A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[McCulloch]

otseng does not hold to the traditional dating of the flood. He allows it may have been as long ago as 100,000 years, although his preferred date is around 10,000 years ago.

But he does hold that it was during human history.

otseng has also consistently avoided citing any Biblical evidence. I would say, while we could certainly clearly document that flood proponents are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, creationist Christians, we should also leave that out of the debate as off the thread topic.

OK, agreed.

The rest of your several posts, however, certainly provides a lot of reasons the flood never happened. Some of it is date specific, but some of it applies to most any potential date for a flood.

As the flood model being defended apparently occurred during human history, even the some of date specific critiques still apply.

However, to avoid chasing too many rabbits at once, I would recommend we focus on a single line of evidence:

Fossils.

For now.

My point is that the flood model has been thoroughly discredited by every branch of science that could possibly have anything to say about it. We would not even be discussing it were it not for some bronze age myths that were adopted by a popular first century religion. By themselves, based on the evidence, no branch of science would have come up with such an absurd notion.

[otseng]

However, to avoid chasing too many rabbits at once, I would recommend we focus on a single line of evidence:

Fossils.

I would agree with this. Focusing on one issue at a time is my preference. And we can certainly go on to any other issue on the talk origins site afterwards.

[otseng]

They are smoothed due to the most recent Ice Age and the mechanisms that formed this are well understood. U-Shaped valleys, corries, drumlins, moraine, aretes, pyramidal peaks etc are all very well understood geological mechanisms caused by ice-based erosion...and Scotland is one of the best places in the world to see them all together.

These are all very interesting issues that I actually would love to talk about. But can I ask that we put this into the queue for us to discuss? As micatala proposed, we will focus on fossils for now.

[Scotracer]

Just as a note for McCulloch:

otseng does not hold to the traditional dating of the flood. He allows it may have been as long ago as 100,000 years, although his preferred date is around 10,000 years ago.

otseng has also consistently avoided citing any Biblical evidence. I would say, while we could certainly clearly document that flood proponents are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, creationist Christians, we should also leave that out of the debate as off the thread topic.


The rest of your several posts, however, certainly provides a lot of reasons the flood never happened. Some of it is date specific, but some of it applies to most any potential date for a flood.



However, to avoid chasing too many rabbits at once, I would recommend we focus on a single line of evidence:

Fossils.

Agreed. Fossil evidence is the single biggest problem for any global flood hypothesis.

[nygreenguy]

Agreed. Fossil evidence is the single biggest problem for any global flood hypothesis.

I think the biological/ecological are because its some VERY readily observed today.

Even IF the flood was 100,000 years ago, it STILL can explain the genetic bottleneck a flood would have created, given a source for the genetic diversity, show how the plant could have survived and spread.

Also, it appear the 100,000 number is arbitrary anyhow, so that right there disqualifies it as a valid hypothesis.

[Scotracer]

Agreed. Fossil evidence is the single biggest problem for any global flood hypothesis.

I think the biological/ecological are because its some VERY readily observed today.

Even IF the flood was 100,000 years ago, it STILL can explain the genetic bottleneck a flood would have created, given a source for the genetic diversity, show how the plant could have survived and spread.

Also, it appear the 100,000 number is arbitrary anyhow, so that right there disqualifies it as a valid hypothesis.

otseng has offered one number for a certain criteria (the antartic ice-sheet age) of 100,000 then another when a different criteria suited a more recent number. This immediately invalidates it as a hypothesis if you go "Yeah, this bit of evidence suggests xxxxx age" and then immediately turn round and say "This one suggests xxxx age!" and try to hold onto the two of them.

[nygreenguy]

otseng has offered one number for a certain criteria (the antartic ice-sheet age) of 100,000 then another when a different criteria suited a more recent number. This immediately invalidates it as a hypothesis if you go "Yeah, this bit of evidence suggests xxxxx age" and then immediately turn round and say "This one suggests xxxx age!" and try to hold onto the two of them.

To pick any one thing is still arbitrary. This is why real science works so well. Our age of the earth fits in every single possible way. It has been challenged thousands of times, and the evidence STILL fits. We dont look at one type of radiometric dating and say "this is how old the earth is". Science takes multiple lines of evidence, and it all fits.

In science, we cant pick and choose, we MUST look at ALL the data.

[Cathar1950]

otseng has offered one number for a certain criteria (the antartic ice-sheet age) of 100,000 then another when a different criteria suited a more recent number. This immediately invalidates it as a hypothesis if you go "Yeah, this bit of evidence suggests xxxxx age" and then immediately turn round and say "This one suggests xxxx age!" and try to hold onto the two of them.

To pick any one thing is still arbitrary. This is why real science works so well. Our age of the earth fits in every single possible way. It has been challenged thousands of times, and the evidence STILL fits. We dont look at one type of radiometric dating and say "this is how old the earth is". Science takes multiple lines of evidence, and it all fits.

In science, we cant pick and choose, we MUST look at ALL the data.

All the data is a must.
That might be like looking at all the places on earth where we see signs of flooding and then insist there was a world wide flood as you ignore every where else on earth because there is no signs of flooding.

[Goat]

All the data is a must.
That might be like looking at all the places on earth where we see signs of flooding and then insist there was a world wide flood as you ignore every where else on earth because there is no signs of flooding.

Another thing is when there IS signs of flooding, one has to ask oneself, what is the dates of the flooding, and how close they are in age.

[micatala]

otseng has offered one number for a certain criteria (the antartic ice-sheet age) of 100,000 then another when a different criteria suited a more recent number. This immediately invalidates it as a hypothesis if you go "Yeah, this bit of evidence suggests xxxxx age" and then immediately turn round and say "This one suggests xxxx age!" and try to hold onto the two of them.

To pick any one thing is still arbitrary. This is why real science works so well. Our age of the earth fits in every single possible way. It has been challenged thousands of times, and the evidence STILL fits. We dont look at one type of radiometric dating and say "this is how old the earth is". Science takes multiple lines of evidence, and it all fits.

In science, we cant pick and choose, we MUST look at ALL the data.

I agree that to be a valid model, the model must explain all the data.

However, it only takes one line of evidence or one sufficiently robust set of data to falsify a model.

The Ptolemaic system explained the motion of the planets and stars fairly well until Galileo turned his telescope on the skies. He observed several phenomenon that were problematic to the Ptolemaic system, but one pretty much by itself destroyed the system: the phases of Venus.