OK, lets address implications: You adhere to the idea of a huge flood some 4,350 years ago but that flood left no evidence. A much smaller, regional flood in Idaho and Washington three times older left lots of evidence.
What is the implication of this other than the recent global flood is a myth?
It's a regional off topic strawman having no resemblence to my Genesis model. Would't you have to agree, Coyote.
No this is not off topic.
You can't just selectively ignore evidence that you don't like.
You wanted to deal with implications, now deal with them!
We have a nice series of post-glacial floods in Idaho and Washington (google "channeled scablands"). There are others elsewhere, but let's just deal with the one.
These floods are three times older than the bible's flood, and very much smaller. Yet we can track their extent, age, and many other details.
A supposed flood much larger left no evidence, and didn't even wipe out evidence of the older, smaller floods.
Implication: the global biblical flood never happened.
Now stop dodging and weaving and deal with this.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
You can't just selectively ignore evidence that you don't like.
Oh, I think Buz has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he actually can do exactly that.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Hi Buz, So it appears one thing you are saying is: a flood would cause sudden climate change. It would not cause varying levels of gradual climate change.
Which would imply you have a lot of explaining to do with regards to the many examples of locally varying gradual climate change that seems to be overwhelming picture whenever smart people think up new ways of understanding old climates. I appreciate that Creationists tend to think this is solved by all those different methods universally produce consistently incorrect and merely coincidentally similar answers.
And yes, this is possible. We could jury-rig and bodge together a theory that takes care of every single 'special case' {which are the norm, but never mind} in an ad hoc fashion whiling attempting to sell actual 'special cases' as the norm.
I'm sure you'll agree that it is OK for a theory to change in light of new evidence, but that excusing deficiencies in a theory using patches and hope can only go on so long before the theory has to be abandoned as the hodge podge that it has become.
If on the other hand, when you say,
Hopefully corroborating all of the implications will also help members to understand why such an event would skew data applied in current dating methodology.
you mean there is a parsimonious explanation that simply explains all of the skewing and why it has taken on the appearance that it has, then I'd like to hear it - even if it does include miracles. Clearly you know more about this idea than I do. Could you explain why even though different dating methods agree with one another that because they disagree with Genesis it shouldn't be Genesis that we throw away? Could you explain the mystery of why they agree with one another so well?
Perhaps this will enable members to better understand what the Genesis record actually says and implies relative to that alleged event.
You might as well provide the supporting references from Genesis, I've read it but I didn't get any of what you said from doing so. For instance:
It would not produce the same atmosphere, given the volumn of water to accomodate a flood of this magnitude.
Is there any reason that we shouldn't consider this as 'the miracle of the consistent atmosphere'? Since we have established that Yahweh's has indirectly had dating methods skewed in an incredibly deceptive fashion - how are you so confident that whatever evidence you based this claim on isn't likewise deceptive?
This topic is not intended to be about evidence of the Noahic flood, but about implications of what a flood of this magnitude would not produce if (I say if) such a flood had occurred.
What is the point of that? Why argue hypothetical scenarios if you believe a global flood actually took place. Why not argue the historicity of such a global event.... with evidence?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
Sweet, so the whole point of this thread is to come up with a list of things that a Global Flood would NOT produce.
I've got a killer all-inclusive list right here. . .
A Global Flood would NOT produce. . .
1). Any of the geologic structures that can currently be seen in any portion of the Earth's strata. 2). Any changes to the decay rates of radioactive materials used in dating rocks, fossils or organic materials.
Or, if Buz somehow thinks that a list of things that a Global Flood would NOT produce is somehow going to prove its existence then I can continue a list including things that show an equal amount of historical evidence (i.e. NONE).
A Global Flood would also NOT produce. . .
1). Cyborg monsters that shoot lasers out of their eyes 2). Perpetual motion machines 3). Cold Fusion 4). a disturbance in The Force equivalent to the destruction of life on Alderon 5). a fossilized wookie, ewok, nerf or rankor
Since there is no evidence for these items, by Buz's logic the Global Flood must be true.
Lets just see if you can answer a simple question Buz: What causes rainbows?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
The Stupid!! it burns!!!! or it would if I hadn't already built up a thick layer of scar tissue due to repeated exposure to Buz.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.
Genesis 7:24 writes:
24And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.
Here is what I have always wondered: wouldn't it be extremely cold if the water was as tall as the highest mountain (Mt. Everest) What about the oxygen content? How did they breathe? Was the earth that much flatter 4k years ago? Have all the tallest mountains only recently been formed?
Now that I have those "implications" out of the way, I want to get my opinion out there. What is the purpose of this topic other than to allow Buz to spout bullcrap about his opinion? It is quite obvious that this subject is not up for proper debate, but rather, Buz is given his pulpit from which to spit. He is not even interested in helping any to learn about his position, given his fondness for mincing words and using big words he doesn't understand (as lyx2no so eloquently pointed out). I have followed, rather closely, flood threads that Buz is involved in, because I have found his to be an intriguing position, mainly because he is so adamant that he has, as he claims, "a deep library of empirical evidence for biblical historicity". He DOES know his bible. However, this thread is doomed to fail. He made clear now that he has NOTHING.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
If I should give a guess I think buz and othe creo guyz would say something like
"stupid evilutionist. The oxygen concentration was much highter pre-flood. Just look at the evidence in the bible. People lived much longer back then and was bigger due to the oxygen concentration. How does your religion explains that, huh?!"
It is quite obvious that this subject is not up for proper debate, but rather, Buz is given his pulpit from which to spit.
And that's why it's in the free-for-all forum, so that Buz doesn't have to produce even the smallest amount of evidence but can proclaim that he has fought the "good" fight and wasn't defeated. Buzz is too ignorant to know when he's wrong about something and too arrogant to admit it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Since this is one of your rare references to evidence, I'll address this:
Buzsaw writes:
Wyatt's allegedly debunked Noah Ark site in the foothills of Aarat along with 13 ballast like stones with eyes in the tops of them is likely an impression the correct length according to the Genesis record. I go with it as evidence, though it is debatable.
Let us agree, for the sake of discussion, that the evidence indicates unequivocally that Wyatt has discovered the remains of a gigantic boat on Ararat. And you probably recall that just last month another Christian group claimed that *they* had discovered the remains of Noah's ark, as described here in this New York Daily News article.
The two groups cannot both have found Noah's ark. How would you propose going about determining which, if any, group had discovered the real ark? Wouldn't you have to look at the evidence?
Here is what I have always wondered: wouldn't it be extremely cold if the water was as tall as the highest mountain (Mt. Everest) What about the oxygen content? How did they breathe?
Somewhere in the distant past we've discussed this before.
With a higher sea level you'd just push the atmospheric column out slightly further (the height of Everest is insignificant relative to the radius of the Earth). The new see level air pressure would be essentially the same as "pre-flood". I strongly suspect likewise for temperatures.
™ Version 4.2