• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Thirty-Year Secret Leads to Evidence of Worldwide Flood

John

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
6,134
Reaction score
1
http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=39

^ Watch video.

In 1978, a couple of guys searching for fossils and arrowheads stumbled upon a treasure of bones sticking out of a creek bed near Waco, Texas. It was later discovered that what they found was a family of Columbian mammoths, along with camels, saber-toothed tigers, and a variety of animals yet to be uncovered.

For thirty years it�s been questioned what brought this variety of animals so close together in one site. Today, paleontologists suggest the herd was in the midst of disaster -- �trapped by flood waters and entombed by a mudslide.� They say the placement of the bones show that adults were trying to �lift juveniles up out of the muck when the wall around them collapsed.� Creationists call this even more evidence for God�s Word and the Flood in the days of Noah.

Skeptics have long scoffed at the idea of a worldwide Flood, suggesting it was merely a local one. God�s Word, however, is clear, stating that �the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.�

If the Bible is correct about a Flood which covered everything, then evidences like these should be found. This recent discovery is just more proof that Noah�s Flood exceeded his �known land,� even beyond Waco, Texas.
 
[qoute]For thirty years it�s been questioned what brought this variety of animals so close together in one site.[/quote]

Water. It was a river bed, even then. And a large and unstable soil bank. We still see this kind of thing in Africa.

Today, paleontologists suggest the herd was in the midst of disaster -- �trapped by flood waters and entombed by a mudslide.� They say the placement of the bones show that adults were trying to �lift juveniles up out of the muck when the wall around them collapsed.�

Problem is, in the same strata over the rest of the Hill Country, we find no such thing. If it was the flood, it only happened at Bosque Creek, and nowhere else in those parts.

You've just been hovinded again.
 
On the contrary, the lack of other similar finds does not completely discredit this find. It does not prove the Bible's world-wide flood, but it does room for such an event as one explanation.
 
Absolutely, it invalidates the idea that this was part of a worldwide flood. The evidence shows this particular flood wasn't even Hill Country-wide, much less worldwide.

It's a joke, the usual Hovind stuff.
 
The Barbarian said:
Absolutely, it invalidates the idea that this was part of a worldwide flood. The evidence shows this particular flood wasn't even Hill Country-wide, much less worldwide.

It's a joke, the usual Hovind stuff.

rofl2.gif
 
The Barbarian said:
Absolutely, it invalidates the idea that this was part of a worldwide flood. The evidence shows this particular flood wasn't even Hill Country-wide, much less worldwide.

It's a joke, the usual Hovind stuff.

That evidence shows nothing of the sort. Flood damage varies depending on where the water comes from and where the water finds room to collect. This find in no way invalidates the story of the World Wide flood.
 
Barbarian observes:
Absolutely, it invalidates the idea that this was part of a worldwide flood. The evidence shows this particular flood wasn't even Hill Country-wide, much less worldwide.

It's a joke, the usual Hovind stuff.

That evidence shows nothing of the sort.

Sure does. Since this flood was extremely limited in scope, it could not possibly be part of a worldwide flood.

Flood damage varies depending on where the water comes from and where the water finds room to collect.

Sorry, if there's no evidence supporting your claim, that isn't evidence that your claim is right.
 
Blazin Bones said:
[quote="The Barbarian":266e2]Absolutely, it invalidates the idea that this was part of a worldwide flood. The evidence shows this particular flood wasn't even Hill Country-wide, much less worldwide.

It's a joke, the usual Hovind stuff.

That evidence shows nothing of the sort. Flood damage varies depending on where the water comes from and where the water finds room to collect. This find in no way invalidates the story of the World Wide flood.[/quote:266e2]


What you are seeing in Barbarian's desperately "reaching" response is simply another example of the looney fringe "deny the Bible no matter what evidence I find" response so necessary for a believer in atheist darwinism.

Notice that the SAME fringe group that wants to argue for land mass shifts and the Hymalayas rising out of the ocean ALSO wants to argue that the land where these bones are found COULD NOT have been at ANY DIFFERENT ELEVATION relative to surrounding geography than what we see today!

Their "storytelling" finds no end of rabbit trail dead-end arguments to dredge up in opposition to ANYTHING supporting God's Word.

How "surprising" coming from someone sold out to the myths and storytelling of atheist darwinism.

Oh well - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Bob
 
I think that MUCH more evidence would need to be discovered. As it is, those who argue against a world wide flood seem to have more evidence on thier side.
 
Orion said:
I think that MUCH more evidence would need to be discovered. As it is, those who argue against a world wide flood seem to have more evidence on thier side.

Again, its subject to interpretation. We have ours you have yours.The very fact that we have sediment layers give us majority evidence.
 
johnmuise said:
Again, its subject to interpretation. We have ours you have yours.The very fact that we have sediment layers give us majority evidence.

What do you mean by your statement about the "sediment layers"?
 
Orion said:
johnmuise said:
Again, its subject to interpretation. We have ours you have yours.The very fact that we have sediment layers give us majority evidence.

What do you mean by your statement about the "sediment layers"?

Well tell me how they got there, these strata layers, these different color bands of rock if not by the flood.
 
johnmuise said:
Orion said:
johnmuise said:
Again, its subject to interpretation. We have ours you have yours.The very fact that we have sediment layers give us majority evidence.

What do you mean by your statement about the "sediment layers"?

Well tell me how they got there, these strata layers, these different color bands of rock if not by the flood.
You mean layers like evaporites, paleosols, and air-fall tuffs - all of which cannot possibly form underwater in the middle of a flood?

Or massive limestone deposits, which require many million years and shallow, crystal clear water to form?

Nope, a single global deluge does not strike me as a good explanation for these ;)
 
I believe i got an email form Dr. Hovind himself (before his sentencing) explaining the evaporties and such, let me try to dig it up.

And tell me, has science observed these limestone deposits forming for millions of years?
 
johnmuise said:
I believe i got an email form Dr. Hovind himself (before his sentencing) explaining the evaporties and such, let me try to dig it up.

And tell me, has science observed these limestone deposits forming for millions of years?
We can observe how they form today, and we can make tests as to which conditions are required for them to form.

There is no sign of a change of these conditions in the past. Is there any evidence which indicates that limestone deposits could form at conditions under which they have absolutely no chance whatsoever to form today.

Methinks i posted a thread about coral reefs vs a global deluge a few months ago...it was largely ignored, if i recall correctly.
 
We can observe how they form today, and we can make tests as to which conditions are required for them to form.

The problem is you believe the present is the key to the past.

Methinks i posted a thread about coral reefs vs a global deluge a few months ago...it was largely ignored, if i recall correctly.

Just because i don't have the answer does not mean your right.
 
The line "did you see it do it" is a ridiculous line Hovind taught to fool the unsuspecting.

If you follow that line of reasoning to its natural conclusion John, you may as well throw out all of science.

We cannot take the Suns temperature first hand
We cant see the planets outside our solar system with a telescope
We can't see atoms
We can't see quarks, gluons
We can't see gravity
We can't see the photon
etc.
etc.

Heck, I wasn't there to see you born, but I am guessing you exist.
 
Back
Top