The integrity of Moses & Jesus on the flood II

[Assyrian]

I am going to tell you one more time, young person:

That is right, tell me one more time, so much easier than trying to answer what I posted.

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." vs 19

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man." vs 21.

Fascinating I remind you (again) how the words of Jesus contradict the interpretation you try to force on them, and what do you do? Do you look at what Jesus said and admit you misunderstood him? Do you try to look at the verse I quote where Jesus talks about Lot and Sodom and explain why they don't contradict your claims? No you switch to the OT instead and try to claim the text of Genesis supports your views. Of course it is a passage you have brought up before and I showed you what phrases like 'the earth' could mean (that land) or 'under the whole heaven' (under the sky above them, from horizon to horizon). Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.' Of course just like you ignored the problem when I pointed out how you misinterpreted from Jesus, when I showed you how Moses used the phrase 'under the whole heaven', you simply ignored that too.

So your answer for an interpretation you cannot support it to try to support it with another passage whose interpretation you haven't been able to support.

Since you won't believe the plain spoken words of Moses nor the confirmation that Jesus gave of Moses words then it is no surprise that you so strongly resist what I am saying.

Is it unbelief to be more interested in what the words of Moses and Jesus meant that simply taking you opinion of what the plain meaning is, especially when you care so little for what the words mean?

But your thinking amazes me! You actually think that Noah spent 120 yrs building an ark

Who said he did?

to save his family and all those animals when in fact all he needed do was to move his family out of the danger area? You think that God led all those animals to the ark to save them from a LOCAL flood when all He needed do was to lead them away from the flood area? Right.

I though he built the ark because the Lord commanded him to? Do you think you know the mind of God that you know he would not have commanded Noah to build an Ark for a local flood? It is not as if God's commands always make practical sense, did it make military sense for Gideon to cut down the size of his army? Tell me did you think this up yourself, or did you simply repeat what other creationists said without ever considering if there might be reasons you had not thought of for an Ark if the flood was local?

For example, did you ever wonder how easy it would be to herd cats, chickens or tortoises for hundreds of miles? How about spiders? And how would Noah carry all the food needed for this journey? Camels, horses and donkeys weren't clean animal so you only had a pair of each, less if you think horses and donkeys are the same kind. Sheep can only carry so much. Do you strap flies to the backs of spiders and cheese on the back of mice? Do the cats have dead mice strapped to their backs to eat on the journey? Bet that would traumatise the live mice. For thousands of years before before trains and trucks people used boats for transporting goods because it was an awful lot easier than walking. And you do realise Noah was a preacher of righteousness? So how was he supposed to preach to the people in his land if he ran away instead of building the Ark? And wasn't the Ark meant to be a symbol of baptism? Isn't that in itself reason enough to build an Ark for a local flood?

Actually, it doesn't matter to you what the evidence clearly reveals. So it is with those who have an emotional commitment to error.

So it seems.

Oysters in the Andes of South America.

Marine fossils in the Himalyas.

How is this supposed to be evidence of a global flood when the Himalayas are still being pushed up by plate tectonics?

Water ripples in the mountains of Germany.

I have seen ripples on a beach at the seaside, does that mean there was a global flood last year? You even get ripples in dry sand blown by the sand. That is what sand dunes are. Put a bit more thought into your supposed evidence for a global flood. Just because you think they were formed by a global flood is not evidence they were.

 

[Mallon]

For those still giving heed to C4's arguments, they're all refuted here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm amused by the claim that plate tectonics exist, but are somehow not responsible for mountain ranges and fossils at high elevations despite the fact that this would be the simplest explanation compatible with our current level of knowledge.


I think it is time for a review of Parsimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Calypsis4]

That is right, tell me one more time, so much easier than trying to answer what I posted.

You believe neither the physical evidence nor the scriptures I quoted to you. The flood was world-wide and to say otherwise is utterly dishonest. But keep reading.


Fascinating I remind you (again) how the words of Jesus contradict the interpretation you try to force on them, and what do you do?

You aren't telling the truth. Keep reading.

To the other readers. Jesus did NOT contradict Moses, he affirmed Moses. There was a world-wide destruction of all human beings and animals on the face of the whole earth just as there will be a world wide destruction/judgement at His second coming. Nothing could be clearer than that. I did NOT force anything.

Do you look at what Jesus said and admit you misunderstood him? Do you try to look at the verse I quote where Jesus talks about Lot and Sodom and explain why they don't contradict your claims? No you switch to the OT instead and try to claim the text of Genesis supports your views. Of course it is a passage you have brought up before and I showed you what phrases like 'the earth' could mean (that land) or 'under the whole heaven' (under the sky above them, from horizon to horizon). Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.' Of course just like you ignored the problem when I pointed out how you misinterpreted from Jesus, when I showed you how Moses used the phrase 'under the whole heaven', you simply ignored that too.

What you are missing (deliberately) is the phrase "I will begin"... the Lord told the Hebrews came to pass: every tribe they faced feared them
and even more it will be completed in the future when the Jews possess the land of promise. The day will come when the whole world will fear to be mean or cruel to the Jew because Jesus will rule from Jerusalem and rule the world with a rod of iron. You did not consider that. You have no intention of being honest in this matter.

You continue to amaze me because you take Moses literally in Deuteromony but NOT in Genesis! How utterly dishonest.

So your answer for an interpretation you cannot support it to try to support it with another passage whose interpretation you haven't been able to support.

Refer to what I previously posted and to the statement above.

Is it unbelief to be more interested in what the words of Moses and Jesus meant that simply taking you opinion of what the plain meaning is, especially when you care so little for what the words mean?



Who said he did?


I though (sic) he built the ark because the Lord commanded him to?

True.

Do you think you know the mind of God that you know he would not have commanded Noah to build an Ark for a local flood?

Oh, what logic! I know the mind of the Lord who said that the whole world was going to be destroyed because the 'wickedness of man' grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:5-7

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

But according to you and your unbelieving comrades 'the face of the earth' was LOCAL!

It is not as if God's commands always make practical sense, did it make military sense for Gideon to cut down the size of his army?

But the Lord had already made it clear that the whole world was going to be destroyed. He never hinted otherwise. You just don't believe him.

Tell me did you think this up yourself, or did you simply repeat what other creationists said without ever considering if there might be reasons you had not thought of for an Ark if the flood was local?

I read my Bible and believe it as I have for 45 yrs. When things are clear and plain I don't argue or try to twist the scriptures as you and your comrades have been doing on this thread.

Genesis 6:11
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

vs 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth

Excuse me! that's the WHOLE world. Why don't you try being honest?

For example, did you ever wonder how easy it would be to herd cats, chickens or tortoises for hundreds of miles? How about spiders? And how would Noah carry all the food needed for this journey? Camels, horses and donkeys weren't clean animal so you only had a pair of each, less if you think horses and donkeys are the same kind. Sheep can only carry so much. Do you strap flies to the backs of spiders and cheese on the back of mice? Do the cats have dead mice strapped to their backs to eat on the journey? Bet that would traumatise the live mice. For thousands of years before before trains and trucks people used boats for transporting goods because it was an awful lot easier than walking. And you do realise Noah was a preacher of righteousness? So how was he supposed to preach to the people in his land if he ran away instead of building the Ark? And wasn't the Ark meant to be a symbol of baptism? Isn't that in itself reason enough to build an Ark for a local flood?

What measly, pitiful reasoning.

Genesis 8:5
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Ararat is a 17,000 ft mountain, and you want to call the flood LOCAL? Why would God inspire Moses to say, 'the tops of the mountains were seen' if indeed they had been seen all along by Noah & his family members during the assuaging of the flood waters! Noah had been viewing the horizon since the first 40 days of rainfall had stopped.

So it seems.

How is this supposed to be evidence of a global flood when the Himalayas are still being pushed up by plate tectonics?

Where is your eyewitness that plate tectonics built the Himalaya? Name the man/woman/people who watched Mt. Everest built over millions of yrs of plate tectonic activity. Name them.

I have seen ripples on a beach at the seaside, does that mean there was a global flood last year? You even get ripples in dry sand blown by the sand. That is what sand dunes are. Put a bit more thought into your supposed evidence for a global flood. Just because you think they were formed by a global flood is not evidence they were.

Do you other readers see the dishonesty? Is it not plainly revealed in his words? ripples at a beach on a common seashore is an expected thing.

BUT...if by chance one of our NASA astronauts some day discover ripple marks on the moon...would that not establish that there was lakes or seas of water on the moon at one time? The same thing is true of ripples in very high elevation in the mountains on earth. It would establish that there was water at least that high.


I have personally seen the watermarks on Kings Mountain in S.W. Oklahoma and stood at its peak. In every direction for thirty miles (except for the other small mountains around it) there is nothing but flat land. It wasn't hard to see that water that high once covered everything between the Quartz Mountain range and the Rockies.

The absolute positive proof that your position is in error and faith-destroying position is found in the promise of God to never flood the world again.

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 and the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

The rainbow is given as a promise to all mankind that God would never destroy the world again by a flood.

Now, my unbelieving counterpart, tell the readers: Did God keep his promise? From your point of view....has there been any LOCAL floods since the time of Noah? Yes/No?

A large fossil fish with another fish in its stomach undigested. Are we expected to believe that this fish laid around on some seashore for yrs and become slowly fossilzed? Right.

This is my final post to you.

 

[Calypsis4]

For those still giving heed to C4's arguments, they're all refuted here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

Hogwash.

Check this out:

Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Mallon]

C4 doesn't understand that while fossilization is a generally slow process, the actual burial of an organism that protects it from predation and decay can often occur quite rapidly and does not require a global deluge. C4 also neglects to consider the role of anoxia (oxygen-poor conditions) in fossilization, as evidenced by black shales. Black shales -- which are numerous and preserve some of the nicest fossils -- are deposited in calm, stagnant waters, not violent floods.

 

[Calypsis4]

I am going to make this final post for this subject by stating my sources for the pictures.

Fossil fish in the Alps: AOL image page. Type "Fossil fish in the Alps" and you will find plenty of them.

The Keroo fossil: Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

The fossil leaf over seven varves: Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

The varves: Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

Fossil humans: Digging into Dirt II (an evolutionist website).

 

[Mallon]

Hogwash.

Check this out:

Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

That entire article is refuted in the Index to Creationist Claims, too. Honestly, C4, all your arguments have been disproved already. You're not the first to come up with them.

 

[Calypsis4]

C4 doesn't understand that while fossilization is a generally slow process, the actual burial of an organism that protects it from predation and decay can often occur quite rapidly and does not require a global deluge. C4 also neglects to consider the role of anoxia (oxygen-poor conditions) in fossilization, as evidenced by black shales. Black shales -- which are numerous and preserve some of the nicest fossils -- are deposited in calm, stagnant waters, not violent floods.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. The C14 found in diamonds and other minerals reported by R.A.T.E. is good evidence of the error of long ages dating.

I'm done here.

 

[laconicstudent]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. The C14 found in diamonds and other minerals reported by R.A.T.E. is good evidence of the error of long ages dating.

I'm done here.

Ah, the anecdotal "carbon dating doesn't work" story....

Of course, we do have other radiometric dating methods. People seem to forget that Carbon-14 is merely one of about a half dozen.

 

[Papias]

Calypsis 4 wrote:

I wrote:

.......Judging from the title of this thread, it seems like the topic is the scriptural words, which we've discussed before (and I conceded the point). Is that correct?
Papias

No. It is not. I rely on two lines of evidence, one far more important than the other:

(1) the Word of God
(2) the physical evidence...

and friend, I've posted a LOT of it which you and your unbelieving comrades have just dusted off as if it was nothing.

If you haven't seen the scripture I have quoted then perhaps you aren't reading close enough or you aren't reading all my posts. God's word is VERY clear that the whole world was destroyed and every living being on this planet other than Noah & his family were destroyed.

wow, you still argue your point (and accuse me of not reading your posts) after I concede that point. fun.

Papias

 

[Mallon]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. The C14 found in diamonds and other minerals reported by R.A.T.E. is good evidence of the error of long ages dating.

I'm done here.

1. Your answer had nothing to do with my last post. I was talking about depositional environment, not radiometric dating.
2. Your above argument is refuted here, too:

An Index to Creationist Claims

(I should also add that I do know what I'm talking about. I have a degree in geology.)

 

[teddyv]

1. Your answer had nothing to do with my last post. I was talking about depositional environment, not radiometric dating.
2. Your above argument is refuted here, too:

An Index to Creationist Claims

(I should also add that I do know what I'm talking about. I have a degree in geology.)

Since he stated previously:

Tell me if you believe creation scientists qualify as 'real geologists' in your mind. If not, then you won't get an answer to that one.

I don't think you will count. I know I likely won't either.

 

[Assyrian]

You believe neither the physical evidence nor the scriptures I quoted to you. The flood was world-wide and to say otherwise is utterly dishonest. But keep reading.

Your physical evidence doesn't show a global flood and the verses you quote don't mention it either. Why should I believe your claims?

Fascinating I remind you (again) how the words of Jesus contradict the interpretation you try to force on them, and what do you do?

You aren't telling the truth. Keep reading.

To the other readers. Jesus did NOT contradict Moses, he affirmed Moses.

Every now and again you say something that actually is true. This is one of those occasions. Jesus certainly didn't contradict Moses, as you say he affirmed Moses. However as Moses never taught a global flood and Jesus never taught a global flood or affirmed even your interpretation of a global flood, your point it true but irrelevant.

There was a world-wide destruction of all human beings and animals on the face of the whole earth just as there will be a world wide destruction/judgement at His second coming. Nothing could be clearer than that. I did NOT force anything.

Just because you believe there was a global flood does not give you the right to take the words of Jesus out of context and force a meaning of global flood onto them when Jesus said nothing of the sort. You condemn people repeatedly claiming they do not believing the words of Jesus, you really should try to treat his words with respect yourself.

Do you look at what Jesus said and admit you misunderstood him? Do you try to look at the verse I quote where Jesus talks about Lot and Sodom and explain why they don't contradict your claims? No you switch to the OT instead and try to claim the text of Genesis supports your views. Of course it is a passage you have brought up before and I showed you what phrases like 'the earth' could mean (that land) or 'under the whole heaven' (under the sky above them, from horizon to horizon). Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.' Of course just like you ignored the problem when I pointed out how you misinterpreted from Jesus, when I showed you how Moses used the phrase 'under the whole heaven', you simply ignored that too.

What you are missing (deliberately) is the phrase "I will begin"... the Lord told the Hebrews came to pass: every tribe they faced feared them
and even more it will be completed in the future when the Jews possess the land of promise. The day will come when the whole world will fear to be mean or cruel to the Jew because Jesus will rule from Jerusalem and rule the world with a rod of iron. You did not consider that. You have no intention of being honest in this matter.

So I am being dishonest deliberately missing the phrase because I could not guess what strange and out of context spin you would put on it?

This passage is talking about the Moses and the Israelite conquest of Canaan not the Messiah and his millennial reign, there isn't even a hint the promise was for the Israelites and their children. No the passage says ''they will hear report of you''. 'You' not 'you and your children', or you children's children. How does ''I will begin'' mean I will complete the prophecy in the millennium, when there isn't the slightest hint that this is talking about the millennium. How does your interpretation of a millennial fulfilment even fit the passage?

They will be afraid to be cruel to any Jews because they heard about the Messiah,
​

is not the same as:

they will head a report of you and tremble because of you.
​

Being afraid to hurt people because of someone else is different from being afraid of the people you have heard a report of.

Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'
If you want to know who was going to trembled at the report of the Moses and the approaching Israelites, read:
Exodus 15:14-16 The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. 16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased.

You seem to quote the AV a lot, there is one advantage in the translation in that the archaic 'thee's and 'thou's, they tell you whether 'you' is second person singular or plural. Deut 2:25 is speaking in the singular. God was speaking to Moses, it was Moses the nations around Canaan were going to hear a report of, it was Moses they were going tremble and be in anguish about, not the Messiah in a millennial reign.

And this was how Moses understood the promise, as we can see by his reaction to it. He did not immediately set up a conference to teach about the millennium. Deut 2:26 "So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon the king of Heshbon, with words of peace, saying..." Moses was promised by God people would tremble at the report of him, so he wrote a diplomatic letter to arrange safe passage through the territories of the people who were so afraid of him.

You continue to amaze me because you take Moses literally in Deuteromony but NOT in Genesis! How utterly dishonest.

This statement really says more about creationists and how little they understand of the word of God. Only creationist have the strange idea that scripture should either be taken completely literally or completely figuratively. I take Jesus literally when he said he would die and be raised on the third day, I do not take him literally when he said he was a vine tree a door or a shepherd. I take Moses literally when he says the Israelites crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, Exodus 14:22 And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground. I do not take him literally when he said the Lord flew the Israelites out of Egypt with eagles. Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

So your answer for an interpretation you cannot support it to try to support it with another passage whose interpretation you haven't been able to support.

Refer to what I previously posted and to the statement above.

Ok. Glad you got around to trying to give an answer, it would have been much more productive if you had tried it in you previous posts.

Do you think you know the mind of God that you know he would not have commanded Noah to build an Ark for a local flood?

Oh, what logic! I know the mind of the Lord who said that the whole world was going to be destroyed because the 'wickedness of man' grieved him at his heart.

And you jump from your misunderstanding for what God says about the flood, to knowing the reasons God would have had for choosing or not choosing an ark if the flood was local? I can see how arrogance about understanding scripture would seep into the arrogance of thinking you know everything about God's mind even in areas he has not spoken about, but I would not call it logic.

Genesis 6:5-7

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

But according to you and your unbelieving comrades 'the face of the earth' was LOCAL!

Was the plague of locusts global or did it just cover the land of Egypt?

Exodus 10:4 Else, if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast: 5 And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field:

Glad you brought up those verses because they set the context for the flood. It was because of the wickedness in the land, erets, that God sent the flood Gen 6:5. There is no reason to think God sent the flood anywhere else. it was Noah's land that was was filled with wickedness and it was this land that God destroyed.

It is not as if God's commands always make practical sense, did it make military sense for Gideon to cut down the size of his army?

But the Lord had already made it clear that the whole world was going to be destroyed. He never hinted otherwise. You just don't believe him.

Simply claiming the global flood is right is not an answer. We were looking at your claim God would not have used an Ark if the flood was local, that he would have just commanded Noah to walk out. Even if you were right and the flood was global, this is still a vacuous argument and simply reiterating you claim the flood was global does not make your argument against any less vacuous.

Tell me did you think this up yourself, or did you simply repeat what other creationists said without ever considering if there might be reasons you had not thought of for an Ark if the flood was local?

I read my Bible and believe it as I have for 45 yrs. When things are clear and plain I don't argue or try to twist the scriptures as you and your comrades have been doing on this thread.

That is still not defending the 'Noah would have walked' argument.

Genesis 6:11
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

vs 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth

Excuse me! that's the WHOLE world. Why don't you try being honest?

No that is all flesh in the erets, the land.

For example, did you ever wonder how easy it would be to herd cats, chickens or tortoises for hundreds of miles? How about spiders? And how would Noah carry all the food needed for this journey? Camels, horses and donkeys weren't clean animal so you only had a pair of each, less if you think horses and donkeys are the same kind. Sheep can only carry so much. Do you strap flies to the backs of spiders and cheese on the back of mice? Do the cats have dead mice strapped to their backs to eat on the journey? Bet that would traumatise the live mice. For thousands of years before before trains and trucks people used boats for transporting goods because it was an awful lot easier than walking. And you do realise Noah was a preacher of righteousness? So how was he supposed to preach to the people in his land if he ran away instead of building the Ark? And wasn't the Ark meant to be a symbol of baptism? Isn't that in itself reason enough to build an Ark for a local flood?

What measly, pitiful reasoning.

Measly pitiful reasoning you could not answer. You see we have looked at your scriptural arguments for a global flood and they are all based on misunderstanding the text, such as thinking erets means the whole world rather than simply that particular land which is what the term normally means. Or not understanding how under the whole heaven was used by people then. That just leaves the silly arguments like how you know God would have told Noah to walk if the flood was local, which apparently you can't defend either.

to be...

 

[Assyrian]

...continued

Genesis 8:5
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Ararat is a 17,000 ft mountain, and you want to call the flood LOCAL? Why would God inspire Moses to say, 'the tops of the mountains were seen' if indeed they had been seen all along by Noah & his family members during the assuaging of the flood waters! Noah had been viewing the horizon since the first 40 days of rainfall had stopped.

Ararat is indeed a very tall mountain, unfortunately it has only had that name since the 11th century. The nearest we can get to the meaning is the hills of Urartu, and ancient kingdom to the north of Mesopotamia but even this is an anachronism because the kingdom arose long after the time of Moses. Or it could simply mean the hills of the cursed land. And what is the problem seeing the tops of hill after a really bad flood?

How is this supposed to be evidence of a global flood when the Himalayas are still being pushed up by plate tectonics?

Where is your eyewitness that plate tectonics built the Himalaya? Name the man/woman/people who watched Mt. Everest built over millions of yrs of plate tectonic activity. Name them.

Name your eyewitnesses that saw your two ammonites being buried and fossilised in a global flood. On the other hand India is still being pushed by plate tectonics into Asia and the Himalayas are still rising. You are the one who claimed the fossil was evidence of a global flood, you need to show it was formed by a flood that covered the Himalayas rather than forming on the bottom of a shallow sea million of years ago and being pushed up by the same plate tectonics going on today.

Do you other readers see the dishonesty? Is it not plainly revealed in his words? ripples at a beach on a common seashore is an expected thing.

I think they can see the dishonesty all right. Now what you need to do is show the fossil ripples in Germany did not from by common means, but instead were formed by a very uncommon global flood.

BUT...if by chance one of our NASA astronauts some day discover ripple marks on the moon...would that not establish that there was lakes or seas of water on the moon at one time? The same thing is true of ripples in very high elevation in the mountains on earth. It would establish that there was water at least that high.

And finding a giant black obelisk on the moon would show there had been aliens. However going back to less hypothetical examples. I have seen pictures of what look like ripples in lava flows, sand dunes are formed by air and can be fossilised, you get ripples high above sea level in lakes and rivers without there being a global flood, you also get sea beds which have risen above sea level due with tectonics. What you need to show is that your ripples are the result of a flood, rather than common expected processes, and that the flood was global.

I have personally seen the watermarks on Kings Mountain in S.W. Oklahoma and stood at its peak. In every direction for thirty miles (except for the other small mountains around it) there is nothing but flat land. It wasn't hard to see that water that high once covered everything between the Quartz Mountain range and the Rockies.

And you know that the land was at the same elevation when the water was this high? You know that the watermarks were not from a glacier bound lake during the ice age?

The absolute positive proof that your position is in error and faith-destroying position is found in the promise of God to never flood the world again.

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 and the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

The rainbow is given as a promise to all mankind that God would never destroy the world again by a flood.

How is this absolute proof my position is in error when you have yet to try to answer what I have said about erets usually meaning the land instead of the earth?

Now, my unbelieving counterpart, tell the readers: Did God keep his promise? From your point of view....has there been any LOCAL floods since the time of Noah? Yes/No?

Has the land where Noah and the animals settled ever been completely destroyed in a flood and all life wiped out?

A large fossil fish with another fish in its stomach undigested. Are we expected to believe that this fish laid around on some seashore for yrs and become slowly fossilzed? Right.

No if it had lain around on a sea shore it would have been eaten. Try to understand the science you think you are disproving. The fish clearly died quickly before its dinner was digested, then it could have been buried fairly rapidly, or sunk to the bottom in a place where the water had little oxygen preventing decomposition and scavenging, then slowly been buried.

This is my final post to you.

The Lord bless you Calypsis.

 

[Assyrian]

edit...

 

[Mallon]

Since he stated previously:I don't think you will count. I know I likely won't either.

Maybe not in his eyes, but it might in the eyes of others. It's funny that the founder of modern creationism (Henry Morris) never considered it to be science either.

 

[Calypsis4]

To the other readers: It is useless to talk to one who twists the scripture so much as to deny the obvious. But I wish to point out to those of you who may be reading without commenting on the debate: Assyrian DID NOT answer my question. He replied with another question...which is evasive of the real issue.

He said: "How is this absolute proof my position is in error when you have yet to try to answer what I have said about erets usually meaning the land instead of the earth?

Has the land where Noah and the animals settled ever been completely destroyed in a flood and all life wiped out?"

Even ONE local flood that destroys human life in the Ararat area of the world destroys his position and it would mean that God didn't keep His promise to not destroy the 'world' (his understanding of 'world' is the given locality). But this is how far he will go to support his belief in a local flood.

Genesis 9:9-11:

9 I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

(Note: that's to Noah and ALL of his families descendants in the world today for they are the ones who repopulated the earth.)

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (Strongs exhaustive Concordance: 'earth' the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

Hint: the RAINBOW of God's promise is seen by man...all over the EARTH (erets) and not just in the area around Ararat.

Do you think Assyrian will ever catch on? Not me.

The Lord bless you Calypsis.[/quote]

I don't mean ill will for him, but I cannot in good conscience say that to him until he repents of the unbelief he is promoting on this website.

 

[Calypsis4]

Maybe not in his eyes, but it might in the eyes of others. It's funny that the founder of modern creationism (Henry Morris) never considered it to be science either.

'founder of modern creationism.' Right!

Observe:

The Westminster Confession (1646):

""It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good." The phrase "in the space of" demonstrates their concern with the temporal time-frame of the creative process.

John Calvin:

"For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men."1 Calvin clearly had in mind literal days, for he states on page 105 of his Genesis commentary: "I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works.

Matthew Poole:

" In six days, and neither in more nor less time, as he could have done."

Jamieson, Fausett, & Brown (1870):

Concerning the word 'day' in the six day creation as found in Genesis 1:
"A natural day, as the mention of its two parts clearly determines (and the evening and the morning were the first day)."

Adam Clarke (1826):

"God divided the light from the darkness. These words simply refer us by anticipation to the rotation of the earth round its own axis once in 24 hrs 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, which is the cause of the distinction between night and day."

Keil & Delitzsch(19th century):

"But if the days of creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, of years or thousands of years, but as simple earthly days."

So Henry Morris is the 'founder of modern creationism'? As if he 'invented' what biblical Christians have always believed...the six days of creation as taught in the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

Here is yet more evidence for the world-wide destruction of the flood as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 7.

It is fascinating what counts as evidence for the world wide flood for Creationists. People have died and been buried throughout human history, yet because people died and were buried around 2,600 BC it must be evidence for the flood. No account is taken of the fact the simplest explanation is that they died and were buried by other members of their tribe, and all the other evidence for what actually happened is swept aside because you want them to have been killed by the flood.

Fossils of humans found in abundance in the same location in Europe.

Probably something to do with a lot of people living there at the time.

The children were in the arms of the adults at death.

You get that occasionally in Pompeii but the couple are in different positions. These bodies are all in very similar positions, that means they were posed that way after death.

Why would I suggest that they were instantly buried and quickly fossilized by the cataclysm of Noahs flood? Well, for one thing there appears to have been a whole village of people destroyed at the same time:

The whole village apart from the young adults, but someone must have buried the bodies, and it is touching the care they showed placing children in the arms of the grown ups.

Secondly, these fossils are dated approx. 4,600 yrs ago which is close to the time of the Noahic flood.

It is odd how you rely on carbon dating her, though you seem to realise the irony of that from you comment about the finds in Turkey. You reject varves as annual layers even though they are calibrated against carbon 14 over 45000 years.

What is usual in the damage to the skeletons in broken bones and holes in the skulls was interpreted by evolutionists as evidence of murder. But these individuals were not only crushed at the same time, all the adults were looking in the same direction: south. It was as if they saw something coming they could not escape and huddled together to await certain death.

Go into any graveyard in the western word and you will find the bodies facing east. Go to a Muslim cemetery and the bodies will all face Mecca. On the other hand I do not know of any floods that line the victims up like that. How is the bodies being arranged in burial tradition of that culture evidence they were not murdered? Can you imagine the police exhuming a grave to check for evidence of murder, finding a knife in the man's back but concluding there was no foul play because the man was buried facing east like all of the other bodies in the cemetery?

Lets look at the evidence murder. The original paper can be found here:
Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age — PNAS
A detailed analysis is found here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/11/17/0807592105.DCSupplemental/0807592105SI.pdf

Haak et al. 10.1073/pnas.0807592105
SI Text
Palaeopathological Evidence of Traumatic Injuries on the Skeletons.
The osteological assessment and interpretation of trauma evident
in the bones was made according to established guidelines
(1, 2). All recordings of traumatic lesions were initially made by
the same observer and confirmed by another observer. The
examination of the bones was carried out, with preservation of
the overall burial arrangement being given priority. Selected
elements were lifted from their resting place while restoration
work was in progress, thereby minimizing potential damage to
the specimens. These bones have been replaced in their original
position.
Grave 90. Individual 5. A flint arrowhead is firmly lodged in the
ventral part of the fourth lumbar vertebra of this woman (Fig. 4).
On CT-scans and in the dry bone, no bony reaction is evident in
the area surrounding the stone tip, indicating a wound that had
been received perimortem. A second arrowhead was found
between the left ribs and might be evidence of another wound.
No bone damage has been recognized, but poor preservation of
the bones in this area precludes any further assessment.
​

There is a picture of the embedded arrow head in the main article

It is interesting that there was a second arrowhead found between the ribs but the writers do not say definitively that this was a wound because the bones were too degraded to show the evidence of injury around the time of death, refreshing after listening to the wild claims claims about creationist evidence.

Grave 93. Individual 11. Several injuries could be detected in this
man. He has healed fractures of the left radius and left scaphoid;
the latter suffered a transverse fracture of the proximal part.
Injuries received perimortem are found on the right forearm and
hand. Radius, ulna. and several metacarpals suffered oblique
fractures.
​

Interesting to see how the anthropologists can tell the difference between old healed fractures and ones occurring around the time of death. They also distinguish bones breaking later on due to soil pressure as the body decays and say if they cannot clearly distinguish between the perimortem injuries and taphonomic.

Grave 98. Individual 7. This woman received two perimortem blows
to the upper right portion of the cranial vault (Fig. S4). The first
wound is located on the right parietal, radiating fractures follow
the contours of the vault, and internal beveling is present. The
second wound is located anterior to the first, also displaying
characteristic internal beveling. A radiating fracture of this
injury terminates in the area of the first wound; therefore, the
blow to the posterior part of the parietal fell earlier.
Grave 99. Individual 2. This child has a small and healed depressed
fracture of the frontal bone.
Individual 3. This man displays several traumatic injuries along the
left arm, some perimortem, others clearly healed. The humerus
shows signs of myositis ossificans (3); the distal radius bears traces
of an old fracture with slight disalignment. The third and final
healed injury involves the proximal interphalangeal joint of the
fourth digit, where bony ankylosis has fused the two bones. All
these injuries show a similar degree of healing; possibly they were
received at the same occasion. Perimortem trauma involves both
hands, which suffered oblique and spiral fractures to the metacarpals
and phalanges. Damage to the anterior part of the skull
might also be because of violent injuries, but this could not be
securely separated from taphonomic changes resulting from soil
pressure, which is clearly evident in the skulls of the children.
Individual 4. This child suffered a penetrating and perimortem
wound to the back of his skull. Concentric and bending fractures
are evident in the area surrounding the impact site. Small bone
fragments, projecting into the interior of the skull are still visible.
​

It is like watching CSI only real, tragic and a long time ago. While healed fractures are found around the body, the fractures received received around the time of death are classic defensive wounds to the arms and hands, and penetrating blows to the skull and an arrow in the back.

Your argument they were buried by the flood struck me as just as implausible. These were highly qualified anthropologists who can tell the difference between a hole being dug in the ground and refilled and bodies lying on the ground being covered by all layer of water borne sediment. They excavated the site and described it as a grave, you decided they were covered by a flood without any evidence or analysis of the site. One interesting detail on the supplemental paper is that the graves in question were all surrounded by ring ditches.

...
Why do I suggest that these individuals were instantly buried and fossilized because of the flood of Noah?

Here's why:

The above picture depicts a couple that died together instantly. We KNOW how they died; they were covered by hot ash during a volcanic eruption in Italy in the 1st century B.C. They are so much like the fossil remains above that there is little question that they all died a similar, very quick death. So when the 'fountains of the great deep broke up' as Moses told us occurred at the beginning of the cataclysm then it means that there were seismic eruptions all over the world at the same time and untold millions must have died in a similar fashion.

So people in Pompeii who were killed by a volcano, not by a flood, are evidence for a global flood? How do you work that out? Even if we accept you interpretation of fountains of the deep as volcanoes, pretty dodgy, but lets go with it, how does that make burials in Europe and Turkey that weren't volcanic the result of the flood? How would that even make bodies found in volcanic ash the result of the flood rather than a completely different eruptions?

Yes you KNOW how those people died, it wasn't a flood.