|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does The Flood Add up? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Why did they make this long hike back to where they just happen to have a fossil record? Did they also make this long hike up to get on the ark? What a great point! Why the heck would the marsupials and monotremes go to the only place where all the fossils are found? Maybe they smelled their dead ancestors buried underground? I would LOVE for a YEC to try to explain that one. That is going to take some kind of serious mental distortions. As if the flood couldn't get any more refuted. Dang. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:Sorry but the "written record" of the Bible was written well after the written records of the Egyptians and the Summerians. You can't use the myth of Biblical infallability to substantiate the myth of a worldwide flood. quote:Here are two more maps. They vary slightly but all show a long ways from what became the Middle East to what became Australia. Map1 Map2 And evolution has a far easier time explaining biogeography than YEC. The Natural History of Marsupials quote:You need it to be way off since there is considerable record of predynastic Egypt prior to the formation of the 1st dynasty in about 3,100 BCE. How long do you think it would take after the flood for all those people to be born and develop their culture. You also need the dates for ancient Sumeria to be way off. You have to completely distort what is known about prehistory in order to fit you myth, just as you have to distort genetics, biogeography and geology among many other things. Have you ever consider that this might be the result of trying to substantiate a Bronze Age myth?
quote:So first you say we don't know how they moved even a hundred years ago and then you say they moved by suduction and spreading but faster. The point is that if they moved enough faster to separate the continents in the time frame you are talking about the earth would look very different. one of those differences would be boiled oceans which would be a little hard on things don't you think? Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am rushing and haven't given this site the reading it deserves but I only see mention of ONE fossil marsupial find. And fossil evidence that placental mammals did once live in the area. Perhaps someone would like to start a thread specifically on this subject. I'm sure I'd be more of an observer than a participant.
http://www.naturalworlds.org/...ucing/about_marsupials_5.htm As for this being a science thread, yes, I regret posting on it. There's nothing less rewarding than being nagged about sticking to science rules when the kind of evidence I have is something else. Got sucked in by challenges to YECs. Belongs in the Theological Creationism and ID forum. Too bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry but the "written record" of the Bible was written well after the written records of the Egyptians and the Summerians. You can't use the myth of Biblical infallability to substantiate the myth of a worldwide flood. YOU can't, but I don't regard it as a myth. Its authenticity and internal integrity and the quality of its details and concepts make it THE authoritative record over all other records. NEVERTHELESS I've agreed this does not belong on this thread but in the Theological Creationism forum where the Bible can be used as evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So first you say we don't know how they moved even a hundred years ago and then you say they moved by suduction and spreading but faster. Semantic confusion. I just meant you don't know how FAST they moved then. Sheesh. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Oh for cripes sake. Semantic confusion. I just meant you don't know how FAST they moved then. Sheesh. Not exactly but the depth profile of the oceans and the amount of sediments on the ocean floor are both consistent with movemment over many millions of years as we have discussed on this forum before. Fast movement might be possible but it would have left a very different geology on the ocean floors and released enough heat that either the crust and lithosphere would still be molten or the average temperature of the earth would be too high to sustain most life including us. This is quite easy to show. The problem you have is that this is indeed a science program and every aspect of science that is applied to the problem shows that the answer to the question in the title of this thread is a resounding NO. The flood does not "add up". Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Fast movement might be possible but it would have left a very different geology on the ocean floors and released enough heat that either the crust and lithosphere would still be molten or the average temperature of the earth would be too high to sustain most life including us. This is quite easy to show. Well, try rethinking it from the ASSUMPTION that the flood DID occur 4500 years ago and that the movement of the tectonic plates DID start then. That's what a YEC has to do, since we don't have the luxury of taking every bit of mathematical debunkery that comes down the pike as gospel truth as you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4289 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
Well, try rethinking it from the ASSUMPTION that the flood DID Not occur 4500 years ago and that the movement of the tectonic plates DID not start then. That's what a OEC has to do, since we don't have the luxury of taking every bit of biblical debunkery that comes down the pike as truth as you do
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Hi Faith, it's been a while.
As a YEC I assume that even through that drastic bottleneck great genetic potential survived in all living things. I just wanted to let you know that I started a thread to expand and discuss on this point:
Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds" (and/or decreasing genetic diversity) Let me know what you think; I think it might be a good starting point to start a constructive discussion about your ideas regarding kinds, mutation, and genetic diversity. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
That would require an extraordinarily high rate of macro-evolution.
Not at all, I'm talking variety of whatever kind was on the ark; same kind, new variety/species. The time taken for such evolution is highly exaggerated by the ToE. All it takes is reproductive isolation of a small portion of a population over a few generations.
If you think it that easy, then you have no argument against evolution, including the evolution of humans from earlier creatures.
Think of the so-called "ring species" which are called species, varieties or species of the same kind as a YEC thinks of them, with their own distinctive characteristics yet all evolved from an original parent type.
The differences across ring species are quite small. The differences between kangaroos, echidnas, koalas are huge.
I have no idea how the insects were taken care of. I'm not addressing this problem here. How anybody could be expected to know is beyond me anyway.
Yet you do claim to know that the flood story is true history, in spite of the fact that anybody who uses a little common sense can see that it is only an ancient fable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6354 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
By creationist assumptions there was far greater genetic richness the farther back you go. Many repeated splittings and migrations, all processes of selection and migration and reproductive isolation and so on, reduce this richness a great deal over many incidents of same, and that is what makes in-breeding a problem. So if I'm understanding this correctly the DNA of people (and animals and plants?) was "richer" at the time of the flood and has become denuded over time to the present day state. Is this correct? I have a couple of questions:
Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Well, try rethinking it from the ASSUMPTION that the flood DID occur 4500 years ago That is what the geologists of the 19th century did. They found that their assumption was wrong. When one actually studies the science assuming that the flood occurs doesn’t really help. You can read about it on a page by Evangelical Christian Geologist Davis Young HERE and that the movement of the tectonic plates DID start then. Do you think the plates moved during the flood like the people at AiG or after the flood? It doesn’t really matter. Rapid plate movement would generate a huge amount of heat from the new ocean crust and lithosphere and the heat would have to go somewhere. Further Bill Birkeland has posted links on this forum showing that sea floor sediments are not consistent with rapid plate movement HERE and Joe Meert has an analysis that shows that the depth profile of the oceans is consistent with slow and not rapid plate movement HERE That's what a YEC has to do, since we don't have the luxury of taking every bit of mathematical debunkery that comes down the pike as gospel truth as you do. The problem you have is that virtually EVERY mathematical analysis, whether of heat from rapid plate movement, or the amount of water required for a global flood or the amount of time to deposit the massive salt deposits in the geologic column or amount of time required to feed the animals on the ark effectively debunks the young earth and global flood as does paleontology, archeology, geology, astronomy, biogeography, biodiversity and any other science that has ever been applied to the problem. You don’t have the “luxury” of accepting any science at all. From a scientific standpoint the flood simply does not "add up". Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6354 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
It boasts an awfully detailed and specific genealogy for a "myth" but whatever. About as detailed and specific as those Tolkien provides in The Silmarillion and Lord Of The Rings - and those are works of fiction, not even historic or cultural myths. Just shows how easy it is to come up with a genealogy if you want to. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6354 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I think you've left something out - but it is kind of subtle.
Then all the animals got off the ark and we had hyper-evolution for the next 4000 years to leave us with the wildlife we see today. Since Noah built the ark and the shit pump 4,500 years ago this 4000 year period of warp-speed evolution continued until 1500AD or so - maybe even more recent than that. As far as I am aware there is no record anywhere - either written or in an oral tradition - that suggests anybody saw new creatures magically appearing, particularly by direct birth from a (different) known type of creature. Sure there are plenty of accounts of new creatures being seen, but only when people go to a new place (i.e. the European voyages of discovery and conquest from the 15th. Century onwards) which is where you'd expect to find 'new' animals. Of course, they weren't new, they were just previously unknown - the locals knew all about them. I guess the hyper-evolving critters were just shy and hid away from humans, which is why it wasn't recorded by the Jews, Greeks, Romans, Phonecians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chritians or Muslims. Oh, not forgetting the Chinese, Japanese, the whole of S.E. Asia, Indians, Native Americans, Australian Aborogines, Polynesesians, the Inuit and well, everybody really Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Right, the whole Bible is nothing but a made-up novel pretending to be fact and everybody who believes it is nothing but an idiot, all those who believed it back when it was written right up to now, and it doesn't matter that the same people know fiction when they see it, we're all idiots anyway and can't tell a real genealogy from a fake one. Not hard at all to make up a genealogy that spans 1500 years and maintains its consistency. Not at all. Great. Now go ahead and congratulate me for realizing the truth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024