Noah's Flood...

[Essan]

i post evidence from a SECULAR source and yu still don't accept it. consider what Scoch said in lightof the following verse

Whatever Schoch's out of context coments might say (he doesn't actually believe in Hapgood's ECD theory any more than he belives the moon is made of creme brulee - and if you disagree I'll give you his email address so you can ask him yourself) it still isn't evidence.

Explaining the possible consequences of a hypothetical scenario does not show that such a scenario occurred. Indeed, there is no evidence that such a scenario occurred.

Surely you must have better evidence in support of a global flood than a long discredited hypothesis from 50 years ago? Next you'll be inviking the hollow earth theory - which is at least as credible!

Sorry, but you need something better. As I keep asking: something which cannot more readily be explained by other known and observed processes.

[ed]

[Sorry, but you need something better. As I keep asking: something which cannot more readily be explained by other known and observed processes.

Then it wouldn't be a miracle, would it?

The only proof that is adequite would be evidence of a global event dated to the period in question that clearly indicates a flood. Abscent that, it is a myth.

It is a pretty simple problem. Many holes, I am sure, have been dug thru strata that are contemporanious with the time of the alleged flood, no? If there is truth to the story we should see evidence from the US, Antarctica, Europe, Asia and so on.

Does such evidence exist? That is a yes or no question.

If not, it beggers credulity to claim that "it hasn't been found yet". Though one cannot prove a negative, as each hole is dug the liklihood of the historacracy of the event dimisnishes. Eventually it diminishes to a point where reasonable people would conclude that it didn't happen.

So, I ask again: is there worldwide evidence of a deposit, consistant with flooding, that is universally found in all strata examined that would be dated to the time of the flood?

Yes
No

[Essan]

It is a pretty simple problem. Many holes, I am sure, have been dug thru strata that are contemporanious with the time of the alleged flood, no? If there is truth to the story we should see evidence from the US, Antarctica, Europe, Asia and so on.

Does such evidence exist? That is a yes or no question.


So, I ask again: is there worldwide evidence of a deposit, consistant with flooding, that is universally found in all strata examined that would be dated to the time of the flood?

Yes
No

Well, there's around 800,000 years worth of data in the latest (3,2km long) Antarctic ice cores - and not a marine sediment amongst them.

There are also many places where no sedimentary strata exists - particularly the bottoms of the oceans (which is basalt). Odd how the fllod only deposited sediments in some places.

The presence of desert sand deposits between successive marine sediments must also be explained.

[ed]

May I take that as a no?

I think that The flood is a contention, one that may be supported, more or less, by documentary evidence. It was, though a physical event and therefore should have left undeniable physical evidence.

All of the writing in the world is meaningless if the contention for such an event can not be demonstrated objectively. People do, in fact, lie in print.

Sorry, Arch, Arks, two by two, all of that stuff has merit for discussion only if the event is real and from what I am hearing, there is zero evidence.

[Minimalist]

Surely you must have better evidence in support of a global flood than a long discredited hypothesis from 50 years ago?

All this time and you still think he has better evidence, Essan?

Not likely.

[marduk]

Well, there's around 800,000 years worth of data in the latest (3,2km long) Antarctic ice cores - and not a marine sediment amongst them.

There are also many places where no sedimentary strata exists - particularly the bottoms of the oceans (which is basalt). Odd how the fllod only deposited sediments in some places.

The presence of desert sand deposits between successive marine sediments must also be explained.

young earthers believe that the land mass of Pangea broke up after the great deluge caused by the force of water pressing on the crust which of course explains why the new land forced up has no marine sediment
they estimate it took less than a 100 years for this to happen.
and of course this means that what we recognise as more primitve species of mankind are actually modern man with vitamin deficiencies caused by a lack of sunlight and in some cases they had rickets

[john]

The presence of desert sand deposits between successive marine sediments must also be explained.


beaches.


john
_____________

[Guest]

sorry until one of you presents your side of the discussion as i laid out previously, i won't be doing to much here. i have the ancient eye witness to what i believe, you don't. i don't need to prove anything, you needtoprove thatit didn't happen.

you have been challenged and you have continually failed to meet it, which is typical of naysayers. they just love to say it didn't happen and then run and hide when called on it.

there's around 800,000 years worth of data in the latest (3,2km long) Antarctic ice cores

that isn't 800,000 years of data, that is at best maybe 50 years of study by modern man whose intentions are qustionable. you have nothing that goes back past, for sake of argument, the 18th century.

so at best, all you have is basically conjecture on your part as none of what you (general usage) theorize can be proven. i have 10,000 years of ancient records that show everything goes according to what the Bible has said.

Whatever Schoch's out of context coments might say (he doesn't actually believe in Hapgood's ECD theory any more than he belives the moon is made of creme brulee

nice try, it wasn't takenout of context nor was his beliefs inferred. but thatis typical of your side, twist the words so you don't have to dealwith the issues.

[Frank Harrist]

Your arguments or lack thereof are becoming increasingly weak, arch. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the flood happened. The common belief among the scientific community is that it did not. The ice cores are proof. Just because you choose not to believe science doesn't mean it isn't right. You're wrong, arch. Just plain wrong and deluded enough to keep trying to say that you have presented evidence. You have not. Nothing at all! So put up or shut up. No one here has seen your so called proof. Where is it ? What is it? Refresh our memories. Maybe we just forgot this spectacular and conclusive evidence you claim to have presented. You're a joke. A poor sick one. That's not just my opinion it's what you keep proving to be. That's the only proof you have presented. Proof that you are a deluded fool.

[ed]

sorry until one of you presents your side of the discussion as i laid out previously, i won't be doing to much here. i have the ancient eye witness to what i believe, you don't. i don't need to prove anything, you needtoprove thatit didn't happen.

you have been challenged and you have continually failed to meet it, which is typical of naysayers. they just love to say it didn't happen and then run and hide when called on it.

there's around 800,000 years worth of data in the latest (3,2km long) Antarctic ice cores

that isn't 800,000 years of data, that is at best maybe 50 years of study by modern man whose intentions are qustionable. you have nothing that goes back past, for sake of argument, the 18th century.

so at best, all you have is basically conjecture on your part as none of what you (general usage) theorize can be proven. i have 10,000 years of ancient records that show everything goes according to what the Bible has said.

Whatever Schoch's out of context coments might say (he doesn't actually believe in Hapgood's ECD theory any more than he belives the moon is made of creme brulee

nice try, it wasn't takenout of context nor was his beliefs inferred. but thatis typical of your side, twist the words so you don't have to dealwith the issues.

There is no evident that it happened.

Thus endeth the discussion.

Documents are worthless abscent physical evidence.

[Guest]

Someone make sure the door does not hit him in the ass when he leaves. . . .

--J.D.

[Guest]

Just because you choose not to believe science doesn't mean it isn't right. You're wrong, arch. Just plain wrong and deluded enough to keep trying to say that you have presented evidence. You have not. Nothing at all! So put up or shut up

sorry you are wrong. don't turn this around on me because you all fail to provide any kind of logial, concise, credible argument for your side.

i have presented evidence then i made the challenge.

the ball is still in your court.

stop taking the coward's way out

[Guest]

Thus writes the coward. . . .

--J.D.

[Guest]

as i said in current biblical archaeology, to continue to throw up proof to unbelievers is a waste of time as they will not accept it until it is too late.

Elijah himself could come back to earth and dig up the ark itself and you would not accept it as valid. you are not the final board of approval, so it doesn't matter if i provide proof or not, you still have to face the truth, even when i am silent, because it won't go away.

so since your refusal to accept or meet the challenge, noah's flood as it is written in the biblical text is declared the winner and is the only true version.

i am now taking a break from this thread as it is clear that the detractors cannot back up their fiath in science with anything substantial.

[Minimalist]

Your capacity for self-delusion is mind-boggling.