Evidence for a global flood

[chris4243]

That all sounds very scientific of you but think about this. Those who write these so called "papers" YOU nor I can verify that they are true. I know you will say that their "peers" verify them, but how do you know this for sure. No, this is a controlled environment and ANYONE or ANYTHING that refutes their cause will not be accepted. There are the "few" "peers" who are in control and no one is getting through without there permission and acceptance.

Did I mention peer review? I said these guys are full of BS. They're doing pseudoscience instead of science. Even a cursory glance at their stuff is enough to tell. Again, not their conclusions, not peer review, just the lack of science in their writings. I told you what to look for: where is the raw data, the references, the independent confirmation? Where are the chi-squared analyses, standard deviations, p values?

And talk about manipulation!!! Please don't try to use the scriptures to manipulate me to see it your way. The VERY LAST thing Jesus was talking about here was what you are trying to represent.

He was talking more about the Richard Dawkins and the Stephen Hawkings of the world. Atheists!!! Those who did not believe in Him. Those who refused to come to the light. Those who promote and control much of the world of science. Those who prefer darkness rather than come to Him and use science as their mask to hide behind.

Category:Scientist - Celebrity Atheist List

One day the evil deeds of these men will come to the Light and be exposed and sadly, those who are deceived by them will be right there. The blind leading the blind and Jesus said they will both fall in the ditch. Don't fall in the ditch with them. Come to the true Light, Jesus Christ.

Yet the fact remains that scientists stand proudly in the light, and demand that others do so if they wish to be acknowledged by them, while creationists cower in the shadows. Try to hunt down a creationist's primary references and you will see.

 

[visa]

Most people believe what they want to believe, some people believe because they don't know any better, foolish people believe what they have been told to believe, religious people only believe what their religions tell them to believe, creationists have foolishly been taught to believe everything that's written in the bible.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, it's been my experience here that you guys only see what you WANT to see so in anwer to your question, I'd say "no."

But there are those who do see evidence, not that YOU will believe it but it's always worth posting.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

The "scientific evidence" consists of what is widely known as a PRATT list for Points Refuted a Thousand Times. Polystrate fossils for example have been widely discussed in the past as have marine fossils in deposits uplifted to form mountains and the fact that anyone could claim boulders left behind by glaciers (erratics) as evidence for a global flood shows the either they are totally ignorant of geology or being deliberately deceptive.

Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood

The creationist claims about the Coconino Sandstones are not startling evidence for Noah's flood. They are startling evidence for the absurdity of YEC "Flood Geology" I have dicussed the subject on this board in the past.
Absurd YEC Claims about the Coconino Sandstones

Unfortunatley some of the links, including those to the beautiful raindrop impressions and insect tracks no longer work.

Worldwide Geologic Evidence of the Genesis Flood

More PRATTS. Why don't you pick on that you think is credible and we can discuss it?

 

[Hespera]

The "scientific evidence" consists of what is widely known as a PRATT list for Points Refuted a Thousand Times. Polystrate fossils for example have been widely discussed in the past as have marine fossils in deposits uplifted to form mountains and the fact that anyone could claim boulders left behind by glaciers (erratics) as evidence for a global flood shows the either they are totally ignorant of geology or being deliberately deceptive.
The creationist claims about the Coconino Sandstones are not startling evidence for Noah's flood. They are startling evidence for the absurdity of YEC "Flood Geology" I have dicussed the subject on this board in the past.
Absurd YEC Claims about the Coconino Sandstones

Unfortunatley some of the links, including those to the beautiful raindrop impressions and insect tracks no longer work.



More PRATTS. Why don't you pick on that you think is credible and we can discuss it?

thing is you get people who actually believe that all the worlds scientists are involved in a world wide conspiracy. so they see these crackpots as being brave mavericks struggling to bring forth the truth.

Think about it who accepts or rejects these publications? It is a controlled environment and from what I have seen of the scientific community they are not the upstanding wonderful society that everyone touts them to be. They are just as devious and manipulative and greedy as the rest of society

 

[juvenissun]

Could you do us all a favour and break down your reasoning into steps? I see the ocean, therefore global flood, is a bit... vague.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to tear my hair out if you do, but it would be nice to hear it anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

I tried (a few years). Nobody has interest to know the details.

To have this much water on earth is a necessary condition for the flood. And we have it. For some part, I have explained it in one of the early posts (my first one) of this thread.

I pointed out the most significant evidence. I rather now play defensive, because that will match better on what you understand.

 

[juvenissun]

If I was to guess I'm thinking he meant that much of the ocean we see today is left over water from the flood.

A fountain like this one followed by a whirlpool probably created the Eye of the Sahara (Richat Structure).

Thanks. The illustration is good (except the blob of water inside the land "preflood sea" )
The illustration is in 2D. The real situation was probably in 3D, where the point of spring becomes a line of spring.

 

[Cabal]

I'm sorry but I am not as impressed by the records and publications that are not so much peer-reviewed as you might think. Think about it who accepts or rejects these publications? It is a controlled environment and from what I have seen of the scientific community they are not the upstanding wonderful society that everyone touts them to be. They are just as devious and manipulative and greedy as the rest of society. The only thing they have going for themselves is the power deals that go on behind the scenes. Nope. I don't see as you do. In fact, I think it is you who have your eyes closed and fingers in your ears. You fall for ANYTHING they say. THEY are YOUR gods not mine. They will fail you. There is only ONE God who you can trust and one way to that God and it is through, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Evidence please, or stop slandering a profession you have repeatedly demonstrated you know nothing about.

 

[Hespera]

Thanks. The illustration is good (except the blob of water inside the land "preflood sea" )
The illustration is in 2D. The real situation was probably in 3D, where the point of spring becomes a line of spring.

The silly drawing, the profundity that "the real situation was probably 3D".

This so perfectly illustrates the quality of thought that goes into
creationism! It is so thorough, there is nothing left to parody!

i think i will use this and the story about the extra water going to Neptune
as occasion arises. Tnx

 

[Hespera]

Evidence please, or stop slandering a profession you have repeatedly demonstrated you know nothing about.

You may have heard that the ad hom is one of the lowest forms of argument. Thats because it is. Along with sarcasm, esp of the dripping kind in pink prose.

But it does serve its place, as an admission that they have zero to offer on their side.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it does serve its place, as an admission that they have zero to offer on their side.

When it comes to creatio ex nihilo -- I literally offer nothing.

So please, by all means, include me here as well.

I'm tired of offering nothing to scientists* here, and they not buying it --

* Take note, Nostromo -- I didn't use that predicate adjective you politely asked me to stop using.

 

[Inan3]

Along with sarcasm, esp of the dripping kind in pink prose.

HeeHeeHee!!

 

[AV1611VET]

HeeHeeHee!!

They ridicule your color and my post count; maybe we should start a hate club, eh?

 

[Hespera]

HeeHeeHee!!

Learning to laugh at yourself is a good step

 

[Cabal]

When it comes to creatio ex nihilo -- I literally offer nothing.

So please, by all means, include me here as well.

I'm tired of offering nothing to scientists* here, and they not buying it --

Because there being no evidence is indistinguishable from there being no creator God in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because there being no evidence is indistinguishable from there being no creator God in the first place.

I'm sure you can make up a better excuse than that for not believing in Him.

 

[Son of the King]

Because there being no evidence is indistinguishable from there being no creator God in the first place.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Cabal]

I'm sure you can make up a better excuse than that for not believing in Him.

It's a perfectly adequate reason. Literally every argument and piece of evidence I've been presented with for God is inconclusive. It's evidence for him if you suddenly decide to upend logic and reasoning and take the least improbable option, which is not something people do under normal circumstances, so why should Christianity be exempt?

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Except, er, they aren't clearly seen. (Unless you can provide empirical evidence that they are.)

What you're saying may well be the case, but the fact remains that something that can only be supported by a lack of evidence cannot be conclusively claimed to have occurred, as its "evidence" also matches it not occurring at all. It's an unfalsifiable idea, so there is no real sense in going around claiming it is evidenced.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When it comes to creatio ex nihilo -- I literally offer nothing.

So please, by all means, include me here as well.

I'm tired of offering nothing to scientists* here, and they not buying it --

* Take note, Nostromo -- I didn't use that predicate adjective you politely asked me to stop using.

Marvellous! We all agree that you have no evidence for creatio ex nihilo. Maybe now we can stop harping on about it and get back to science.

 

[Doveaman]

Evidence please, or stop slandering a profession you have repeatedly demonstrated you know nothing about.

Classical peer review: an empty gun.

 

[Cabal]

Classical peer review: an empty gun.

Assuming I give you this one, that's referring specifically to a handful of cases in one field out of thousands, in very broad terms.

Keep looking.