The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

[abelcainsbrother]

...never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does...

Coywolf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
and later iterations, now being observed in Canada.

i dug, because i was initially challenged by the info that Moses did not in fact invent them or whatever, bring them down from a mountain, and i was informed that Hammurabi made them up, and then discovered that they even predated Hammurabi, and i got as far back as...Mesopotamia, i think? circa 16,000 BC.

so, if you got better info, love to hear it! ty

I dont think you are trying very hard.

so then, i acknowledge that you are the master then, ok? i got maybe 20 minutes in that.

But i notice that you still have not served anyone here--anyone else, i mean.

Thanks for the link and all it proves is normal variation in reproduction,such as dogs and roses. You are just taking us back 150 years ago when Darwin was trying to convince people life evolves based on normal variation with his finches and must assume life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction,without any evidence after 150 years of evolution science. The only thing evolution science has proven is God created and made life to produce after its kind. There is No way dinosaurs could evolve into birds based on the evidence you posted and the evidence in evolution science. You must assume and have blind faith life evolves. But this is not an evolution thread,there are evolution threads on here were we can discuss evolution though,but this is a global flood thread. My point was how Audie can believe life evolves without having ever seen it and having no evidence that demonstrates it does yet cannot believe things in the bible without evidence and must be believed by faith. But Audie just seems to get offended and I don't know why. I have never been mean to her despite the discussions we've had.

[Audie]

...never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does...

Coywolf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
and later iterations, now being observed in Canada.

i dug, because i was initially challenged by the info that Moses did not in fact invent them or whatever, bring them down from a mountain, and i was informed that Hammurabi made them up, and then discovered that they even predated Hammurabi, and i got as far back as...Mesopotamia, i think? circa 16,000 BC.

so, if you got better info, love to hear it! ty

I dont think you are trying very hard.

so then, i acknowledge that you are the master then, ok? i got maybe 20 minutes in that.

But i notice that you still have not served anyone here--anyone else, i mean.

Lets you and I have the same deal suggested above. Perhaps you can honour it.

[hughfarey]

I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves...

Nope,it is silly for you to believe life evolves without any evidence to show it does...

You have defended evolution and you accept it and yet have never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does...

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother, but you don't seem to have any idea how 'evidence' works in the establishing of a truth beyond reasonable doubt, and going on and on (and on and on) repeating the same inaccuracies is entrenching you into a rut I think it worth trying to help you out of. You are mistaking 'evidence' for 'proof'. There is evidence aplenty for evolution of all kinds, micro, macro and all the rest, evidence that it happened in the past, and evidence that it is continuing today, as the coyote/wolf cross link demonstrates. This you are aware of. What you are disingenuously trying to conflate is that because Audie (and myself) have not 'proved' evolution to your satisfaction, this is the same as having 'no evidence' for evolution, which I think is terminological inexactitude of most grievous culpability.

However, I grant you that in spite of presenting lots of 'evidence', it falls short of incontestable 'proof'.

But now let's look at your side of the argument.

But this is not an evolution thread,there are evolution threads on here were we can discuss evolution though,but this is a global flood thread."

Quite so. So of course we would like you to present some evidence supporting it. Not 'proof', just evidence. Sadly, you haven't managed any of that at all! Not only no proof, but no evidence either. None at all. You have attempted (wholly unsuccessfully in my view) to maintain that a global flood could have happened, but made no attempt at all to demonstrate that one actually has happened. Would you like to stop bickering at Audie's, and my, ideas about evolution, and attempt to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, for your own ideas about a global flood?

Forgive me, but you seem to think that the truth of an idea of one's own is somehow fortified by the discrediting of an unrelated idea of somebody else's. It isn't.

[RickD]

I'm glad we're all in agreement then.

No proof for a global flood, nor for what is commonly called macroevolution.

And the evidence for both is wanting as well.

[Kurieuo]

Well, I believe in a global flood, but not as normally thought of. RTB are wrong, not thinking outside the box as there is a quite natural and scientific alternative that would explain how many regions of the world were flooded at around the same time. Most are now aware of the ideas I now tend to lean towards here...

Lady Min, I wonder, given that the flood is a popular topic which you seem to chime in on often, whether at the end of the day you believe a Christian can be an honest Christian, while considering the flood more as myth with theological meaning. Something more in line with Hugh's position.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I know there is absolutely zero -- ZERO -- possibility of convincing you of any reality to it. It's just something to reject outright, I mean why should you care to accept any of it? Nonetheless, does it mean Christ's teachings as Christians understanding ought to be rejected too? Just wondering your own thoughts.

[hughfarey]

I'm glad we're all in agreement then.
No proof for a global flood, nor for what is commonly called macroevolution.
And the evidence for both is wanting as well.

Well, no. Obviously. I can see that you feel that the evidence for macroevolution is inadequate and unconvincing, but surely you can't say that we haven't presented some. Perhaps that's what you mean by 'wanting'. However, abelcainsbrother hasn't even presented any unconvincing evidence for his global flood. If he did, perhaps we wouldn't find it unconvincing. Perhaps we would agree with his conclusions! But we've never had the chance to find out.

[Audie]

I'm glad we're all in agreement then.
No proof for a global flood, nor for what is commonly called macroevolution.
And the evidence for both is wanting as well.

Well, no. Obviously. I can see that you feel that the evidence for macroevolution is inadequate and unconvincing, but surely you can't say that we haven't presented some. Perhaps that's what you mean by 'wanting'. However, abelcainsbrother hasn't even presented any unconvincing evidence for his global flood. If he did, perhaps we wouldn't find it unconvincing. Perhaps we would agree with his conclusions! But we've never had the chance to find out.

One can point to various things and say "this is evidence of a world wide flood".

Among those might be Wal Mart, and the bubonic plague. Or perhaps marine fossils atop mountains, and in Kansas.

The trick then is to show how this observed phenom is in all ways consistent with a global flood, and, disprove, if possible, any alternate explanations.

This could go on ad naus, as there are many things which might be taken by some as "flood evidence". One of the layers of dust trapped in polar ice, say.
Or the Grand Canyon,

The thing with any theory is that it is open to being disproved.

A theory is that the bible correctly describes a world wide flood.

The presence of polar ice far older than any possible date for the flood
disproves a world wide flood. Not that there are not many other ways, but that one is simple.

There is no point in continuing to look for "evidence" of a WWF, no more than
hoping to prove Mr Green did it with a candlestick when Mr Green had already been dead for ten years when the dastardly deed was done.

[hughfarey]

One can point to various things and say "this is evidence of a world wide flood".

Perhaps one can, but abelcainsbrother hasn't. A layer of dust is not evidence of a flood. Obviously. The Grand Canyon or fossils in the Himalayas are too local to be evidence of worldwide flood unless they can be shown to be simultaneous, which they're clearly not. Is there anything else?

[Kurieuo]

[Kurieuo seeing the awkward blank stares slowly and silently steps out of the room]

[Audie]

One can point to various things and say "this is evidence of a world wide flood".

Perhaps one can, but abelcainsbrother hasn't. A layer of dust is not evidence of a flood. Obviously. The Grand Canyon or fossils in the Himalayas are too local to be evidence of worldwide flood unless they can be shown to be simultaneous, which they're clearly not. Is there anything else?

Those things could have been flood-sign , if only there'd been such a flood. Asking for more evidence is ok, but it ispointless.

Kind of like submitting more evidence that Mr Green did it in the parlour, when it has been shown he was in Paris when murder happened in Katmandu.

The ice disproves "flood". Efforts to get out of that simple obvious fact are childish, at best.

[abelcainsbrother]

I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves...

Nope,it is silly for you to believe life evolves without any evidence to show it does...

You have defended evolution and you accept it and yet have never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does...

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother, but you don't seem to have any idea how 'evidence' works in the establishing of a truth beyond reasonable doubt, and going on and on (and on and on) repeating the same inaccuracies is entrenching you into a rut I think it worth trying to help you out of. You are mistaking 'evidence' for 'proof'. There is evidence aplenty for evolution of all kinds, micro, macro and all the rest, evidence that it happened in the past, and evidence that it is continuing today, as the coyote/wolf cross link demonstrates. This you are aware of. What you are disingenuously trying to conflate is that because Audie (and myself) have not 'proved' evolution to your satisfaction, this is the same as having 'no evidence' for evolution, which I think is terminological inexactitude of most grievous culpability.

However, I grant you that in spite of presenting lots of 'evidence', it falls short of incontestable 'proof'.

But now let's look at your side of the argument.

But this is not an evolution thread,there are evolution threads on here were we can discuss evolution though,but this is a global flood thread."

Quite so. So of course we would like you to present some evidence supporting it. Not 'proof', just evidence. Sadly, you haven't managed any of that at all! Not only no proof, but no evidence either. None at all. You have attempted (wholly unsuccessfully in my view) to maintain that a global flood could have happened, but made no attempt at all to demonstrate that one actually has happened. Would you like to stop bickering at Audie's, and my, ideas about evolution, and attempt to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, for your own ideas about a global flood?

Forgive me, but you seem to think that the truth of an idea of one's own is somehow fortified by the discrediting of an unrelated idea of somebody else's. It isn't.

I'll admit that when it comes to evolution I have narrowed it down to bullet points based on my research into evolution but I'd be happy to get deeper into the evidence but it almost never happens on this forum. Instead evolutionists just use claims like the majority of scientists accept it,it is foolish to reject it based on how much evidence is in it,just declare it as true science,etc but they neevr really get into the evidence.When I say there is no evidence I always make it clear and say there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves. I know there is a lot of evidence in evolution science to wade through but it is not quality evidence and does not even come close to demonstrating life evolves. I just explain briefly why I reject evolution whenever it comes up on here and that is all I have done so far. If evolutionists disagree then it is up to them to show and explain why,but it doesn't really happen on here.I would like to get into it deeper but this is not the thread to do it. If you want to discuss it? Find a thread about evolution on here and make a post and people can respond.

As far as evidence for a world wide flood I have given evidence and eventhough it might not be proof is a much better explanation for a world wide flood based on science than what you typically hear from creationists. But Audie gets hung up on the ice being able to survive a world wide flood and this is totally a dealbreaker for her,it is impossible to her that the polar ice could survive a world wide flood, that only lasted a year,but not for me.

I see what the problem is now. You see I have explained the flood hypothesis that I accept and me and Audie have discussed it before and I think even she would have to admit it is totally not our of the realm of possibilities scientifically but the only thing that hung her up about it is polar ice surviving a world wide flood,she just cannot see how even when I gave her an experiment to try to show how the ice could remain stuck down submerged under water,but she just can't accept it,so she jabs at me about it.

I have not explained to you in greater detail the flood hypothesis that I accept and so you are coming into this out of context. After having discussed the flood with Audie before and how stubbern she is to accept a flood,she does accept evolution and yet the evidence is weak as I have explained.Audie knows what I mean.

[abelcainsbrother]

One can point to various things and say "this is evidence of a world wide flood".

Perhaps one can, but abelcainsbrother hasn't. A layer of dust is not evidence of a flood. Obviously. The Grand Canyon or fossils in the Himalayas are too local to be evidence of worldwide flood unless they can be shown to be simultaneous, which they're clearly not. Is there anything else?

First off dust in the polar ice and in the oceans that just so happens to date back 4500 years ago to when Noah's flood happened,which shows a world wide drought happened is just part of the evidence,there is more to it than just that.

You first need to understand that it is possible a world wide flood happened based on how much water is both in and on the earth, take for instance if we could level out the earth's surface? The whole earth would be flooded right now over all the land too of every continent and we would have a world wide flood,the fact it can't be done doesn't change anything. Level out the surface of the earth that hold all of that water in the oceans and you have a world wide flood. If you can't accept this then there is no reason to try to convince somebody of a world wide flood. It must first be a possibility based on the amount of water on and in the earth. We have been told over and over there is not enough water for a world wide flood,but there is.

[abelcainsbrother]

I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves...

Nope,it is silly for you to believe life evolves without any evidence to show it does...

You have defended evolution and you accept it and yet have never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does...

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother, but you don't seem to have any idea how 'evidence' works in the establishing of a truth beyond reasonable doubt, and going on and on (and on and on) repeating the same inaccuracies is entrenching you into a rut I think it worth trying to help you out of. You are mistaking 'evidence' for 'proof'. There is evidence aplenty for evolution of all kinds, micro, macro and all the rest, evidence that it happened in the past, and evidence that it is continuing today, as the coyote/wolf cross link demonstrates. This you are aware of. What you are disingenuously trying to conflate is that because Audie (and myself) have not 'proved' evolution to your satisfaction, this is the same as having 'no evidence' for evolution, which I think is terminological inexactitude of most grievous culpability.

However, I grant you that in spite of presenting lots of 'evidence', it falls short of incontestable 'proof'.

But now let's look at your side of the argument.

But this is not an evolution thread,there are evolution threads on here were we can discuss evolution though,but this is a global flood thread."

Quite so. So of course we would like you to present some evidence supporting it. Not 'proof', just evidence. Sadly, you haven't managed any of that at all! Not only no proof, but no evidence either. None at all. You have attempted (wholly unsuccessfully in my view) to maintain that a global flood could have happened, but made no attempt at all to demonstrate that one actually has happened. Would you like to stop bickering at Audie's, and my, ideas about evolution, and attempt to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, for your own ideas about a global flood?

Forgive me, but you seem to think that the truth of an idea of one's own is somehow fortified by the discrediting of an unrelated idea of somebody else's. It isn't.

I'll admit that when it comes to evolution I have narrowed it down to bullet points based on my research into evolution but I'd be happy to get deeper into the evidence but it almost never happens on this forum. Instead evolutionists just use claims like the majority of scientists accept it,it is foolish to reject it based on how much evidence is in it,just declare it as true science,etc but they neevr really get into the evidence.When I say there is no evidence I always make it clear and say there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves. I know there is a lot of evidence in evolution science to wade through but it is not quality evidence and does not even come close to demonstrating life evolves. I just explain briefly why I reject evolution whenever it comes up on here and that is all I have done so far. If evolutionists disagree then it is up to them to show and explain why,but it doesn't really happen on here.I would like to get into it deeper but this is not the thread to do it. If you want to discuss it? Find a thread about evolution on here and make a post and people can respond.

As far as evidence for a world wide flood I have given evidence and eventhough it might not be proof is a much better explanation for a world wide flood based on science than what you typically hear from creationists. But Audie gets hung up on the ice being able to survive a world wide flood and this is totally a dealbreaker for her,it is impossible to her that the polar ice could survive a world wide flood, that only lasted a year,but not for me.

I see what the problem is now. You see I have explained the flood hypothesis that I accept and me and Audie have discussed it before and I think even she would have to admit it is totally not out of the realm of possibilities scientifically but the only thing that hung her up about it is polar ice surviving a world wide flood,she just cannot see how even when I gave her an experiment to try to show how the ice could remain stuck down submerged under water,but she just can't accept it,so she jabs at me about it.

I have not explained to you in greater detail the flood hypothesis that I accept and so you are coming into this out of context. After having discussed the flood with Audie before and how stubbern she is to accept a flood,she does accept evolution and yet the evidence is weak as I have explained.Audie knows what I mean.

[hughfarey]

As far as evidence for a world wide flood I have given evidence

Where? Why can't I find it?

and even though it might not be proof it is a much better explanation for a world wide flood based on science than what you typically hear from creationists.

I'm delighted to hear it. Now where is this evidence?

[abelcainsbrother]

As far as evidence for a world wide flood I have given evidence

Where? Why can't I find it?

and even though it might not be proof it is a much better explanation for a world wide flood based on science than what you typically hear from creationists.

I'm delighted to hear it. Now where is this evidence?

How about for now a brief explanation for a world wide flood?

First off before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have after the flood. The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas. Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere,there was a break in the crust of the earth allowing the water inside the earth to spew out into the atmosphere and flood the earth world wide,the water spewed up into the atmosphere cooled and condensed and it started raining,as the water inside the earth spewed out of the earth the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water. This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust,like as the weight of the water settled it would lower the water level on the earth,stopping some,then suddenly lowering alittle more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth.