Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 256 of 293 (471045)
06-14-2008 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by LucyTheApe
06-14-2008 2:13 AM


Re: end of story
Lucy writes:
Ok Nuggin, now sweep up the junk, hire some earth moving equipment, dig up your driveway, the dirt, the clay, the sand and the bedrock. Now put it all in the glass of water and tip it out down a slope. Now do a cross section.
I assume you are aware that geologists don't rely solely on layers of ancient asphalt concrete to see layers?!
Firstly, this analogy doesn't help you. The layer will be discernable if the composition or formation of the material you threw in is different from that which lines the hole. Water moves material around, so when it is deposited it is often placed in an area where the local geology is vastly different from the deposit. Floods move huge amounts of different types of sediment very long distances, so the layer would be visible due to a the difference either in the type of material or its formation.
Secondly, seasonal markers like pollen can also be deposited - this can enable geologists to spot yearly floods.
Thirdly, a global flood would have killed alot of wildlife - this would be seen in the strata.
Finally, if you now fill up your hole it would be possible for a geologist to do a cross section of the area and determine that you dug it due the fact that the material has been rearranged locally.
Again, you're not thinking this through - dirt ain't just "dirt", you know.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 2:13 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 10:15 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 257 of 293 (471046)
06-14-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Jason777
06-14-2008 12:44 AM


C-14 _again_
Define all scientific dating methods?Im pretty certain helium diffusion,c-14 in diamonds,fossils,and coal seem to indicate a young earth.
First, there is NO C14 in diamonds, fossils or coal. Fossils aren't made of carbon, and both diamonds and coal are old enough that ALL the c14 would be missing.
When there is NO C14 left in an object, all the C14 test will tell you is that the object is at least 35,000 years old.
Claiming that that means the Earth is 35,000 years old is EXACTLY like saying that everyone you've ever met is 1ft tall because you only had a ruler with which to measure them.
Guess what. A 1ft long ruler is NOT LONG enough to tell you how tall someone is. Likewise, c14 dating is NOT LONG enough to tell you how old coal deposits are.
C14 is EXCELLENT at what it does - dating prehistorical/historical archaeological finds which are younger between 30,000 and 100 years old.
Maybe your picking the dating methods that support your religion.
That's EXACTLY what you are doing here.
In this case, I think it is out of your own ignorance on dating methods. However, I strongly suspect that you got your information from AiG, et al.
These websites don't have the ignorance excuse. They DELIBERATELY misuse dating methods to confuse hapless Christians.
They are notorious for using potassium dating to measure recent items and carbon dating to measure ancient items.
If carbon dating is a 12 inch ruler, then potassium dating is a car's odometer.
You can't get an accurate measure of how tall someone is with an odometer either. All you can say is "less than 1/10th of a mile".
The real thing you should be considering now is this:
Why do these pro-creation websites DELIBERATELY misuse the dating techniques? Why fabricate evidence which deliberately misleads Christians in favor of their argument?
Here's a tip: When someone is lying to try and convince you of something, it means they don't have any real evidence in support of their position and they know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 12:44 AM Jason777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by edge, posted 06-14-2008 11:09 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 258 of 293 (471047)
06-14-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Jason777
06-14-2008 1:48 AM


All animals that breath the breath of life through thier nostrils went onto the ark.So it would have taken time for them to recolonize the earth.And if we look at the fossil record in the geolocic column we see it develop by the fastest breaders with only one problem for the model.
Oh, there's WAY more than "one" problem with that model.
Here are just a few:
1) Even the FASTEST breeders don't breed NEARLY fast enough to feed the carnivores.
I don't know what the gestation period is for rabbits but it's A LOT longer than the "I'm getting hungry" period for wolves, coyotes, eagles, badgers, foxes, lynxes and whatever else also eats rabbits.
2) Several species eat very restricted diets - Pandas eat bamboo, Koalas eat eucalyptis. These plants simply wouldn't exist in the quantities needed fast enough to provide the animals with food.
3) Repopulating the Earth may have been on all the animals minds, but some of them had a LONG way to go first. The vast majority of the world's marsupials live in Australia. They would have had to haul ass from the Middle East to get there and set up camp. And, they would have had to pull up the bridge behind them to prevent ALL the placental mammals from following them.
Not to mention the fact that the lemurs would have had to make a beeline for Madagascar, and the various N and S American species to their respective homes.
4) Many animals aren't "good breeders". Elephants, for example, produce only one young and spend a long time raising it to sexual maturity. Starting with only two elephants, it would take literally centuries just to get enough of a population for the various groups to head off to Asia, India and Africa to settle the three currently existing populations. And that's assuming NO predation, NO disease and NO accidents.
There's 4 right off the top of my head. I'm sure anyone else here could rattle off another 10 or so without blinking an eye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 1:48 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 259 of 293 (471048)
06-14-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by LucyTheApe
06-14-2008 2:13 AM


Re: end of story
Ok Nuggin, now sweep up the junk, hire some earth moving equipment, dig up your driveway, the dirt, the clay, the sand and the bedrock. Now put it all in the glass of water and tip it out down a slope. Now do a cross section.
I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but the entire Earth is not one giant "slope".
What you are describing would produce a specific "jumbled" deposit.
That deposit would be EVERYWHERE in varying depths, and it would ALL date to the same time.
That jumbled world wide chronologically identical layer simply doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 2:13 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 260 of 293 (471049)
06-14-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by LucyTheApe
06-14-2008 2:24 AM


Re: end of story
Have you been hibernating Nuggin, the bible is NOT the only source of data for the Flood.
If we're talking about the same Flood, namely the one in Genesis, then yes, in fact, the Bible is the one and only source of information about the Flood.
There is no physical record. There is no biological record. There is no historical record (outside of the Bible).
AND, if there WAS a historical record, its very presence would DISPROVE the Bible's claims about the Flood, since ONLY Noah and his kin survived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 2:24 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 261 of 293 (471050)
06-14-2008 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by LucyTheApe
06-14-2008 3:04 AM


Re: end of story
Nuggin writes:
Firstly, mitochondrial "eve" and Y "adam" were not a mating pair, just to be clear.
You don't know that Nuggin.
Yes, we do. The methods used to determine these two figures are genetic clocks based on rates of mutation.
mEve dates to roughly ~140,000 year ago. yAdam dates to ~60,000 years ago.
Even if these dates are off by 30,000 years, they still could never have met, let alone got it on.
"Race" is a concept dreamt up by people that wanted to put themselves on the top of the evolutionary ladder. There's only one race, the "Human Race".
Which is why I put the word race in "quotes".
I agree there is only ONE species of human. However, we recognize various "racial" groups by physical traits.
I'm not claiming any group is better or worse than any other. I'm just pointing out that people from Sweden LOOK different than people from the Congo who LOOK different than people from Vietnam.
As such, we can safely conclude that we are not ALL carrying exactly the same genes.
Are you saying that we don't have the ability to adapt, create new enzymes and other proteins? I would give more credence to the body rearranging its genetic dynamics than the absolutely ridiculous mechanism of "Random mutation".
Well, fortunately for science, your "credence" has nothing to do with reality.
There is NO evidence for your claims. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for mutation.
Just because you don't believe in it doesn't change reality.
Bottlenecks, whether they seem to exist or not, tell us nothing. Read up on it. Just another theory.
That's a load of crap, and if you don't know it, you have some serious reading comprehension problems.
Genetic bottlenecks are NOT just "another theory".
YOU look like your parents. So does your brother.
If EVERYONE on Earth was either a brother or sister of yours, ALL descending directly from your parents, EVERYONE would look EXTREMELY similar to one another.
That's because your parents constitute a SMALL GENE POOL (two unique individuals).
That's a bottleneck. ALL genetic material is coming from those two sources.
In the case of the flood - EVERY animal would have the SAME bottleneck at the same time.
Since we don't see that in the genetic record, it didn't happen in real life.
I agree the story is a myth; doesn't make it wrong.
I don't care about "right" and "wrong". I care about "fact". And, in FACT, the Magic Flood never happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 3:04 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 293 (471080)
06-14-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by RickJB
06-14-2008 3:16 AM


Re: end of story
Again, you're not thinking this through - dirt ain't just "dirt", you know.....
Granted, I should think a bit more before posting.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by RickJB, posted 06-14-2008 3:16 AM RickJB has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 263 of 293 (471083)
06-14-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Nuggin
06-14-2008 3:20 AM


Re: C-14 _again_
First, there is NO C14 in diamonds, fossils or coal. Fossils aren't made of carbon, and both diamonds and coal are old enough that ALL the c14 would be missing.
Actually, some diamonds and some coal have C14 in very small amounts. These are probably derived from ongoing formation of C14 and/or from contamination by natural and non-natural means.
When there is NO C14 left in an object, all the C14 test will tell you is that the object is at least 35,000 years old.
Correct, however, depending on quality of the sample, that older limit might be as much as 60ky. And that would be true for the minute amounts that we see in older carbon deposits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:20 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 264 of 293 (471097)
06-14-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Nuggin
06-14-2008 3:07 AM


Re: Timeline of the flood
Don't belong in Science Thread
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:07 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 2:13 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 266 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 2:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 265 of 293 (471099)
06-14-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
06-14-2008 12:38 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
1. God told Noah to build an ark.
2. Noah built the ark. This took 120 years, requiring much manpower.
3. The animals came to the ark.
4. The flesh eating animals had no problem. (Diet must have changed)
5. God shut the door to the ark.
6. Water came from above and from below.
7. Land mass was all in one place at this time.
8. Water subsided.
9. God took care of the animals.
10. Man and animals multiplied.
11. Man spoke one language and began to build a tower to heaven.
12. God confounded the language and caused man to scatter over the face of the earth.
13. Once man was scattered over the face of the earth. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg.
This thread is in Science Forums and is titled Does the evidence support the Flood?
What you have presented has nothing to do with science; it is entirely a statement of religious belief.
Where is the scientific evidence to support the global flood about 4,350 years ago? Do you have any? Any at all?
I have already posted evidence from my own research that disproves the global flood about 4,350 years ago. No one has disputed it.
In case you missed it, here is a short synposis:
Care to address these bits of scientific evidence, which--if not disproved--definitely disprove the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 12:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 3:53 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 266 of 293 (471100)
06-14-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
06-14-2008 12:38 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
Duplicate -- deleted
Edited by Coyote, : Duplicate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 12:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 267 of 293 (471106)
06-14-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Coyote
06-14-2008 2:13 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
Coyote writes:
Care to address these bits of scientific evidence, which--if not disproved--definitely disprove the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago?
So since Noah and his sons and their wife's were not related to anyone before the flood is the reason the DNA would be different.
But that would mean they had no ancestors and were a new creation.
As far as the sedimentation you are looking for it would not exist.
As far as the flood being scientific I made the statement, and will make it again. It is a scientific impossibility for it to happen. Just as it is scientifically impossibility to get the universe from an absence of anything.
God Bless,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box - there was no "/" in the closer.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 2:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 4:03 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 272 by bluescat48, posted 06-15-2008 10:35 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 275 by Rahvin, posted 06-16-2008 3:37 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 268 of 293 (471116)
06-14-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
06-14-2008 3:53 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
So since Noah and his sons and their wife's were not related to anyone before the flood is the reason the DNA would be different.
But that would mean they had no ancestors and were a new creation.
No, you have it entirely incorrect.
There is continuity of mtDNA in the western US (where I work) and many other parts of the world. In the western US, there is a particular type of mtDNA, called a haplotype, that has been found at 10,300 years ago as well as in living descendants. The reason for this continuity is there was no flood disrupting the transmission of that mtDNA from one generation to the next.
Nor was there replacement of that original 10,300 year old mtDNA with a haplotype associated with the Near East, attributable to Noah's female companions.
Conclusion: no global flood about 4,350 years ago.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 3:53 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 269 of 293 (471150)
06-15-2008 5:46 AM


The Earth is old - Any discussion in a young Earth time frame is bogus
The geologic history of the Earth is made up with a vast (to say the least) number of details. Those details add up to an old Earth.
Now, the old Earth is science's big picture, as opposed to most creationists big picture of a young Earth.
The science side here is looking at the evidence or lack of evidence of a recent (last 5000 year) detail of a worldwide flood, in the context of an old Earth. Evidence for such a flood is a detail not to be found amongst all those vast details of paragraph 1.
So, when the science side views the creationist side as being either wrong or ignorant of all the details that make up the big picture, how is there to be a debate over one little detail (the flood) in that big picture?
Young Earth creationism is wrong, right from the statement "young Earth". Any debate within that young Earth context is thus automatically wacked.
Moose

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 270 of 293 (471188)
06-15-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Jason777
06-14-2008 1:48 AM


Ok. According to your claim, all animals with nostrils went on the ark
How did the kola bear get to Australia, and the Kangaroo? What is the evidence for this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 1:48 AM Jason777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-15-2008 8:11 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024