Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_Themis]

Hello Themis,

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they do not realize what real science is about.

I never said that. I have seen no real indication most of them do. Remember that they have the agenda here. They have a conclusion in hand that cannot be questioned even before they look at any evidence.

Like it or not, the peer review system is plagued by agendas, greed, jealousy, etc. It is not representative today of its original intent.

If you understood Peer review, you would realize it is the best method of limiting what you list. Can you show how you are going to limit the agenda, greed, jealousy, etc of groups who have concluded what happened even before looking at the evidence. Again the mountains of evidence collected were not even done to try and prove or disprove some Global flood. That was just after the fact that it didn't support it. This of course upset people who could not fathom any other conclusion then if the Bible says it, then it happened.

Evidence HAS been presented to you

I keep asking for you to provide just one. Then we can go from there.

The almighty peer review approval has become a club which excludes the work of those who refuse to cow

It is the most effective, even if not perfect. What you describe is not really reality here. Many fringe scientists just don't provide anything to really peer review. Take cold fusion as an example.

by the way, I am curious. When a scientist identifies a theory as proof or truth, doesn't this effectively close the mind of that scientist concerning that particular truth (with the exception that they will accept other evidences which they believe support that truth)?

A scientist? This is why we have peer review in case some scientist make conclusions that are incorrect. Sure scientists can have some of the same flaws we all have and want to stick with a certain theory even against evidence that may come forth to show they are incorrect. This is why we have peer review. Really though we are now talking about areas that are not as clear scientifically(science is always trying to gain new knowledge), which is not the same as areas where science has been well established. Again talk to these LDS scientists.

Meanwhile, you are challenging these same people's claims about religious spiritual truth.

How is this even remotely the same. The physical evidence is available to all. Many of my questions regarding religious truth have to do with the truths they claim are objective truths. There are many and there are many that conflict and cannot all be true objectively. This brings up questions of how one knows their objective truths are correct. Again reliability is an important factor, and why I think the physical evidence against a global flood should not be ignored for a desire to believe the Bible is correct on what they interpret it to be saying. Feel free to provide one piece of evidence you think suggests a global flood, and how it is evidence for a global flood. Just saying fossils on mountain tops explains nothing, especially when other explanations have so much evidence to support it.

[_subgenius]

One will easily see that the naysayers on this thread largely rely on the assertion "it makes no sense"...this is something you will see when they desperately try to claim the ark was impossible because "of all the poop"...as if this were some detail carelessly omitted, as if this were some sort of "gotcha"...yet they have absolutely no evidence to support that claim, they have no idea how many animals were on board the ark, how many were adults, were infants, were awake, and so on...they simply makes assumption based on what, to them, "makes sense".
That may be well and good but in a discussion obsessed with "evidence" why do they offer none?...its simple, they can not. Science won't allow them to...for the scientific method is incapable of providing evidence that provides negative proof...it can only prove what is there, not what is not there.
Nevertheless, the offerings of such platitudes such as " i can figure the volume of a sphere" yet they fail to recognize how water exists upon the earth's surface, or how a global flood would behave, or basically how basic and god science works. So, yes we can all argue about what makes "sense" or we can just look at the evidence. Something the Global Flood has and something the naysayers have not.

Here is the short list of evidence FOR the conclusion that a Global Flood occurred. Since evidence can not be offered that negates a flood occurring (scientifically impossible - the scientific method does not work that way) - This seems complimentary to the logical and archaeological support found in the historical record (scriptures and tradition - both of which are valid forms of "evidence"). So, what evidence do we see that actually supports the conclusion of a Global Flood as mentioned in Bible?

There is a worldwide tradition of a global flood having occurred. The historical record clearly records stories of a global flood across cultures, continents and regions, too prevalent to be considered a coincidence.

According to current archaeological evidence, civilization appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.

The genealogical records of many of the European kings are traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.

An analysis of population growth statistics is able to confirm that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood. (granted stats can be made to say anything, but in some models the math works)

Human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous rocks, this is inconsistent with one scientific view of the geologic column - and thus is dismissed as it does not fit the preconceived model.

The most ancient human artifacts date to the post-flood era. No earlier have ever been found, this can indicate that the earlier artifacts could have been buried beyond reach by a huge flood.

There is nearly the same amount of organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if all the fossils were still alive. This indicates the demise of all living things in a single global event.

Early earth had a warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.

Glacial period started very quickly. This would require a cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid climatic change.

Much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.

Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment. Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits wouldn't.

All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of sediment in a global flood.

The uplift of the major mountain ranges are relatively young, based on evolutionary chronology.

There is a lack of correlation between radiometric 'ages' and assumed palaeontological 'ages'. A global flood could easily create an illusion of geologic 'ages'. The consequent conflict between dating methods confirms the illusion.

Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all 'ages'.

The burial of fossil deposits worldwide had to have occurred in a catastrophic event.

Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains,this can also be explained as the marine animals being washed there and then buried - and yes mountain uplifting is also a viable explanation.

There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types, indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood.

Fossils from different 'ages' are often found mixed. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.

Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a consequence of a global flood.

Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly. A catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result. (thoug i like the cannon on the ark premise better)

Polystrate fossils that are found worldwide indicate turbulent or rapid deposition. A global flood would be required to do this worldwide.

Polystrate fossils also form when water-logged timber sinks in a large body of water. A year long global flood could produce worldwide polystrate fossils formed in this way.

Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.

Meteorites are basically absent from the geologic column. With the large number of meteorites hitting the earth each year, they should be very plentiful throughout the sedimentary rocks - unless much of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.

Sedimentary rocks contain fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints, but no hail imprints.

Desert areas show evidence of 'recent' water bodies. Water from a recent global flood would remain in large pools (bodies of water) for some time before evaporating.

There is evidence of a recent and drastic rise in sea level. A global flood could easily have created this feature.

Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.

Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are consistent with the recession of a global flood.

River terraces are found worldwide.

There is a universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present stream. Slow erosion over millions of years could not have created these valleys as the mountains would have eroded, keeping pace with the valley erosion. The drainage of global floodwaters from the land surface could easily create such wide valleys in a short period of time.

Only modern sediments show any evidence of surface drainage systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down by a global flood there would not be any sign of drainage erosion except for the top layers eroded during the recession of the flood waters off the land.

Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary rock layers.

Hydrologic evidence points to the world's sedimentary rocks being deposited in one continuous episode.

Hydrologic experiments show that flowing sediment automatically settles out in distinct layers. Therefore, sedimentary rock layers can be just as easily explained as flood debris, as slow deposition.

There is a worldwide occurrence of deep alluvial deposits and sedimentary rocks consistent with a huge global flood.

There is a near-random deposition of formational sequences.

Nowhere in the world is it possible to see the complete geologic column as a single structure. It is always found in bits and pieces, and mostly with pieces missing. Globally, a worldwide flood could create the illusion of a geologic column.

The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years old. Nothing is older than the alleged and approximate date of Noah's flood.



This list is in no means definitive, exacting, or without controversy...but the conclusion of a global flood is reasonable, especially when considered against the story in the scriptures, etc..
So, is any of these items the silver bullet? not really, but science seldom works that way..its usually the influence of various factors, of indicators consistently pointing in the same direction...and in this case the flood stands a good chance of being more probable than not.
Sure, a few naysayers will nit pick at one or two of the points made here...and likely they will have good reason to discount or even dispute various points of evidence presented here...but that won't be a silver bullet either.
That being said, what do the naysayers have to offer...dissent, distraction, delusion, detraction, and divisiveness - for they have no evidence of anything nor of nothing...as an objective mind reads through their "rebuttals and refusals" one easily discerns that they are wild and scattered, offering only reaction and without foundation.
But alas, i am not sure they can even "prove" there ever was a first man circa whenever
The fact is that there is more reason to believe in the truth of the global flood than to not...that when more evidence supports the story than degrades it one must surely rest with what is more probable...because, well...because that just makes sense...don't it?

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Since you brought it back up, what is the volume of water required to raise the sea levels from current heights to covering Everest?

Where is this volume of water currently residing?

[_Drifting]

Subby, when do you believe the flood happened?

[_SteelHead]

Scientific progress goes boink
Or
The scientific method according to YECs:

5 EXTERIOR - DAY

A village. Sound of chanting of Latin canon, punctuated by short, sharp cracks. It comes nearer. We see it is a line of MONKS ala SEVENTH SEAL flagellation scene, chanting and banging themselves on the foreheads with wooden boards. They pass a group of villagers who are dragging a beautiful YOUNG WOMAN dressed as a witch through the streets. They drag her to a strange house/ruin standing on a hill outside the village. A strange-looking knight stands outside, SIR BEDEVERE.

FIRST VILLAGER: We have found a witch. May we burn her?

ALL: A Witch! Burn her!

BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?

ALL: She looks like one. Yes, she does.

BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.

They bring her forward - a beautiful YOUNG GIRL (MISS ISLINGTON) dressed up as a witch.

WITCH: I am not a witch. I am not a witch.

BEDEVERE: But you are dressed as one.

WITCH: They dressed me up like this.

ALL: We didn't, we didn't!

WITCH: This is not my nose, It is a false one.

BEDEVERE takes her nose off.

BEDEVERE: Well?

FIRST VILLAGER: ... Well, we did do the nose.

BEDEVERE: The nose?

FIRST VILLAGER: And the hat. But she is a witch.

ALL: A witch, a witch, burn her!

BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this?

FIRST VILLAGER: ... Um ... Yes ... no ... a bit ... yes... she has got a wart.

BEDEVERE: Why do you think she is a witch?

SECOND VILLAGER: She turned me into a newt.

BEDEVERE: A newt?

SECOND VILLAGER (After looking at himself for some time): I got better.

ALL: Burn her anyway.

BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

ARTHUR and PATSY ride up at this point and watch what follows with interest

ALL: There are? Tell up. What are they, wise Sir Bedevere?

BEDEVERE: Tell me ... what do you do with witches?

ALL: Burn them.

BEDEVERE: And what do you burn, apart from witches?

FOURTH VILLAGER: ... Wood?

BEDEVERE: So why do witches burn?

SECOND VILLAGER (pianissimo): ... Because they're made of wood...?

BEDEVERE: Good.

PEASANTS stir uneasily then come round to this conclusion.

ALL: I see. Yes, of course.

BEDEVERE: So how can we tell if she is made of wood?

FIRST VILLAGER: Make a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE: Ah ... but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

ALL: Ah. Yes, of course ... um ... err ...

BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?

ALL: No, no, It floats. Throw her in the pond. Tie weights on her. To the pond.

BEDEVERE: Wait. Wait ... tell me, what also floats on water?

ALL: Bread? No, no, no. Apples .... gravy ... very small rocks ...

ARTHUR: A duck.

They all turn and look at ARTHUR. BEDEVERE looks up very impressed.

BEDEVERE: Exactly. So... logically ...

FIRST VILLAGER (beginning to pick up the thread): If she ... weighs the same as a duck ... she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE: And therefore?

ALL: A witch! ... A duck! A duck! Fetch a duck.

FOURTH VILLAGER: Here is a duck, Sir Bedevere.

BEDEVERE: We shall use my largest scales.

He leads them a few yards to a very strange contraption indeed, made of wood and rope and leather. They put the GIRL in one pan and the duck in another. Each pan is supported by a wooden stave. BEDEVERE checks each pan then ... ARTHUR looks on with interest.

BEDEVERE: Remove the supports.

Two PEASANTS knock them away with sledge hammers. The GIRL and the duck swing slightly but balance perfectly.

ALL: A witch! A witch!

WITCH: It's a fair cop.

ALL: Burn her! Burn her! Let's make her into a ladder.

The VILLAGERS drag the girl away, leaving ARTHUR and BEDEVERE regarding each other admiringly.

BEDEVERE: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

[_SteelHead]

For my literal Bible friends, what happened in the following situation?

Joshua 10:13

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Did the sun actually stop its journey?

[_subgenius]

For my literal Bible friends, what happened in the following situation?

Joshua 10:13

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Did the sun actually stop its journey?

what do you mean by "actually" in this context?
do you feel that the verse left out some necessary information?
or is this a trick question? ...i like tricks....people like you say God uses magic....which apparently is code for "cool tricks"...do you think you are God right now? (oh, i am getting excited...just so you know, the card i picked was the ace of spades)

[_SteelHead]

Well that is the question, isn't it?

What does the verse mean? Did the sun stop? Relative to what?

Please explain.

[_subgenius]

Well that is the question, isn't it?

What does the verse mean? Did the sun stop? Relative to what?

Please explain.

explain what? the verse seems abundantly sufficient and clear on the subject

[_SteelHead]

So the sun stopped relative to the motions of the universe around it? Or perhaps, only relative to the Earth?

Either way, as the Earth's rotation would have continued, the sun would have set anyway.

I won't even address the other issues with this whole idea of the sun and moon stopping.