A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 1190 by Clownboat]

Really, any one who does not believe in a creator God has to believe in one of the following.

1. Everything we see is nothing more than two dimensional random energy on the face of a black hole.

2. We are nothing more than random energy inside a Boltzmann brain.

3. Or my personal favorite, we are nothing more than a computer simulation from an advance group of aliens.

You forgot option 4 - none of the above

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DeMotts]

Non believers do not have that option. I don't know is not an option. It is not that science has simply not advanced enough. Science tells us that this universe is impossible. You can believe all you want in your nothingness, but that is all it is. If this universe does not have an original cause, then non-believers are far less logical than those that believe in God. At least those that believe in God have a logical cause for the universe we live in.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1195 by EarthScienceguy]

I am going with I don't know, since science has simply not advanced enough. Surely you can imagine the possibilities of more potential explanations other than the three you mentioned?

Science tells us that this universe is impossible.

Popular science might say that to bring in clicks, but science doesn't say that at all.

At least those that believe in God have a logical cause for the universe we live in.

That doesn't help when you don't have a logical cause for the cause for the universe we live in.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1193 by DrNoGods]

The only problem with your fairy tale is that Kimura's theory has been discredited. Genetic entropy does exist and has been observed. So there is no way for a species to last millions of years.

Population data given before, supports genetic entropy and not Kimura's theory. Genetic entropy makes evolution over millions of years not possible. There is no other theory so those that do not want to believe in a creator God this is the only option there is.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1196 by Bust Nak]

I am going with I don't know, since science has simply not advanced enough. Surely you can imagine the possibilities of more potential explanations other than the three you mentioned?

That is an illogical position. People are free to choose illogical positions all the time.

Popular science might say that to bring in clicks, but science doesn't say that at all.

Science tells us that a universe as we perceive it cannot exist. Modern Science conclusions say that we can be nothing more than random energy in some sort of storage. The only debate at the present time is the type of storage involved.

And Omnipresent, Omnipotent, omniscience and eternal God would be an logical cause. At least according to Sean Carroll atheist physicist. Based on his eternal universe theory these are the qualities that any eternal being would have to have.

[Bust Nak]

That is an illogical position.

Justify this claim.

Science tells us that a universe as we perceive it cannot exist.

No, it does not.

Modern Science conclusions say that we can be nothing more than random energy in some sort of storage. The only debate at the present time is the type of storage involved.

How is this remotely the same thing as this universe is impossible?

And Omnipresent, Omnipotent, omniscience and eternal God would be an logical cause.

That doesn't help, since you don't have a logical cause for that cause.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1199 by Bust Nak]

Justify this claim.

I did below

Quote:
Science tells us that a universe as we perceive it cannot exist.

No, it does not.

What theory are you speaking of then?

Quote:
Modern Science conclusions say that we can be nothing more than random energy in some sort of storage. The only debate at the present time is the type of storage involved.

How is this remotely the same thing as this universe is impossible?

Let me say this another way then. Modern science tells us that we are not physically real.

Quote:
And Omnipresent, Omnipotent, omniscience and eternal God would be an logical cause.

That doesn't help, since you don't have a logical cause for that cause

Carroll along with other physicist recognize that there has to be something that is eternal. Because if there is something that is eternal then it must have specific characteristics.

[Bust Nak]

What theory are you speaking of then?

What do you mean? Shouldn't you be the one telling me what theory you are speaking of that says the universe as we perceive it cannot exist?

Let me say this another way then. Modern science tells us that we are not physically real.

It says reality is really weird below the macro scale, that's not quite the thing as saying we are not physically real.

Carroll along with other physicist recognize that there has to be something that is eternal. Because if there is something that is eternal then it must have specific characteristics.

Sure, but you are just confirming that you don't have a cause for the cause of the universe.

It's not all that clear which of the points you made here was supposed to justify your claim that thinking science can come up with an explanation other than the 3 you mentioned is some how illogical.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1197 by EarthScienceguy]

So there is no way for a species to last millions of years.

Then explain how many species have, in fact, lasted millions of years. Alligators have been around for about 200 million years. This is a fact. So whatever bogus theory you are referring to that says that no species can last for millions of years is demonstrably wrong. It is not consistent with observation. End of story.

Genetic entropy makes evolution over millions of years not possible. There is no other theory so those that do not want to believe in a creator God this is the only option there is.

Then either you misunderstand what genetic entropy is, or it is invalid, because evolution over millions of years has been observed, repeatedly. Alligators have been around for nearly 200 million years. And there are plenty of other examples. Any description or theory that is not compatible with these facts is therefore wrong.

On the other hand, no "creator god" has ever been observed to exist, in any form at any time in history. Many such beings have been postulated by humans, but none has ever been confirmed to exist. Using the existence of these entirely mythical creatures as the default explanation for all things not yet understood by science is the lazy way out.

[Willum]

I mean it is simple isn't it?

(Just about?) every culture has a flood MYTH.
Only one culture (and it's derivative) considers it real.

The ones that consider it a myth pre-existed those that consider it reality.

So, the best explanation is it is a myth, by TKO.