What The Genesis Noaic Flood Would Not Produce.

A global flood of the kind described in the bible would not produce a complete lack of evidence.--We have no evidence for when the flood occurred: estimates range from less than 4,350 years ago to the Cambrian (500 million years ago) and beyond.--We have no evidence of the flood itself: we have good evidence of the post glacial ice dam floods in Idaho and Washington, and can track the extent, age, number of floods, etc. But a much more massive flood at a third the age is invisible.--We have no evidence for a massive depopulation: genetic analyses of human DNA shows a lack of a discontinuity that would be necessary if the flood happened as described.Conclusion: the flood story is a myth, without scientific evidence.Your version of the flood has even less evidence; it is an elaborate but unsubstantiated fantasy about a myth.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Not one whit of evidence I ever cite is ever acknowledged, relative to the Biblical record by secularistic minded members here who understand that the least bit of ID evidence of a Biblical, (I say Biblical) intelligent creator/designer acknowledgement renders them accountable to a higher power.Evidence is not off the table here in this thread, but don't plan on nitpicking me to pieces, repeatedly repeating calls for evidence which I've already addressed in recent threads.Read my OP and following clarifications on what this thread is about. It's purpose is not so much to prove the alleged Genesis flood event as it is to address implications of such an event of this global magnitude relative to properties of the planet and it's atmosphere before and after the event, be it fable or fact.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

OK, lets address implications: You adhere to the idea of a huge flood some 4,350 years ago but that flood left no evidence. A much smaller, regional flood in Idaho and Washington three times older left lots of evidence.What is the implication of this other than the recent global flood is a myth?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Even though this is the free-for-all forum I will not insult Buzsaw by suggesting that this moronic crap reflects his real beliefs. Clearly it is one more step in his campaign to discredit the Bible.Buzsaw was asked about geological features that the flood would not produce (with the obvious implication that if such were found the rocks in question could not have formed during the flood and yet we see things like this:

quote:

---

1. It would not produce a climate as warm as pre-flood.

---

Which is clearly not about geological features. Despite this, it is deliberately porrly phrased as if to make a feeble pretence at answering the question.
Probably it is intended to say that it WOULD produce a COLDER climate.
Which, of course, is just plain silly.But it gets even stupider. For instance:

quote:

---

7. It would not produce a rainbow-less atmosphere.

---

Which is presumably a way of saying that it WOULD create the conditions for rainbows, again with the deliberately clumsy phrasing to try to make it look as if it is an answer - to anybody stupid enough to think that atmospheres and rainbows are geological features !
Of course just how it would cause rainbows - and more importantly how rainbows could be absent in the supposedly wet climate before the "flood" is not explained at all. Because it is obvious nonsense.And there is plenty more crazy nonsense. For instance:

quote:

---

3 It would not produce the same elements in the atmosphere of a pre-flood planet which is implicatied due to the volumn of H2O in play

---

About the only thing crazier than believing that this nonsense is in believing that it would somehow consistently skew all the dating methods used to determine the age of rocks. Or even affect ONE of them to the degree required.This is especially amusing to anyone familiar with Cretaceous geology:

quote:

---

10 It would not produce small shallower oceans as would be pre-flood.

---

Cretaceous sea levels were HIGHER than today. The shallow seas of the period were a consequence of this - not of "small" oceans !Ok Buz, you've convinced me. The Bible really IS worthless crap. Just as you have been arguing all along.

Hells yeah, I'm in!Looks like we both have equally been ignored once so far.The one guideline I think should be that neither of us curse at him and draw him away like that. We must address (or at least try to address) his points, but in the end, obviously, we can point out how stupid he sounds making the claims he does. But no cursing. Deal?- Oni

I agree that it has to be a post addressing his points. I'm not sure I agree with no cursing. As the great Carlin pointed out, sometimes cursing is the best way to make a point.On the other hand, it does seem that a cheap way to get the old man to ignore something is to use naughty words, especially directed at him. So I guess for purposes of this competition, it makes sense.Two final matters. First, are we rating on absolute numbers, or percentage ignored? Second, I suggest the we be limited to one reply to each post that he makes for purposes of this competition. Otherwise, we could simply flood the thread with posts that he couldn't possibly respond to.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Think about that for a minute and ask yourself why. Because by "higher power" you mean the infantile beliefs that YOU personally hold about an invisible man. You don't mean an ambiguous entity, you mean Jesus, the one in the old book organized by a bunch of political ass-clowns*. In this thread and in all others, you don't bring evidence anyways, I don't know why you're making such a big deal about it.The Buzsaw Universe has ZERO evidence to support it. Your implications are unsupported assertions. If you call something a "hypothesis," and you did, some kind of evidence lead you to this hypothesis. Something, anything, give us a starting point. Your OP makes no sense.*Subbie, "ass" in this case is referencing a donkey. - Oni

To make it simple we'll go with absolute numbers, if you agree.And I agree on 1 reply per Buz post. And I've already started. - Oni

No. Many, many people respond to, criticize, and soundly refute your "evidence." What actually happens is you refuse to acknowledge the weight of the criticism and refutations. Whether that's because of an intellectual incapacity to understand them or a philosophical predisposition to disregard criticism that goes against your ingrained prejudices I shall leave for the readers to come to their own conclusions. That's right, Buz. We're such idiots that we'd ignore actual evidence of a personal diety because we want to suffer for eternity. No, but you specifically requested that this be put in the Free For All forum to relieve you of the obligation of actually providing evidence to support your position. I'm sure that has nothing to do with you having no evidence to present, right old bean? But again, without that pesky requirement of producing evidence to support your fantasies. You get to simply make crap up and ignore evidence demonstrating why your crap is crap. The only real mystery here is what you hope to accomplish, other than cement your place as the leading nutjob EvC poster.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This is because you never produce any evidence. Just fancy tales and hopeful thoughts. You've never shown any evidence of any value whatsoever. Like the evidence you claimed for the exodus, nothing was actually evidence, just some stuff you liked and that fit with your preconceived notions. But you haven't given us anything the flood could not possibly produce, i.e. something to falsify it, all you have given us is stuff the flood will produce, just worded as negative statements.Give us something that your flood could not possibly have done, and for which you have no prior knowledge (as it is clear that you know the scientific claims for what actually happened to the earth.)

Easy. The bible.

---

I have to ask, what did you hope would happen with this thread? What was your intent? You admit you have no evidence and admit you don't even want to talk about evidence, so what is the purpose? Ahh, that's it. So this is a thread for all of our crackpot theories about how a flood could happen? Since we are NOT allowed to use evidence, we can just make stuff up, just so long as an old book supports it?

---

As comprehensive as this list seems to be, you forgot one element, perhaps the most important one.The Genesis Noaic flood would not produce any evidence that it ever occurred.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Mmm, nothing here worthy of response. FFall yada. Moving on. So long.

Mmm, nothing here worthy of response. FFall yada. Me too, but nothing here either so moving on down thread. So long.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.