. Thus, we have vestigial organs based on both the proper definition and the creationists’ definition.

Similarly with "junk DNA" we are discovering a bewildering array of regulatory switches that turn genes on and off, and that DNA has genes valid when it is read forward and backwards, something an 702 computer could theoretically do with its tapes but I've never heard of being done successfully.

Once again, you are mistaken about Junk DNA, as SpecialFrog also pointed out. Even the ENCODE Consortium has come out and corrected their earlier media hyperbole.

Without this scrap material for mutations to work on shrouded from natural selection's watchful eye that it can later present for "inspection", I can't see how Evolution can work as described.

Someone is forgetting about genetic drift, and gene flow.

There is nothing faith-based about that reasoning.

Well, you are correct about that. It is not faith-based, it is just completely wrong.

While I'm not arguing against the concept of scientific conspiracies (and with all the religious conspiracies, do I need to?), the attractiveness of a delusion does not require a conspiracy for people to believe in it.

Once again, you do not understand how science works if you think this is the case.

Without Evolution (which is challenged by the scientific evidence), atheism doesn't work either.

This is wrong on so many levels. First off, you are mistaken about evolution being challenged by scientific evidence. All the evidence supports it. Second, atheism was around long before any rational idea of evolution or evolutionary theory ever took shape.

Unfortunately, dendrochronology is both unrelated to radioisotope decay and also unreliable.

First off, it is the most reliable dating method we have. Second, of course it is not related to C14 dating, it is used to calibrate and cross confirm. I also never implied that they were related, thus I do not understand why you would say the above.

It is possible for trees to produce more than one ring in a season, and occasionally, not produce a ring in a given year (this would probably happen a lot if you put an arboretum in the South Pole base, lol!)

True. That is why it is not based on one tree, but forests of trees based in different parts of the world. Using dendrochronology, one is able to date events back to within a few years of the event happening. Moreover, these methods are tested on known age objects. Once again, answer Rumraket’s question; why do they all correlate?

Someone (Creationist, Evolutionist, or otherwise) can stack unreliable on unreliable and, from assumptions based on their faith) reason themselves into any corner. The "uninformed public" (which would include scientists expert in other areas and unable to check the work in a meaningful way) would lose sight of what is actually being measured and focus instead on what it means, or rather, what Someone (Creationist, Evolutionist, or otherwise) thinks it means (e.g. the age of the universe ... what's actually being measured is redshift, from which we assume that the universe is expanding and from which we derive distance, we know the speed of light and the distance, find a cosmic background, measure its redshift, derive its distance, and from that come to 13.82 billion years.) No conspiracy is required, only collective ignorance.

And once again, you display your ignorance of how science works. There are actual people in those fields studying these methods. Do you truly believe that scientists are this naive and ignorant of their own field?

Citation needed. I keep seeing this from creationists, yet have never seen proper citation for it.

I guess you'd need a citation to say that the Earth has liquid water on its surface then.

:facepalm:

Why would I need a citation for that? I am clearly asking for a citation that there was a global flood on Mars. I asked for citations and you give me condescension instead.

When you look at global views of Mars, you can see craters with tails indicating eddies, vast riverbeds (which Spirit and Curiosity landed in), and floodplains that might once have been seas (visited by every other successfully landed probe on Mars.)

Again, that does not mean there was a global flood. That means there were oceans on it at one time. tis a difference. Thus, once again, citation needed for your claim of a global flood on Mars.

"Evolutionary theory" can mean theories regarding what we observe today in genetics, selective breeding and contemporary natural selection (e.g. Darwin's finches), "evolutionary theory"...

Correct.

or what we think about the past and why we see fossils in the layers that we do, "Evolutionary theory".

In correct. In that case, you are talking about the geological column and deep time. It is obvious since you are talking about the past, fossils, and where they are found.

Is there "established vocabulary" to make that distinction?

Yes. In addition, I have given them to you already.

Ken Ham used the term "molecules-to-Man" to make this distinction, the grand scheme which includes abiogenesis, deep time, and universal common descent.

Your first mistake is that you are listening to Ken Ham. Ham uses “molecules-to-man” as more of a pejorative term than an actual term describing real world phenomena.

I've also used "Evolution" to refer to the unobserved process of mutations and natural selection either adding information to genetic code or producing a new, incompatible or "higher order" life form (quotes because I don't understand what that means; no matter how "simple", it seems to me that all organisms are on the same level of order.) There should probably be a different word for that as well.

First off, I have given you the terminology to use. Second, mutations have been observed and based on information theory; all mutations add new information to the genome. Furthermore, as you have clearly pointed out earlier, you are right that “higher order” is incorrect when talking about evolution and evolutionary theory, but on that same note, we have observed speciation several times in the lab and field.

 

[Inferno]

Biological Evolution (I capitalize it when I'm referring to the grand scheme and stick to lowercase when referring to the observable process) resembled this process, and for a time, I believed that God might have used the same evolution process we human designers do. But, I found a number of differences, which form problems for Evolution.

Brace yourself, misunderstandings about evolution incoming.

First, all life forms are made at the same level of technology at the molecular level (DNA, mRNA, tRNA, amino acids chained into proteins and then folded into shape), while there is a definite progression in human technology, especially in electronics: from Leyden jars to batteries, electromechanical relays and coherers to thermionic and then discrete semiconductors followed by integrated semiconductors, within such there is evolution equivalent to several histories of everything prior to Kilby and Noyce's prototype microchips.

How exactly is that a problem for evolution? I'm also not sure what you're talking about when referring to "same level of technology at the molecular level". Are you saying that because all life forms share DNA, therefore they were created by God? Basically "same design, same designer"? Or am I missing something?

The second problem is that natural evolution requires scrap to work on outside of natural selection: junk DNA and vestigial organs.

Specialfrog already made the point, but I'll repeat it: Creationists typically misunderstand what junk DNA and vestigial structures are. Hint: Junk DNA does not mean "completely without function", nor does vestigial structure mean "completely without function". Both have very clearly defined terms in the scientific literature and both are quite commonly misused by creationists.

I'm also rather fond of the blog post I wrote on junk DNA (vain, I know), so I'll just link it: The ENCODE delusion

This program's natural selection algorithm only selects out damaging mutations, not neutral ones, and so there is a bunch of scrap mutations that lead to the leaps observed in the program's output: "This gear does nothing. ... I will no longer display such gears."

Two points:
1) You're basing your argument on the algorithm of a YouTuber (ckd007) who created it for educational purposes. Really?
2) A few seconds later he states that "ALL gears are taken into account during the simulation", but he removed the PICTURES for the sake of clarity.

Science is learning that there is no such thing in biology.

No such thing as what? Neutral mutations? Are you effing kidding me?

Vestigial organs are useful: the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids are parts of the immune system and are not in the process of being "evolved away" as once thought.

How creationists view the definition of vestigiality:

Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution.

How scientists view the definition of vestigiality:

Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution.

See the difference?
Not a single scientist is arguing that all vestigial structures have lost all their functions. The point is that the function is not the same as the one they previously had.

Let's take an example: The human coccyx used to be a tail, our ancestors may have used it for directing their tail like monkeys do. Today, it certainly isn't used to point the tail in any direction, but it keeps the muscles of the buttocks in place.
On the other hand, the muscles in our ears (used to be for turning ears toward danger) seem to be utterly without function today. (Well, not entirely. I wiggle my ears to pick up women in bars... Mostly biology students. I tell them: "You can study me, I'm the most primitive subject in here.")

Similarly with "junk DNA" we are discovering a bewildering array of regulatory switches that turn genes on and off, and that DNA has genes valid when it is read forward and backwards, something an 702 computer could theoretically do with its tapes but I've never heard of being done successfully.

Nuuuuuurt, thanks for playing. I've already directed you toward my blog post, please read it carefully and come back to this point if you have any questions.

Without this scrap material for mutations to work on shrouded from natural selection's watchful eye that it can later present for "inspection", I can't see how Evolution can work as described.

I posit that's because you don't really understand how evolution works.

I would recommend two books: Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" and Sean B. Carrol's "The Making of the Fittest".
If you don't want to spend money, try Duke University's online course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution".

Evolution (which is challenged by the scientific evidence)

Incorrect. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the science of evolution, but the science itself remains as robust as ever.

Without Evolution (which is challenged by the scientific evidence), atheism doesn't work either.

This is also incorrect. You're creating a dichotomy God vs Evolution which is absurd off the bat. (You're falsely equating evolution (diversity of life) with abiogenesis (beginning of life) with the beginning of the universe.) There may be many as-of-yet unknown processes as to how life (and the universe) originated, none of them needing a designer. You're making incorrect assumptions to reduce the argument.

]Ken Ham used the term "molecules-to-Man" to make this distinction, the grand scheme which includes abiogenesis, deep time, and universal common descent.

Ken Ham is a moron of the highest order who wouldn't know what science looked like if it drove a panzer "Monster" over him.
Abiogenesis is a process distinct from evolution. Hint: Abiogenesis is a theory about the ORIGIN of life, evolution is a theory about the DIVERSITY of life.

If you want one term to lump them all together, you might want to consider "science".

I've also used "Evolution" to refer to the unobserved process of mutations and natural selection either adding information to genetic code or producing a new, incompatible or "higher order" life form (quotes because I don't understand what that means; no matter how "simple", it seems to me that all organisms are on the same level of order.) There should probably be a different word for that as well.

Macroevolution, as far as I can tell. It's an imaginary distinction, but I can roll with it.

In any case, "addition of information" has been observed as has the emergence of "higher order" life forms. (Also quotes because "higher order" is a bullshit term used, as far as I can tell, mostly by creationists. There are species and then there are imaginary categories we use to refer to groups of animals because it makes things look neater.)

 

[Inferno]

However, we do have structures, such as the mussels in our ears that are completely useless as well.

Well I'd rather think they'd be useless! Mussels belong in your mouth! :lol:

I greatly enjoyed reading the post you made just minutes prior to mine: They were, to all intents and purposes, identical.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

However, we do have structures, such as the mussels in our ears that are completely useless as well.

Well I'd rather think they'd be useless! Mussels belong in your mouth! :lol:

My dySleXiA strikes again.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

None of what any of you said refutes my evidence for a world wide flood like the bible teaches and you can't because it is scientifically sound,but you will ignore the biblical text and scientific evidence that proves a global flood very well is possible based on science and the evidence on and in this earth.Go back and review and Repent!. You act like it is impossible and a world wide flood is laughable and stupid but not according to the bible and science and the depth of the oceans that is deeper than any mountain on land is tall.The tallest mountains on the earth are under the oceans.

 

[Mugnuts]

 

[AronRa]

Except that (1) you don't even know what theory you're talking about. ... ["...not one iota of support..."] If you think you can disprove my comment, then do it.

AronRa, if you are going to refute me with such illiteracy, there is no way to lose. These two statements are both debunked by the topic title.

Then you don't know what we're talking about. I already explained that archaeologists/geologists have confirmed that the Iraqui flood-plain was deluged around 4900 years ago, to a depth of roughly 22'. That's the same depth given in both the Bible and Gilgamesh, but that the other details besides that also show that the account in Gilgamesh is more accurate. This also proves that the Bible's account can't be true. 15 cubits wouldn't be enough to even reach the base of Ararat. However, the Epic of GIlgamesh suffers from the same problem the Bible does, in that it blames this event on a deity. In this case, the gods brought the flood because men were too noisy. This was the 7th generation of gods. The 6th divine generation created man so that he would complete creation, so that the 7th divine generation could rest.

So we're not arguing over which was the truest account; we're arguing over whether the Biblical exaggeration has any merit. I say it has been soundly disproved many different ways, and I have already given you some of them. You still haven't accounted for that, by the way. So I have to repeat that same question a 3rd time. How do you account for all these independent yet concordant lines of evidence indicating that the ancestors of today's native Americans were already living on both American continents thousands of years before the earliest dates imagined for your mythic flood?

You say you have evidence for the Biblical flood, but you haven't shown any, and I think you already that's because you don't have any evidence to show.

I repeat: If you give me specific references for all of your alleged erroneous dates on C14, I will look up the original literature and show you that that's not what it really said

Why don't you just start with that, instead of repeating it?

How can I review your sources when you still haven't cited any yet?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings.

None of what any of you said refutes my evidence for a world wide flood like the bible teaches and you can't because it is scientifically sound,but you will ignore the biblical text and scientific evidence that proves a global flood very well is possible based on science and the evidence on and in this earth.Go back and review and Repent!. You act like it is impossible and a world wide flood is laughable and stupid but not according to the bible and science and the depth of the oceans that is deeper than any mountain on land is tall.The tallest mountains on the earth are under the oceans.

I've already shown that the Earth has never been completely flooded at any time in its history - here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

None of what any of you said refutes my evidence for a world wide flood like the bible teaches and you can't because it is scientifically sound,but you will ignore the biblical text and scientific evidence that proves a global flood very well is possible based on science and the evidence on and in this earth.Go back and review and Repent!. You act like it is impossible and a world wide flood is laughable and stupid but not according to the bible and science and the depth of the oceans that is deeper than any mountain on land is tall.The tallest mountains on the earth are under the oceans.

Let's assume for a moment that I agree that a global flood is "not impossible". So what? "Not impossible" doesn't imply "probable" or "actually happened".

You haven't presented any non-Biblical evidence that it actually happened. Nor have you addressed any of the evidence that shows that it didn't happen.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Why are people still feeding the troll?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Why are people still feeding the troll?

What makes me a troll?Every thread I have been on I have stayed on topic and although I have disagreed I don't think that makes me a troll.This is thread is about a biblical flood and I have given evidence for a flood.I really only disagree when it comes to naturalism and evolution but I agree with a lot of science and I use a lot of scientific evidence as evidence for what I believe and it is not AIG evidence either just like with my evidence for a flood in this thread this is my own evidence that I realized by doing research.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You say you have evidence for the Biblical flood, but you haven't shown any, and I think you already that's because you don't have any evidence to show.

Well, to be fair, featherwinglove did give us a few things he thought were evidence for a global flood:

featherwinglove[/url]"]There isn't "one iota of support" for the Flood in Genesis? In Gilgamesh? In other flood legends that AronRa himself introduced me to? In the fact that we find, as Ken Ham so often repeats that even he appears uncomfortable doing so in Nye vs. Ham that we have "billions of dead things laid down by water in rock layers all over the Earth"? Not one iota of support?

It appears that he is claiming that the existence of fossils is evidence of a worldwide flood and that the stories of myth and legend count as evidence as well. However, neither one of them are actually evidence of a worldwide flood. The fossil record is a great example of how we can observe evolution in deep time and the myths and legends are examples of how creative our ancestors could be when it came to real world tragedy.

 

[Rumraket]

My apologies to Rumraket, who actually has started with that. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to hang out here and it's taking a while to get around to it.

Good. I will be awaiting an answer to the question: "Why do all the curves agree if they don't track the same chronology?"

 

[ldmitruk]

We mustn't forget about Lichenometry as another dating technique. This technique is useful for dates up to about 10,000 years and can be used for dating a number of things including palaeofloods as it allows scientists to determine how rock has been exposed after an event such as a flood or glaciation. So one would expect if there was a world wide flood there should be corresponding lichen colonies all over the wold dating back to the same time period.

Here's a paper on the application of Lichenometry for dating natural hazards.

Cheers!

 

[abelcainsbrother]

We mustn't forget about Lichenometry as another dating technique. This technique is useful for dates up to about 10,000 years and can be used for dating a number of things including palaeofloods as it allows scientists to determine how rock has been exposed after an event such as a flood or glaciation. So one would expect if there was a world wide flood there should be corresponding lichen colonies all over the wold dating back to the same time period.

Here's a paper on the application of Lichenometry for dating natural hazards.

Cheers!

Did you forget about crystal formation?It requires water and look where crystals are.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130219140712.htm

 

[ldmitruk]

We mustn't forget about Lichenometry as another dating technique. This technique is useful for dates up to about 10,000 years and can be used for dating a number of things including palaeofloods as it allows scientists to determine how rock has been exposed after an event such as a flood or glaciation. So one would expect if there was a world wide flood there should be corresponding lichen colonies all over the wold dating back to the same time period.

Here's a paper on the application of Lichenometry for dating natural hazards.

Cheers!

Did you forget about crystal formation?It requires water and look where crystals are.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130219140712.htm

OK crystals form in water, however that doesn't prove there was a world wide flood.