Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[Slowvehicle]

Same ol', attack the messenger ad hom strategy. Your conclusions are false as I already explained. If you or anyone else don't believe me---with regard to this latest get DOC episode--- so be it.

It is not an argumentum ad hominem to point out that you did, in fact insert "carbon" before dating, then did, in fact, go on to rail against "carbon dating".

Why does your addition of "carbon" to the term not seem like false witness to you?

 

[John Jones]

Perhaps DOC doesn't understand that there is a difference between radiocarbon dating (limit: up to 60,000y) and radiometric dating (limit: the age of the earth - 4.5by)

I don't think there's any question about it. That's what makes his pointless, misplaced rant against ¹⁴C dating all the more pathetic.

What's even more pathetic is that this is typical of DOC's threads.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I thought many skeptics didn't believe Moses existed. And if he was perfect, Christ would have never needed to come.

Freewheeling, irreverent, humorously-intended discussions of whether Pepper Potts would actually hang around Tony Stark are indications of believing that Moses existed?

Heartfelt, nuanced, evidence-laden discussions of whether Picard or Kirk would, in fact, be the better choice to lead the Federation in War are indications of believing that either, or both, actually exist?

Wow.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This scholar (Norman Geisler) who has written 60 books thinks Moses wrote it for some of the following reasons:

...There are several lines of evidence to indicate that Moses, the
great lawgiver and deliverer of Israel who wrote the other four books of the
law, was the author of Genesis. (1) The earliest and continual tradition of
'the Jewish people, as recorded in the Talmud, attributes this book to
Moses. (2) Moses is the only person we know of from this early time peri
od who had the ability to write this book. The rest of the Israelites were a
nation of uneducated slaves, whereas Moses was a highly educated son
of the king (Acts 7:22). (3) Moses was the only one who had both the in
terest and information to write Genesis. Being Jewish Moses would have
had access to the family records of his ancestors (cf. Gen. 5:1; 10:1;
25:19; etc.) which were no doubt brought down to Egypt by Jacob (Gen.
46). Since Moses was bent on delivering his people from Egypt, it is nat
ural to assume that he was familiar with the promises of God passed down
by his forefathers that God would indeed deliver them (cf. Gen. 46:3–4;
Exod. 2:24). (4) Citations from Genesis show that the rest of the Old Test
ament regards it as part of the Law of Moses (Deut. 1:8; II Kings 13:23; I
Chron. 1:1ff.). Since Moses was the author of the other "books of Moses,"
as we will see later, it is reasonable to attribute the first book of Moses to
him as well...

IN THE BEGINNING GOD
By Dr. Hal Harless

http://ffgreenville.org/notes/books/gen_2013/2013-01-27-gen-001-001.pdf

...what does your boy Ehrman have to say about who "wrote" the Torah? Was that not on the dust jacket?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't have to explain it if you are an Old Earth Creationist like a Norman Geilser or Dr. Hugh Ross.

You would have to ask that question to a Young Earth Creationist.

Or of someone who is apparently made the claim that Cretaceous fossils at altitude in Peru were somehow informative of a late Holocene Mesopotamian local flood...

...like the OP....

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm mostly a New Testament man and really haven't done enough research on both Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. I'm more concerned with the NT. The bible is not a science book, a very small portion of it deals with Creation, and I believe that portion was geared to primitive uneducated people. The purpose of this thread is to just put information out there and people can make their own decisions, thus the title: Biblical Flood?...

Please explain what, in your opinion, Cretaceous fossils at altitude in Peru have to do with a Holocene flood at sea level in Mesopotamia. (Else explain, why, in the name of Marmot-Stalking Stephenson, you made it the subject of the thread...)

 

[TimCallahan]

DOC, my question - which I ask for the third time - still stands:

Are you willing to propose a pass / fail test or accept someone else's pass / fail test for a scientific theory of the flood; and are you willing to accept the verdict of such a test - just as I would have to accept the verdict, falsifying evolution, of a mammalian fossil embedded in Cambrian strata along with trilobites - should the result of this this test be a fail?

If you will not subject flood theory to a pass / fail test, then your adherence to it is intellectually dishonest.

So, how about it, DOC - or anyone else - can you think of a pass / fail test for the biblical flood?

DOC: This question still stands, and you still haven't answered it.

 

[John Jones]

DOC: This question still stands, and you still haven't answered it.

Frankly, I think the question is too tough for DOC.

No offense intended DOC, but I don't know any other way to say it.

 

[DOC]

The sheer unmitigated gall of this post. Wow. You have some big balls, lying like this for everyone to see.

Any troll who has not read one word of this thread could say the exact same thing. What does that tell you. This is all a red herring to get the focus off the subject of the thread and onto big bad DOC. I could be the worst liar in the history of the world and if wouldn't affect the veracity of the information I present or the quality of rational arguments I make one bit.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Any troll who has not read one word of this thread could say the exact same thing. What does that tell you. This is all a red herring to get the focus off the subject of the thread and onto big bad DOC. I could be the worst liar in the history of the world and if wouldn't affect the veracity of the information I present or the quality of rational arguments I make one bit.

...except for little things like changing a post by adding the word "carbon", then pretending you were raising a valid issue...

Right.

 

[SezMe]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

As a nearly lurker in this thread, I can state there IS something to the flood story that I was not aware of: It's more idiotic than I ever imagined. But the icing on the cake is your arguments(?) in support of it. I am absolutely fascinated by what the human brain can wrap itself around.

 

[DOC]

...Are you willing to propose a pass / fail test or accept someone else's pass / fail test for a scientific theory of the flood...

Nothing is preventing you from putting one out there. But I can almost guarantee you that it is going to require faith by the vast majority of people on this system. For example if you say someone estimates something to be 85 million years old. That requires faith unless you have the ability to go to the desert, find a rock, and determine the age yourself (and in this example I will stipulate that you must have all the equipment necessary to make the estimate). If you can't do it yourself it requires faith.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nothing is preventing you from putting one out there. But I can almost guarantee you that it is going to require faith by the vast majority of people on this system. For example if you say someone estimates something to be 85 million years old. That requires faith unless you have the ability to go to the desert, find a rock, and determine the age yourself (and in this example I will stipulate that you must have all the equipment necessary to make the estimate). If you can't do it yourself it requires faith.

...or evidence...

 

[AdMan]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

I rather think that most lurkers will conclude that if you can't explain how marine fossils are found on mountaintops, you probably missed a few key days in middle school.

 

[Craig B]

@DOC

Your source Gelsler's proof that Moses wrote Genesis is based on this:

Since Moses was the author of the other "books of Moses," as we will see later, it is reasonable to attribute the first book of Moses to him as well.

But I don't accept Moses' authorship of the other books, eg the account of his own burial in Deuteronomy, as I have repeatedly stated; so citing Gelsler is valueless, whether he wrote 60 books or not. Therefore please address the specific points I made about the authorship of the Torah, and defend your absurd claim about Moses and "Old Testament scripture" in general.

 

[joobz]

Any troll who has not read one word of this thread could say the exact same thing.

DOC, no one is fooled. You were caught in a foolish lie.

 

[joobz]

Nothing is preventing you from putting one out there. But I can almost guarantee you that it is going to require faith by the vast majority of people on this system. For example if you say someone estimates something to be 85 million years old. That requires faith unless you have the ability to go to the desert, find a rock, and determine the age yourself (and in this example I will stipulate that you must have all the equipment necessary to make the estimate). If you can't do it yourself it requires faith.

How sad.
You are attempting to make your faith in god sound reasonable by claiming trust in science is a faith.

 

[DOC]

As a nearly lurker in this thread, I can state there IS something to the flood story that I was not aware of: It's more idiotic than I ever imagined---

Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier

"So archeologicaly it looks like two flooding events happened, one that formed the Persian Gulf, possibly about 10,000 years ago, and a later ..."

---it would not affect your belief in the flood story. The post by (I believe Slackerbabbath) was posted on April 30 on this thread according to Google search but I can't find it.

It was also posted like this on another site:

...As it happens, archeologicaly, we know that where the Persian Gulf is today was definately once an entirely dry basin (apart from several rivers that flowed through it that were connected to the Euphrates and Tigris river systems) about 15,000 years ago and that sometime after the last glaciation period ended, which was around 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers started melting and sea levels started to gradualy rise, it looks like some sort of natural dam once existed where the Straits of Hormuz are today which eventualy gave way, allowing the Arabian sea to suddenly spill over it creating the Persian Gulf as we see it today in a very short time.There's also evidence of relatively more recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak just under 5000 years ago...

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-737277-p-56.html

 

[DOC]

DOC, no one is fooled. You were caught in a foolish lie.

No I wasn't. If I was show me how and watch me show you the argument is not rational.

And I apologize to all those who don't give a hoot by this latest attack DOC episode.

 

[joobz]

Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier

"So archeologicaly it looks like two flooding events happened, one that formed the Persian Gulf, possibly about 10,000 years ago, and a later ..."

---it would not affect your belief in the flood story. The post by was posted on April 30 on this thread according to Google search but I can't find it.

It was also posted like this on another site:

As it happens, archeologicaly, we know that where the Persian Gulf is today was definately once an entirely dry basin (apart from several rivers that flowed through it that were connected to the Euphrates and Tigris river systems) about 15,000 years ago and that sometime after the last glaciation period ended, which was around 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers started melting and sea levels started to gradualy rise, it looks like some sort of natural dam once existed where the Straits of Hormuz are today which eventualy gave way, allowing the Arabian sea to suddenly spill over it creating the Persian Gulf as we see it today in a very short time.There's also evidence of relatively more recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak just under 5000 years ago.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-737277-p-56.html

Of course not.
evidence of a local flood is acutally evidence AGAINST the flood story because the flood story supposedly was world wide and wiped out all life except for the beings on the boat.