Peanut Gallery: Ice Age is a Product of the Flood

However, limiting yourself to verifiable evidence does allow you to be confident in your conclusions. These limitations actually provide a benefit. If we did not limit ourselves to evidence then how could we determine if an idea is accurate or not?Even more, we are talking about a global flood. A massive global flood will leave evidence. It can't be avoided. If someone was digging through the geologic record near Mt. St. Helens do you think they would miss the evidence for an eruption in 1980? No. It is all over the place. We are talking about a global flood that would absolutely dwarf that eruption. So where is the evidence?

The topic is practically Coyote's life's work. It's like putting a homeless guy up against Donald Trump in a debate on how to make money.I don't see how a dogpile could be worse. Confusion is a creationist's best friend.

I'm waiting for him to make the first post. We'll see what evidence he can bring to the discussion.

And a lot of things that DIDN'T happen didn't leave evidence....Personally, I suspect that both of your claims are false. It is not that evidence is not there at all, it's just hard to find.And as Coyote will happily tell you, the genetic evidence rules out a recent world-wide flood (or any other event) reducing the human population to a mere 7 individuals.

As do all not-at-all-historical, completely-made-up-events.---But I don't see why you bring up this line of argument. Is it your contention that the Flood is the sort of event that would leave no evidence? If we were discussing (for example) the talking snake, you might have a point --- what are we meant to find, fossilized snake words? But in the case of the Flood, surely it would have left some trace?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But the premise of the Great Debate is that the Ice Age is a flood effect. If so then the flood did leave traces.

The arrived at their conclusion by starting with historical documents. When the evidence did not match up to the documents, they began to ask why. The first thing that cleared things up was that the position of the nile was different when the document was written than it is today. The other piece of evidence that solidified their case was another city some distance away that matched in fine detail what the document said about the city. What clinched it was a good solid reason for moving the city.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

But that is using your conclusion as your evidence. A conclusion can never be used as evidence.

It depends on when you say the flood happened. If you say roughly 5000 years ago, then there is zero evidence. If you say about 4.2 billion years ago, there is plenty of evidence for a world covered in water and the appearance of mountains being covered. Also, based totally on the perspective of a sumerian farmer named noah, a flood that covered most of the middle east would match what is written in genesis, and there is evidence for such a flood. As for an ice age that resulted from such a flood, there is no mention of such in genesis and no reason to posit one reasoning biblically. It was actually the ending of the ice age that could possibly have caused the local middle eastern flood.

So are you saying that the Biblical Flood was NOT world-wide but just local and that only some local plants, animals and plants were destroyed?Edited by jar, : appalin gremmer

What claims are you talking about? Looking at San Francisco today without geological tools, one would have no reason to suspect there was ever a great earthquake there. It is very likely a whole egyptian city did move. The documentary made a very convincing case for it.What would happen if you wiped out the human population and reseeded it with 7 people?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Actually it is not my conclusion at all. It is the point that Mellark is attempting to make.

Shall we let a little of the main Great Debate debate happen first?I think so. Besides, this PG topic is already going badly off-topic.Adminnemooseus

Events, things that actually happen, leave evidence behind, and they cause people to take pictures and write stuff that after a while are considered historical documents. Aside from historical documents, long after San Francisco is gone archaeologists will still be able to dig down to the 1906 layer and find evidence of the earthquake. I'll second the warning about trusting the impressions you might be given by shows on the History Channel. If it left no trace of its former location, how did they know it was there? Science limits itself to evidence everyone can see (or touch, taste, feel or hear). There is no other kind of evidence.--Percy

What you're describing sounds like physical evidence. You can't argue that science should use other sources of evidence beyond physical evidence by presenting an example of science using physical evidence.--Percy