Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now, time out here... my p-word gets censored, but not that d-word??

Yeah, just roll with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are incapable of learning or change, too bad.
Others are.

Except for those who sound like they're interested in what others think, and end up putting them on IGNORE.

Have you ever met anyone like that?

They put someone on IGNORE for their beliefs, then post to others how much they should learn what others think.

I think there's a word for that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Now, time out here... my p-word gets censored, but not that d-word??

Arguably, damn is a word that has a role in theological discussions. The p-word not so much. As it is a word that sets the ownership off, it is censored. *shrug*

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Arguably, damn is a word that has a role in theological discussions. The p-word not so much. As it is a word that sets the ownership off, it is censored. *shrug*

I was going to say, depends if it's spelt with i or u, but both get censored regardless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think I am demanding too much, to see some positive changes in viewpoint, after a considerable length of time spent in debates here.

We'd all like to see "positive changes in viewpoint". One relevant to this thread would be for more to realize that the actual geology the Earth doesn't need to challenge the message of their holy book.

 

[CoreyD]

The whole point of everything is what the earth shows us.

If that is your whole point, then we are going nowhere, because

1. you would believe in God. I'm not sure if you do. Your profile says "Other Religion", but I have seen atheists use that, so it doesn't really reveal if you are or not.
   • 
     Why I say, you would believe in God, is because what the earth shows us, is there is a creator - an intelligent one. Yet persons argue against it, and try to come up with explanations that exclude an intelligent designer.
     For example,
     Why does the Universe appear fine-tuned for life to exist?
     
     The question of why the Universe is the way it is is an ancient one, and none of the answers we have come up with are satisfying.​
     ​
     It is really quite amazing that you’re alive. ...
     For reasons that we do not understand, among the many ways the Universe could be, it seems to be finely tuned in a way that makes it possible for life to exist.​
     
     [I'd ignore the comment in the spoiler, which doesn't seem reasonable, or logical, but...]
     
     Spoiler: Most answers aren’t satisfying

     Given that small changes in the laws of nature could completely alter what the Universe looks like, many people wonder just why those laws are the way they are. Some invoke a creator who knew what he or she was doing and set up everything “just so” to allow us to exist. Such an explanation could be thought of as one version of what is often called “intelligent design.” But such an explanation is not entirely satisfying. It’s not all that different from saying “just because.” What other explanations are there?
     
     There is no need to invoke a creator, since the evidence, according to you, speaks loudly... but who does not want to listen, are happy to search for another answer... knowing full well, they won't find any.
     The answer continues to elude us; however, we will continue to pursue it - and one day, we hope, we’ll know.
     
     Despite what the universe and "the earth shows", people look for alternate explanations, so I see no reason why you are insisting on the explanation you prefer, being accurate.
2. science proves nothing about a global flood.
   • 
     Common Misconceptions About Science
     
     Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. ...​
     ​
     One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​
     ​
     Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.​
     
     If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong

The ripples in the OP are an example of what the earth shows us of an ice age flood. The rocks show us the extent of the glacier movement.

No one has denied that there were floods.
Floods occur all over the earth, even today.

The rocks also tell us when they were dropped off the glaciers. The volcanic ash help identify when. The layers of silt tell us how many floods occurred.

Scientists tell you that, and they do so by various methods - one of which is radiocarbon dating, which is limited, and yes, inaccurate.
You seem happy with things that aren't 100% accurate... much less 99%.

Should you not open your mind to being wrong about what you believe?
You didn't answer my question, so is it safe to say, you are claiming you cannot be wrong?
It's an honest question.

There is absolutely no such evidence of a Global Noah Flood. There's not even any silt that floods leave behind. Look at the muck left behind from the two recent hurricanes so see what I mean. And they would be minor compared to a Noah Global Flood. There's absolutely nothing, Period!

Many say you are wrong, but according to you, they are not real geologists.
It amazes me that you cannot seem to understand that these explanations are not proof there is no evidence of a global flood of Noah's day.

If you understand that these interpretations tell the story, and the story can change, why are you insistent that ideas somehow proves something, when they cannot?

Can interpretations be wrong? Have they been wrong?
We both know the answer, so where would you say you stand right now... Would you say on the side of dogmatism?

We often see hubris coming through clearly, in what people do.
Consider please, this bit of information, for example.
Long before the discovery of the scablands, geologists dismissed the role of catastrophic floods in interpreting European geology. By the end of the 19th century such ideas not only were out of fashion but were geological heresy. When J. Harlen Bretz uncovered evidence of giant floods in eastern Washington in the 1920s, it took most of the 20th century for other geologists to believe him. Geologists had so thoroughly vilified the concept of great floods that they could not believe it when somebody actually found evidence of one.
This is what hubris has done to persons. It closes their mind, in dogmatism, as if set in concrete.


Consider some of the individuals whom you have excluded from being "real geologists":
John Woodward

(c) Department of Earth Sciences and Sedgwick Museum, University of Cambridge; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation​

John Woodward, an English naturalist, antiquarian and geologist, and founder by bequest of the Woodwardian Professorship of Geology at Cambridge University.​

​

Biographical Overview​

Born in England, 1665 – 1728 Paleontologist, geologist Co-founder of geology​

​

Worldview​

Using a biblical worldview perspective, Woodward successfully applied the scientific method to investigate the laws of nature, His worldview is notable from what he said –​

​

“[Geology] Vindicates, supports and maintains the Mosaick [Moses] Account of things, as exactly agreeable to the Phaenomena of Nature.”​

He along with others (Mainstream scientists, including Woodward, Buckland, Prestwich, Suess, and Ryan and Pitman, have proposed a variety of theories to explain the biblical deluge), also felt the rocks did not lie.
Did the rock lie, or was it the explanations and interpretations? This is a question. Can I get your answer, please?


Other geologist, you would have discrediting:
Steven A. Austin, PhD,
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, California, 92021, USA.

John R. Baumgardner, PhD,
earned a B.S. from Texas Tech University in 1968, a M.S. from Princeton University in 1970, and a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1983. He worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and in 2002 joined the staff of the Institute for Creation Research. As a professional scientist, Baumgardner is known for developing TERRA, a finite element code designed to solve problems in mantle convection. In 1994 he presented research at a geophysics conference stating that the slip-sliding geologic plates that cover the Earth might once have moved thousands of times faster than they do today. In 1997, U.S. News & World Report described him as "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection".

D. Russell Humphreys, PhD,
9301 Gutierrez NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87111, USA.*

Andrew A. Snelling, PhD,
a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney from 1982

Larry Vardiman, PhD,
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, California, 92021, USA.

Kurt P. Wise, PhD,
an American geologist, paleontologist, and young Earth creationist who serves as the director of the Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia.
He attended the University of Chicago and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in geology. He then was educated at Harvard University, where he received a Master of Arts (M.A.) in geology and a Ph.D. in paleontology under the supervision of Stephen Jay Gould

They have an interesting article - Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
Noah’s Flood began to play an increasingly less important role in historical geology during the nineteenth century. Theories of gradualism increased in popularity as theories of catastrophism waned. Ideas of past catastrophic geology were replaced with ideas of constancy of present gradual physical processes. Ideas of globalscale dynamics were replaced with ideas of local erosion, deposition, extrusion, and intrusion. Ideas of rapid crustal dynamics were replaced by ideas of crustal fixity - with only imperceptibly slow vertical subsidence and uplift being possible. So complete was the success of gradualism in geology that ideas of flood geology were nowhere to be found among the Englishspeaking scientists of the world by 1859 (Numbers, 1992), or rarely found at best (Nelson, 1931).

 

[CoreyD]

Keep looking then.

I believe it will be explained away as something else, if it isn't already.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If that is your whole point, then we are going nowhere, because

1. you would believe in God. I'm not sure if you do. Your profile says "Other Religion", but I have seen atheists use that, so it doesn't really reveal if you are or not.

The religion of those that reject the claim of a global flood wiping out nearly all humans is irrelevant. The religion of the "Noah's flood" people is only relevant in that the only "evidence" comes from Jewish scripture.

1. 
   Why I say, you would believe in God, is because what the earth shows us, is there is a creator - an intelligent one. Yet persons argue against it, and try to come up with explanations that exclude an intelligent designer.
   For example,
   Why does the Universe appear fine-tuned for life to exist?
   The question of why the Universe is the way it is is an ancient one, and none of the answers we have come up with are satisfying.It is really quite amazing that you’re alive. ...
   For reasons that we do not understand, among the many ways the Universe could be, it seems to be finely tuned in a way that makes it possible for life to exist.
   [I'd ignore the comment in the spoiler, which doesn't seem reasonable, or logical, but...]

The alleged "fine tuning" is not relevant to the non-existent evidence for a global flood.

1. • Given that small changes in the laws of nature could completely alter what the Universe looks like, many people wonder just why those laws are the way they are. Some invoke a creator who knew what he or she was doing and set up everything “just so” to allow us to exist. Such an explanation could be thought of as one version of what is often called “intelligent design.” But such an explanation is not entirely satisfying. It’s not all that different from saying “just because.” What other explanations are there?
     There is no need to invoke a creator, since the evidence, according to you, speaks loudly... but who does not want to listen, are happy to search for another answer... knowing full well, they won't find any.
     The answer continues to elude us; however, we will continue to pursue it - and one day, we hope, we’ll know.
     
     Despite what the universe and "the earth shows", people look for alternate explanations, so I see no reason why you are insisting on the explanation you prefer, being accurate.

"Fine tuning" still not relevant.

1. science proves nothing about a global flood.
   • 
     Common Misconceptions About Science
     Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. ...One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
     If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong

No one has denied that there were floods.
Floods occur all over the earth, even today.

Scientists tell you that, and they do so by various methods - one of which is radiocarbon dating, which is limited, and yes, inaccurate.
You seem happy with things that aren't 100% accurate... much less 99%.

Should you not open your mind to being wrong about what you believe?
You didn't answer my question, so is it safe to say, you are claiming you cannot be wrong?
It's an honest question.

Abusing the word "proof" or getting worked up about sloppy usage of it in informal writing or speech is not relevant. Neither is 100% accuracy. The collective evidence of global geology is not compatible with a global flood wiping out humanity. Trying to poke holes in the dating of one, non-global flood, by attacking radiocarbon dating won't make the global flood real.

 

[CoreyD]

My pleasure.

For the record, dlamberth is a "he".

(Been there, done that myself.)

Oh. I'm sorry @dlamberth.
I'm not used to seeing males with avatars of flowers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh. I'm sorry @dlamberth.
I'm not used to seeing males with avatars of flowers.

Dlamberth is a panentheist, who believes the earth speaks to him in a special way.

 

[BCP1928]

If that is your whole point, then we are going nowhere, because

1. you would believe in God. I'm not sure if you do. Your profile says "Other Religion", but I have seen atheists use that, so it doesn't really reveal if you are or not.
   • 
     Why I say, you would believe in God, is because what the earth shows us, is there is a creator - an intelligent one. Yet persons argue against it, and try to come up with explanations that exclude an intelligent designer.
     For example,
     Why does the Universe appear fine-tuned for life to exist?
     
     The question of why the Universe is the way it is is an ancient one, and none of the answers we have come up with are satisfying.​
     ​
     It is really quite amazing that you’re alive. ...
     For reasons that we do not understand, among the many ways the Universe could be, it seems to be finely tuned in a way that makes it possible for life to exist.​
     
     [I'd ignore the comment in the spoiler, which doesn't seem reasonable, or logical, but...]
     
     Spoiler: Most answers aren’t satisfying

     Given that small changes in the laws of nature could completely alter what the Universe looks like, many people wonder just why those laws are the way they are. Some invoke a creator who knew what he or she was doing and set up everything “just so” to allow us to exist. Such an explanation could be thought of as one version of what is often called “intelligent design.” But such an explanation is not entirely satisfying. It’s not all that different from saying “just because.” What other explanations are there?
     
     There is no need to invoke a creator, since the evidence, according to you, speaks loudly... but who does not want to listen, are happy to search for another answer... knowing full well, they won't find any.
     The answer continues to elude us; however, we will continue to pursue it - and one day, we hope, we’ll know.
     
     Despite what the universe and "the earth shows", people look for alternate explanations, so I see no reason why you are insisting on the explanation you prefer, being accurate.
2. science proves nothing about a global flood.
   • 
     Common Misconceptions About Science
     
     Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. ...​
     ​
     One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​
     ​
     Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.​
     
     If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong

No one has denied that there were floods.
Floods occur all over the earth, even today.


Scientists tell you that, and they do so by various methods - one of which is radiocarbon dating, which is limited, and yes, inaccurate.
You seem happy with things that aren't 100% accurate... much less 99%.

Should you not open your mind to being wrong about what you believe?
You didn't answer my question, so is it safe to say, you are claiming you cannot be wrong?
It's an honest question.


Many say you are wrong, but according to you, they are not real geologists.
It amazes me that you cannot seem to understand that these explanations are not proof there is no evidence of a global flood of Noah's day.

If you understand that these interpretations tell the story, and the story can change, why are you insistent that ideas somehow proves something, when they cannot?

Can interpretations be wrong? Have they been wrong?
We both know the answer, so where would you say you stand right now... Would you say on the side of dogmatism?

We often see hubris coming through clearly, in what people do.
Consider please, this bit of information, for example.
Long before the discovery of the scablands, geologists dismissed the role of catastrophic floods in interpreting European geology. By the end of the 19th century such ideas not only were out of fashion but were geological heresy. When J. Harlen Bretz uncovered evidence of giant floods in eastern Washington in the 1920s, it took most of the 20th century for other geologists to believe him. Geologists had so thoroughly vilified the concept of great floods that they could not believe it when somebody actually found evidence of one.
This is what hubris has done to persons. It closes their mind, in dogmatism, as if set in concrete.


Consider some of the individuals whom you have excluded from being "real geologists":
John Woodward

(c) Department of Earth Sciences and Sedgwick Museum, University of Cambridge; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation​

John Woodward, an English naturalist, antiquarian and geologist, and founder by bequest of the Woodwardian Professorship of Geology at Cambridge University.​

​

Biographical Overview​

Born in England, 1665 – 1728 Paleontologist, geologist Co-founder of geology​

​

Worldview​

Using a biblical worldview perspective, Woodward successfully applied the scientific method to investigate the laws of nature, His worldview is notable from what he said –​

​

“[Geology] Vindicates, supports and maintains the Mosaick [Moses] Account of things, as exactly agreeable to the Phaenomena of Nature.”​

He along with others (Mainstream scientists, including Woodward, Buckland, Prestwich, Suess, and Ryan and Pitman, have proposed a variety of theories to explain the biblical deluge), also felt the rocks did not lie.
Did the rock lie, or was it the explanations and interpretations? This is a question. Can I get your answer, please?


Other geologist, you would have discrediting:
Steven A. Austin, PhD,
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, California, 92021, USA.

John R. Baumgardner, PhD,
earned a B.S. from Texas Tech University in 1968, a M.S. from Princeton University in 1970, and a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1983. He worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and in 2002 joined the staff of the Institute for Creation Research. As a professional scientist, Baumgardner is known for developing TERRA, a finite element code designed to solve problems in mantle convection. In 1994 he presented research at a geophysics conference stating that the slip-sliding geologic plates that cover the Earth might once have moved thousands of times faster than they do today. In 1997, U.S. News & World Report described him as "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection".

D. Russell Humphreys, PhD,
9301 Gutierrez NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87111, USA.*

Andrew A. Snelling, PhD,
a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney from 1982

Larry Vardiman, PhD,
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, California, 92021, USA.

Kurt P. Wise, PhD,
an American geologist, paleontologist, and young Earth creationist who serves as the director of the Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia.
He attended the University of Chicago and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in geology. He then was educated at Harvard University, where he received a Master of Arts (M.A.) in geology and a Ph.D. in paleontology under the supervision of Stephen Jay Gould

They have an interesting article - Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
Noah’s Flood began to play an increasingly less important role in historical geology during the nineteenth century. Theories of gradualism increased in popularity as theories of catastrophism waned. Ideas of past catastrophic geology were replaced with ideas of constancy of present gradual physical processes. Ideas of globalscale dynamics were replaced with ideas of local erosion, deposition, extrusion, and intrusion. Ideas of rapid crustal dynamics were replaced by ideas of crustal fixity - with only imperceptibly slow vertical subsidence and uplift being possible. So complete was the success of gradualism in geology that ideas of flood geology were nowhere to be found among the Englishspeaking scientists of the world by 1859 (Numbers, 1992), or rarely found at best (Nelson, 1931).

There is a story in a book about a flood. The historical accuracy of that story (if any) has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a story in a book about a flood.

Not just any book.

The Bible.

The historical accuracy of that story (if any) has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

That's true.

But whether or not God exists has historical accuracy on that story.

 

[BCP1928]

Not just any book.

The Bible.



That's true.

But whether or not God exists has historical accuracy on that story.

If the story is historically accurate, then what you have is an accurate story in a book. That says nothing about whether God exists or not.

If the story is historically inaccurate, then what you have is an inaccurate story in a book. That says nothing about whether God exists or not.

In order to complete the chain of logic between the accuracy of the story and the existence of God you need more premises. You can't just assume them, they must be made a formal part of the discourse. You recognized that, I think, when you responded "not just any book."

 

[AV1611VET]

If the story is historically accurate, then what you have is an accurate story in a book.

Not just any book.

The Bible.

That says nothing about whether God exists or not.

That "book" says more about God's existence than any science book on earth.

If the story is historically inaccurate, then what you have is an inaccurate story in a book.

No argument there.

That says nothing about whether God exists or not.

If indeed the story is inaccurate, then it's not the Bible, it's a book.

And the book can't be trusted.

In order to complete the chain of logic between the accuracy of the story and the existence of God you need more premises.

How will these do for cause-and-effect:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

You can't just assume them, they must be made a formal part of the discourse.

I have more backing me, when I "assume" the Bible is accurate, than you have, when you "assume" the Bible is just another book.

You recognized that, I think, when you responded "not just any book."

You won't find that "book" in the fiction section of a bookstore.

Why is that?

 

[BCP1928]

I have more backing me, when I "assume" the Bible is accurate, than you have, when you "assume" the Bible is just another book.

Perhaps so, but you have to make that assumption a formal part of your argument and defend it just like any other premise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps so, but you have to make that assumption a formal part of your argument and defend it just like any other premise.

I think you're getting "assumption" mixed up with "faith."

 

[dlamberth]

If that is your whole point, then we are going nowhere, because

1. you would believe in God. I'm not sure if you do. Your profile says "Other Religion", but I have seen atheists use that, so it doesn't really reveal if you are or not.

I'm very much a Lover of God, so much so that everywhere I look, there God is.

Despite what the universe and "the earth shows", people look for alternate explanations, so I see no reason why you are insisting on the explanation you prefer, being accurate.

1. science proves nothing about a global flood.

It's the Earth itself, as Created by God, that tells the story of no Global Noah Flood. It's that simple. I've walked with geologist studying floods. The evidence of a Global Noah type of flood is no where to be found.

• 
  
  ​
  Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.​
  
  If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong

For the Geologist, the proof exist in the Earth.

No one has denied that there were floods.
Floods occur all over the earth, even today.

We agree here...with Local Floods that is.
And in the Earth they have left distinctive evidence of their passing..
No such evidence of a Global flood exist.

Scientists tell you that, and they do so by various methods - one of which is radiocarbon dating, which is limited, and yes, inaccurate.
You seem happy with things that aren't 100% accurate... much less 99%.

Generally radiocarbon dating isn't used all the much by geologist. That's because rocks tend to be lacking in the carbon to be tested.

In the case of the Ice Age Floods, radiocarbon dating was used long after the Floods have been dated. As mentined in a previous post, all they did was to add another dating verification point.

Should you not open your mind to being wrong about what you believe?
You didn't answer my question, so is it safe to say, you are claiming you cannot be wrong?
It's an honest question.

My mind regarding the total lack of evidence of a Noah Global Flood is based on what I've seen and experienced with my own eyes. And that's based on what the Earth itself, as Created by God, has shown. I've walked a lot of miles following the evidence of the Ice Age Floods. No where in that journey have I ever seen any evidence of a Global Flood. That's my honest answer.

Question for you: When do you believe that Columbia River Basalt flows happened? If after the supposed Global Flood, when would that be?

Many say you are wrong, but according to you, they are not real geologists.
It amazes me that you cannot seem to understand that these explanations are not proof there is no evidence of a global flood of Noah's day.

I've given several points of evidance that I'd look for. One is very think layers of silt and the other are current ripples of humangus in size, With both found all over the earth. About being amaized, it amazes me that you cannot seem to understand that it's the Earth, as Created by God, that does not provide evidence of a Noah Global Flood.

If you understand that these interpretations tell the story, and the story can change, why are you insistent that ideas somehow proves something, when they cannot?

Can interpretations be wrong? Have they been wrong?

Yes interpretations can be wrong, and corrected as we learn. But when it's about a world wide violent event like an over the top Noah Type of flood? The evidence of a flood like that would be over so whelming and clear such that there would be absolutely no wrongful interpretation that a flood of that magnitude had taken place. The evidance would be in our face for all to see. But...it's not there.

We both know the answer, so where would you say you stand right now... Would you say on the side of dogmatism?

I agree that I am totally dogmatic about the Earth and what it shows. That's because for me it's all about God, which I'm totally dogmatic about. Which for me means that I'm not able to deny what God's own creation, as created by God, is telling us about itself. And in this creation, there is no evidence of a world wide flood of the magnitude that is envisioned by the Biblical story.

 

[dlamberth]

Oh. I'm sorry @dlamberth.
I'm not used to seeing males with avatars of flowers.

My avatar is a rose. It has spiritual significance to me. The Rose represents the mystery and beauty of our Soul. The thorns on the stem represents the path of a Human Being.

 

[CoreyD]

The religion of those that reject the claim of a global flood wiping out nearly all humans is irrelevant. The religion of the "Noah's flood" people is only relevant in that the only "evidence" comes from Jewish scripture.

The alleged "fine tuning" is not relevant to the non-existent evidence for a global flood.

"Fine tuning" still not relevant.

Abusing the word "proof" or getting worked up about sloppy usage of it in informal writing or speech is not relevant. Neither is 100% accuracy. The collective evidence of global geology is not compatible with a global flood wiping out humanity. Trying to poke holes in the dating of one, non-global flood, by attacking radiocarbon dating won't make the global flood real.

Your ideas sir, and your personal feelings are not relevant to anything I said, and they certainly are not relevant to the OP, or whether or not there was a global flood as described in the Bible.
Please consider responding coherently to my posts, and especially if the are not directed to you, please try to respond to what is actually being said, if you are tempted to respond.
Thank you.

There is a story in a book about a flood.

This "story" - A narration or recital of that which has occurred; a description of past events; a history; a statement; a record - is an actual historical event recorded in the book, of Genesis, if that is what you are referring to.

• It is recorded as an event that occured in the history of mankind, and the characters involved have their genealogy recorded in the same book.
• The author of the Bible - the sovereign, almighty God, as well as the son of God, Jesus Christ, testify to that account being a real historical event.
• There is some physical evidence, though circumstantial, and subject to other interpretations, which are favored, so that is the least of my concern.

The historical accuracy of that story (if any) has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

That was not the point I was making.
Did you read the post carefully to see why I made that point? It was addressed to the person I was responding to.

 

[CoreyD]

I'm very much a Lover of God, so much so that everywhere I look, there God is.

I'm glad to hear that you do believe in God.
Is that because you see evidence of God, or you believe, because that is what you grew up believing?

It's the Earth itself, as Created by God, that tells the story of no Global Noah Flood. It's that simple. I've walked with geologist studying floods. The evidence of a Global Noah type of flood is no where to be found.

I remember when they were saying no transitional fossils were found, after a century of searching, and then suddenly, they were interpreting fossil after fossil, as an intermediate.
Does that humble you the least bit?

For the Geologist, the proof exist in the Earth.

What do you mean by that statement?

We agree here...with Local Floods that is.
And in the Earth they have left distinctive evidence of their passing..
No such evidence of a Global flood exist.

You can only make that last statement honestly, if you are God.
Since you are not God, you do not know that.

Generally radiocarbon dating isn't used all the much by geologist. That's because rocks tend to be lacking in the carbon to be tested.

??? Geologist are not just looking at rock, are they.
How do the rocks tell us when they were dropped off the glaciers and how is volcanic ash dated?

In the case of the Ice Age Floods, radiocarbon dating was used long after the Floods have been dated. As mentined in a previous post, all they did was to add another dating verification point.

Not according to what I read.
Besides that, extrapolations, inferences, and interpretations do give hypotheses (ideas) support, but they do not verify anything.

My mind regarding the total lack of evidence of a Noah Global Flood is based on what I've seen and experienced with my own eyes. And that's based on what the Earth itself, as Created by God, has shown. I've walked a lot of miles following the evidence of the Ice Age Floods. No where in that journey have I ever seen any evidence of a Global Flood. That's my honest answer.

I believe you are honest about what you see, but I would not rule out being honestly wrong, and open to correction, if I were you.

Question for you: When do you believe that Columbia River Basalt flows happened? If after the supposed Global Flood, when would that be?

I am not a geologist.
Even if I were, I would not try to determine when something happened ages ago, when I cannot possibly do so, with my limited knowledge and abilities.
I believe if I were a geologist, and I told people we know when such and such took place, knowing that times innumerable, they have been wrong about their dating, I would feel like a hypocrite, and liar, and a big headed fool, and I would be ashamed to say I am godly.

Extrapolation, interpretation, inferences, assumptions, and ideas, are not proof of anything.
I can't imagine, telling people, "Well, we assume that everything takes place at a constant rate, and gradually, so we know..."
I'd hate myself... honestly.
Either that, or I would relish being a liar, or full of arrogance.

I've given several points of evidance that I'd look for. One is very think layers of silt and the other are current ripples of humangus in size, With both found all over the earth. About being amaized, it amazes me that you cannot seem to understand that it's the Earth, as Created by God, that does not provide evidence of a Noah Global Flood.

Yes interpretations can be wrong, and corrected as we learn. But when it's about a world wide violent event like an over the top Noah Type of flood? The evidence of a flood like that would be over so whelming and clear such that there would be absolutely no wrongful interpretation that a flood of that magnitude had taken place. The evidance would be in our face for all to see. But...it's not there.

Over the top? Isn't that based on people's different interpretation, of an event that they have not witnessed?
The Bible does not say anything about the flood being "over the top"... Well. over the top of the highest mountains, but that is not "over the top"

I agree that I am totally dogmatic about the Earth and what it shows. That's because for me it's all about God, which I'm totally dogmatic about. Which for me means that I'm not able to deny what God's own creation, as created by God, is telling us about itself. And in this creation, there is no evidence of a world wide flood of the magnitude that is envisioned by the Biblical story.

Tell me about the Biblical story, so that I have a picture of what you imagine.