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?

[Carico]

I think that you miss the point of Last-Thursdayism. You see, if God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago, consistent with a literal reading of the Bible, then it appears as if God has made the universe in such a way as to make us think that it is older than it is. The evidence of geology, biology and cosmology all lead us to believe that the earth, live and the universe are all orders of magnitude older than the biblical claim.

Wrong. Isaiah 64:16, "For I the Lord have created the destroyer to work havoc..." God knows that man won't believe him and instead, make up their own stories of creation. God told us very clearly that He created the universe, how long it took Him to do so, that he created it out of water and by water, how He created man, the animals and all living things.

But man in his pride (which was the first sin, by the way) thinks he knows better than God. So he makes up his own stories, which have changed with the seasons all throughout history) and in most cases, comes up with more bizarre and impossible conclusions than anything in the bible!that's why old theories are discarded and replaced with new ones every century.

God established the length of day and night by when the sun sets and rises. He established the time line of the sun by the rotation of the earth and how it revolves around the sun. He thus established the 7 day week and the 12 month year.

He also created man out of the dust of the ground which is why our flesh and bones decay back into dust when we die. He also created us to re-produce which means that each animal and human producers itself, not another species. And he gave men dominion over the animals.

That's exactly the way the world works. Animals do not breed human descendants in reality nor do they turn into humans. So if you want proof of God, all you have to do is take your blinders off and look at reality. His existence is plain as day in everything around you. That's why Romans 1:18-20 tells us that we have no excuse for denying the existence of God. So there's no reason to make up new impossible stories of creation when creation itself proves God's existence. Absolutely none.

[bernee51]

I think that you miss the point of Last-Thursdayism. You see, if God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago, consistent with a literal reading of the Bible, then it appears as if God has made the universe in such a way as to make us think that it is older than it is. The evidence of geology, biology and cosmology all lead us to believe that the earth, live and the universe are all orders of magnitude older than the biblical claim.

Wrong. Isaiah 64:16, "For I the Lord have created the destroyer to work havoc..." God knows that man won't believe him and instead, make up their own stories of creation. God told us very clearly that He created the universe, how long it took Him to do so, that he created it out of water and by water, how He created man, the animals and all living things.

But god only had that written last Thusday.

[ So there's no reason to make up new impossible stories of creation when creation itself proves God's existence. Absolutely none.

So that the fact that the universe exists is evidence of god's existence.

Can YOU answer my challenge to beleivers (no one has managed yet).

Only three small tasks.

1) Prove that the universe HAD to be created.
2) prove that, if so, it had to have been created by a god.
3) Prove that it was your god (and not some other god)

[Scotracer]

Guess what card I'm going to pull out my sleeve? That's right, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics! Oh snap!

We can prove that the earth is at least 100 million years old (Thomson did this in 1860) with ease: the earth started as entirely molten rock (which we can know a minimum temperature of) and we can quite easily calculate the rate of cooling. And then we have since found out that the earth heats itself from within due to radioactivity and this showed the age of the earth to be at least 3 billion years old.

You want to argue with maths? Go for it.

Oh and Carico the bible talks about the sun revolving around the earth, that the stars are embedded in a solid firmament, that the earth is held up with pillars, that the sun can be made to "stop in the sky" and that, of all things, a group of stars actually ganged up in combat with a human! Now, I'd LOVE to see 3 sun-sized balls of gas fighting a human. That would be epic...although a little short of a fight. Oh and why are no other planets mentioned in the bible? The biblical account of the cosmos is just the concept of the time-period:



This is the same concept as the Babylonians, in the same time period. So much for being ahead of their time.

[Carico]

We can prove that the earth is at least 100 million years old (Thomson did this in 1860) with ease: the earth started as entirely molten rock (which we can know a minimum temperature of) and we can quite easily calculate the rate of cooling. And then we have since found out that the earth heats itself from within due to radioactivity and this showed the age of the earth to be at least 3 billion years old.

Who knows that the earth started as molten rock? That's like me saying; "I can prove how the earth began. It started as a little speck because I say so." Then building a whole new history of the world based on my imagination. That's called making up stories from my imagination and calling them facts. So your premise began with an imaginary idea.

By the way, all fiction writers use some aspect of reality to make their stories believable. FCor example, crime writers use forensics and logic to make their stories sound believable. But they're still fiction.

So what your story should say is "IF the earth began as molten rock, then..." But science omits the "if" to dupe the public and make a name for themselves so the public will automatically adopt their "ifs" (which are hypotheses) as real. And that's what you have done. So scientists turn their "what if's" into "It is"! That's actually called a delusion.

[Carico]

But I want to add a very important point that you made: the very reason that scientists calculate the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years ago is based on nothing more than a "what if". If, the earth began as molten rock, then you are correct that it would take billions of years to cool down.

But "what if's" aren't facts; they're fantasy. In fact, "what if's" are what science fiction books and movies are constructed from.

"What if' humans came from monkeys, then..."
"What if" aliens exist, then..."
"What if" the world began as an explosion, then..."
"What if, Martians invaded the world, then..."

So theories of the past are all based on the process of creating science fiction. And that's why scientists change their minds all the time because their theories are nothing more than imaginary ideas that they call hypotheses.

[McCulloch]

I think that you miss the point of Last-Thursdayism. You see, if God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago, consistent with a literal reading of the Bible, then it appears as if God has made the universe in such a way as to make us think that it is older than it is. The evidence of geology, biology and cosmology all lead us to believe that the earth, live and the universe are all orders of magnitude older than the biblical claim.

Wrong. Isaiah 64:16, "For I the Lord have created the destroyer to work havoc..." God knows that man won't believe him and instead, make up their own stories of creation. God told us very clearly that He created the universe, how long it took Him to do so, that he created it out of water and by water, how He created man, the animals and all living things.

Wrong. God has told us nothing. Humans, who claim to write for God have made such claims.

But man in his pride (which was the first sin, by the way) thinks he knows better than God. So he makes up his own stories, which have changed with the seasons all throughout history) and in most cases, comes up with more bizarre and impossible conclusions than anything in the bible! That's why old theories are discarded and replaced with new ones every century.

No, we now know better that to believe seers and prophets rather than evidence. We make hypotheses based on observation. We test our theories. We revise our understanding with more data.

God established the length of day and night by when the sun sets and rises. He established the time line of the sun by the rotation of the earth and how it revolves around the sun. He thus established the 7 day week and the 12 month year.

Humans devised the 12 month year. In reality, a year is about 365.2425 days. A month is about 29.53 days. So a year is about 12.37 months. Humans also devised the 7 day week.

He also created man out of the dust of the ground which is why our flesh and bones decay back into dust when we die. He also created us to re-produce which means that each animal and human producers itself, not another species. And he gave men dominion over the animals.

Except mosquitoes, bacteria, viruses, ...

[Clownboat]

I spent several years in Missoula, Montana. On clear days I could see many horizontal lines going up the side of Mt Sentinel, at the edge of town. I later learned that these lines were primary evidences for a catastrophic flood 10-15K years ago.

Other evidences include oddly shaped hills on the valley floors, formed when water dropped its load of debris as it slowed, parallel ridges interpreted as ripple marks, and the Washington Scablands with their huge dry falls, plunge pools, and channels. See the link below

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... 2/sec5.htm

So we have overwhelming evidences of a flood at roughly the time period YECs give for the Flood. However, these evidences are of a localized catastrophe with a clear physical cause. An ice dam formed where the drainage of the Clarks Fork River exited the mountains, backing up its waters for decades. Ice will float, so when the water rose high enough the ice dam broke catastrophically. In a matter of 2-3 days a volume of water roughly equal to Lake Ontario came gushing out. This process was repeated at least 30 times as the ice dam formed again - never quite as high or strong as the first time, so less water backed up.

It boggles the mind. Almost Biblical in its proportions. Glacial Lake Missoula shows that given sufficient evidence scientists are willing to accept the reality of a flood.

AND YET ... None of these evidences that define the scientific theory of Glacial Lake Missoula are to be found generally in the world. In particular, the Grand Canyon, what the YECs call a "Monument to Catastrophe" are totally barren of these evidences. Where are the horizontal water marks? Where are the hollowed out canyons - U-shaped as opposed to V-shaped from of the rush of water? Where are the dry falls, the potholes, the wave marks?

We know what a flood will do, what the geological evidence looks like. It's not there. It's to be found only in a few isolated locales with clear physical causes.

IMO Check Mate! I grew up believing in a global flood and even at one point thought that sea creature fossils on top of mountains was actually good evidence for one. I have since found out in my life time that there are simply too many logical examples that disprove a flood covered the entire earth and also logical explinations for things like sea fossils on top of mountain ranges.

Carico, I do value your participation and replies, however I have to decide if I need to put you on ignore, only due to the fact that when I read your replies, I find myself slapping my own forehead and I am now developing a headache.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Caution

Please review the Rules.

Carico, I do value your participation and replies, however I have to decide if I need to put you on ignore, only due to the fact that when I read your replies, I find myself slapping my own forehead and I am now developing a headache.

If you feel the need to put someone on ignore, simply do so. There is no need to announce it publicly or to insult the other debater in doing so.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[Elvis Trout]

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?

Could you be more clear on what this 'Global Flood model' is? I don't understand? Do you mean 40 days 40 nights? Or just a flood that killed everything? Or a flood before there was anything to kill?

[Grumpy]

McCulloch

Sure wish there was some kind of rule about people insulting our intelligence.

Grumpy