The Flood

May that as it be, why is it that there is no experiments or evidence to support such ideas?Even if the mainstream science community is narrow minded, that doesn't mean that supporters of creationism can't provide testable evidence. Science has a way of changing when confronted by repeatable experiments showing something very different. But no one has provided a reasonable argument or evidence that suggests that the flood occured. Baumgardner's own theory runs into seriously heat problems and he has admitted himself that it requires a miracle. If creationism had merits why are its supporters requiring divinic support when their arguments fall flat on their faces?Many of us, non-scientists can run the numbers and produce solid arguments that flood never happened abeit without some divinic help that mysteriously left no trace whatsoever.

quote:

---

There have been research done and evidence produced. Biblical floodists apply the research and evidence regarding the Black Sea as supportive to the Biblical account. It's just that we interpret the evidence differently than secularists do.

---

Except the black sea is hardly the mainstream idea of what occured in Genesis. What you're implying is a very different view of literal genesis.

quote:

---

We also have research and evidence with the chariot wheels at Aqaba along with the corroborating evidence in the region supportive to the Biblical historical account that this is the region to which the Biblical account applies.

---

You mean your intepretation of the biblical account which in itself is a rip off of Gilgamesh which clearly has a world wide flood meant to destroy all of mankind.

quote:

---

What is reasonable evidence has a lot to do what ones views are as to what is evidence and what is reasonable.

---

Agreed, but the numbers don't lie here. How you intend to get around the various mathematical problems of a flood is beyond me.

quote:

---

I don't believe the heat problem has been soundly refuted since the properties and arragement of the atmosphere in such a canopy preflood model would be unknown.

---

Because? The atmosphere plays a large role in habitats and the survival of creatures. As genesis would argue no evolution occured, these species therefore couldn't have changed, thus the atmosphere which supported them wouldn't have either. Besides that's not my point. Baumgardner's idea on plate tetonics deals little to nothing with the atmosphere.

You do realize relying upon geysers to produce 200% of the water on earth today results in a heat exchange high enough to kill virtually every living organism yes?

quote:

---

I'm not trying to argue that the Black Sea had anything to do with Genesis.

---

On the contrary, it looks like you're trying to argue that the flood was a local event that history blew up into a world wide event. That's not surprising as a global flood is scientifically impossible to defend.

quote:

---

I said the amount of water for that event may be regarded as evidence for a great flood of some great magnitude.

---

Define "great."

quote:

---

I've gone into this before in other threads but in all of the layers of the atmosphere and all that could have changed it's just too vast to be able to come to any concrete conclusion on the heat factor.

---

And others have refuted you as they have here. Simply saying you've done something despite a history of being proven wrong doesn't make you right.

quote:

---

Baumgardner is not the last word on anything though I agree with much of what he claims.

---

Like the fact that he admitted his idea requires a miracle?The flood itself has been poked and prodded from virtually every angle here. You're much better off arguing that the black sea had a flood and that was the basis for Gilgamesh which Christanity stole.But since you keep harping about empirically, how about you deal with the massive amounts of empirical experiments, numbers and calculations that refute the flood?Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They can argue all they want but if they dont have evidence its bullshit. We do have evidence about the past atmosphere and it doesnt support their arguements

---

It doesn't even make sense. If the past atmosphere was different, then the organism today would be different (never mind genesis = no evolution). How they can think that organisms could survive under two extremely different atmospheres and their subsequent effects on the enviroment reeks of ignorance and serious lack of education.It's like taking a polar bear out of the artic and putting in the tropics. HELLO.

Of course.You'd think they would get the picture after corollating fossils of huge insects with massive amounts of oxygen in ice cores from the same time period. [sarcasm]I wonder if atmosphere plays a role in what organisms are around![/sarcasm] Geez...

As I recall several eras before the Dinosaurs had a % of oxygen far higher then it is today, allowing huge arthropods to evolve. Dragonflys with 12 feet wingspans, spiders the size of dinner plates...[sarcasm]I wonder if oxygen content had anything to do with that![/sarcasm]

quote:

---

so I'm not sure why you incredulously said, relying upon geysers to produce 200% of the water on earth today results in a heat exchange high enough to kill virtually every living organism yes? Whether it was hot water or cold water is inconsequential to the story. The fact relayed by Moses and other civilizations is that, yes, nothing not on board the vessel survived either way.

---

The only things that would survive would be thermophilic bacteria as some has been found in places that reach several hundred degrees.
Releasing superheated water in a amount double or even triple the current water levels on the planet would raise the temperature of the planet easily past what virtually every organism on a boat or not can survive. How you think that Noah much less the Ark survived a sudden astronomical termperature increase likely several hundred times survivable is delusional.But try a simple experiment. Take a frog from a pond and drop it into a pot of water that's 500 degrees Farenheit. Does it live?

Buzz simply prefers to ignore that Baumgardner has admitted his idea of rapid plate tetonics on which Buzz is relying upon requires a miracle.He calls the heat problems unproven because it's easier then dealing with them. You'd think plates moving at 5+ feet a year would be noticable, much less the insane amount of additional heat that would be required.

It was magic water so why not?Mental Gymnastics my friend. Mental Gymnastics.

I'm fine with you saying it was a miracle, but it's a miracle with no evidence to support it and a huge amount to suggest it never happened.Are you implicitly arguing that God divinically made the flood and left no trace whatsoever?

Alright, all I remember was that Discovery said the dragonfly was as large as a Eagle.Hmmm, but as common sense it would make sense that high levels of oxygen would allow large organisms to evolve to utilize the increased levels.

They could actually believe it. I have run into a few anti-christian trolls who go about acting like a ridiculously ignorant person to make the religion look bad.The good threads go dark because of the fundemental principle of literal Creationism: Dishonest.

quote:

---

Or is just someone who never really fully engages the evidence, but flirts around it: more like a moth to a candle, eh? (Can't get too close now, might get burned).

---

Well that is the strategy. Style over substance. I'm currently dealing with a creationist who posts on science ignorant forums and challenged him to come here. He refuses. He's smart enough to know that he cannot survive a substance over style debate.

quote:

---

And deluded enough to think he can ignore it and thus make the big pink elephant in the room go away?

---

No, just deluded enough to think that people won't notice that he's engaging in that strategy. I've challenged numerous style over substance creationists to post here. The second they get a look at the people they refuse to post.