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:   100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 31 of 96 (463267)
04-14-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
04-13-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw writes:
Here is a faily good explanation of why the Biblical record implies a pre-flood canopy atmosphere as depicted in the Genesis account.
Okay now, we're talking about the writings of a Dr. Jobe Martin, who teaches Bible study to his dentistry students at Baylor College (date uncertain). I must struggle to resist "argument from incredulity", despite being puzzled why this person's chosen profession qualifies him to make stuff up about geology, biology and climatology, and pass it off as proof of anything. So, let's move on to something of substance in his assertions...
He claims, on the basis of clear evidence in the text of Genesis, that none of the dinosaurs were predators. This is despite the wide differences in dentition and oral cavity configuration that these creatures display in the fossil record. Of all people, a teacher of dentistry (even as a subject on the side, next to bible study) ought to understand that different tooth shapes and jaw structures give clear indications (indeed, positive correlations) as to differences in diet.
Have you ever seen a dog or cat try to eat leafy greens or fruit? They do in fact try to eat greens from time to time -- I don't know why, but I assume there's some explanation for it -- but my point is that they are not at all good at it, because their teeth and mouths weren't designed for don't work at all well with that sort of input. The same would apply to t-rex and similar species whose jaws are well-tuned to ripping and tearing flesh from other animals.
We would also have to wonder, given Dr. Martin's notions the biblical evidence pinpointed by Dr. Martin, why we have found clear cases of scarring and fragments from t-rex teeth in the skeletal remains of other dinosaurs. Well, I suppose that if Cain can slay Abel and get away with it, what's the big deal if a bunch of triceratops get eaten by t-rexes, in clear contradiction of what God tells us?
Update: oh wait, I get it now -- one of the reasons God opted for the flood action was because the t-rexes were eating the triceratops. Let's face it, there really wasn't very much detail about His overall rationale. He just didn't feel compelled to mention this detail in the book, maybe because everyone at the time already knew from personal experience... there surely would have been a lot of gossip going around about all the trouble those t-rexes had been causing, and good riddance! Small wonder that Noah didn't make room for them on the ark: they were way past "unclean". Your position remains irrefutable, Buz. Good show.
Still, given how omniscient He is, how could he choose to give t-rex those teeth, and not expect trouble? I think He just wanted to play around with lots of water (it is fascinating stuff), and here was a way to factor that into the overall plan. Everything is planned, of course -- even the mistakes!
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (as indicated in last paragraph)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added two final paragraphs, as noted -- which means that the first revision is no longer in the "last paragraph"
Edited by Otto Tellick, : repaired the unintended and inappropriate use of "design" terminology

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2008 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:44 PM Otto Tellick has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 32 of 96 (463275)
04-14-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by clpMINI
04-14-2008 5:30 PM


Re: Mayflies?
clpMINI writes:
Short lived life forms may be a good point, but mayflies may not be a good example. Although the adult mayflies emerge and are only active for a couple days then die, the juveniles are active for a pretty long time in rivers and streams up to that point.
Generally though, juvenile mayflies do require pretty clean, freshwater environment which would surely be difficult to produce on a barge. Mayflies are a classic indicator species for when stream quality is poor.
Maybe come up with a better example of a shirt lived species for point #61?
This particular point has been criticized before as inadequate due to the longer lifespan of the juvenile form. I agree it is too weak to stand as is.
I think one thing I meant to examine was how does one create such diverse ecologic requirements for the various forms of juvenile and adult insect life on a barge, hence the riparian environment reference, but that was not clearly stated and it does somewhat overlap the other category concerning a proper environment for each life form to survive and reproduce in a limited time frame.
Perhaps the best course is to simply drop the mayfly category and replace it with Coyote's observation of the human genetic composition found in the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.
At any rate, thanks for your input concerning improving the list. Your point is correct and the list will be modified accordingly in its next iteration.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by clpMINI, posted 04-14-2008 5:30 PM clpMINI has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 33 of 96 (463276)
04-14-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 5:43 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw writes:
Paul, that you're not assuming a major change and I am as per the Biblical account, this debate is going nowhere. We could argue till the cows come home on opposite assumptions and find it to be a waste of time. I've made my points and put all the time I can afford into responses to you. Nothing I say is going to change you and vise versa. I'm sure you'll go on and on in the future accusing me of running off from it but sorry I just don't have that much time to put into your assumptions.
And your water canopy 'hypothesis' does not explain angular unconformities, fossil sorting, varves, ice layering, simultaneous volcanism, simultaneous meteoric impacts, the evolution of languages, human history, or the engineering challenges of any leaky vastly undersized wooden barge filled to capacity with eating, breathing, crapping animals, insects, fish, and bacteria and so on.
Venus rather than Earth probably once had your 'vapor canopy' with the resultant atmospheric pressure and subsequent heat prior to that runaway greenhouse effect taking place. You may want to pass the word on to your creationist sources that if Noah's Ark is there, they have most likely been searching on the wrong planet.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 5:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:27 PM anglagard has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 96 (463279)
04-14-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by teen4christ
04-14-2008 6:37 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
teen4christ writes:
Buzsaw, I have a question. If the pre-flood atmosphere was saturated with water vapour, does it mean that people back then never had much sunlight?
Hi Teen. It means the harsh direct rays from the sun would be filtered so as to provide a dimmer sun and moon. Likely one could look at it without damage to the eyes. Since one of it's stated purposes was to determine the days and seasons etc it was visible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by teen4christ, posted 04-14-2008 6:37 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 04-14-2008 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 04-14-2008 11:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 35 of 96 (463280)
04-14-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw writes:
It means the harsh direct rays from the sun would be filtered so as to provide a dimmer sun and moon. Likely one could look at it without damage to the eyes. Since one of it's stated purposes was to determine the days and seasons etc it was visible.
So how does the thick atmosphere filter the 'harsh direct rays of the sun' from itself and therefore prevent that runaway greenhouse effect seen on Venus?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 96 (463283)
04-14-2008 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anglagard
04-14-2008 10:45 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
anglagard writes:
And your water canopy 'hypothesis' does not explain angular unconformities, fossil sorting, varves, ice layering, simultaneous volcanism, simultaneous meteoric impacts, the evolution of languages, human history, or the engineering challenges of any leaky vastly undersized wooden barge filled to capacity with eating, breathing, crapping animals, insects, fish, and bacteria and so on.
1. Perhaps the angular unconformities might be explained by the two flooded earth events. When the formless and void earth was cold and flooded light was applied likely by God's Holy Spirit who/which, as the text says began work by "moving on the waters." This activity likely involved extensive heat to evaporate the water to form the canopy atmosphere. This drying of the land would effect heat being applied to the cold dark planet, the heating up and drying effecting volcanic activity and a lot of other turbulent activity.
2. Perhaps the angular unconformity could be the sediments from the latter flood atop those created by the earlier work which the creator applied to dry up the flooded earth.
3. The meteoric impacts were likely from before the atmosphere was created, the ionosphere being necessary to break up meteors entering the atmosphere as I understand it. This would have been the case pre flood and perhaps as well before evaporation was completed during the Noahic flood.
As I said volcanic activity would have most certainly been extensive relative to both flood events.
There are likely many unknowns relative to both floods regarding some aspects of what occurred and the properties of a hypothetical canopy atmosphere etc which secularists fail to consider.
4. I am convinced that Wyatt's ark site with the ballast stones in the area is the site, though I don't ascribe to all Wyatt claimed about it. I believe the site is where the ark rotted leaving the impression in the earth. I know many fellow creationists and certainly you secularists think that's balony, but that's ok.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 04-14-2008 10:45 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by DrJones*, posted 04-15-2008 12:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 37 of 96 (463284)
04-14-2008 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Hi Teen. It means the harsh direct rays from the sun would be filtered so as to provide a dimmer sun and moon. Likely one could look at it without damage to the eyes. Since one of it's stated purposes was to determine the days and seasons etc it was visible.
You have a few problems, Buzz.
1) For sufficient water to meaningfully contribute to a global flood to exist as a vapor canopy surrounding the entire Earth, it would require enough cloud cover to wrap the Earth in the most dense clouds ever seen multiple times over. That means no sunlight, period. For evidence:
The current estimated total of all water in the atmosphere: 3094 cubic miles
The current estimated total of all water on the planet, inclusive of that number: 332,500,000 cubic miles.
The surface area of the Earth is 196,940,400 square miles.
The amount of water required to raise the water level just 1 meter: 122 cubic miles.
For just 1 additional meter of sea level globally (that's enough water to come up to my waist, assuming we were all standing on a uniform surfaced planet at exactly sea level), you'd need to add 4% of the cloud cover of the Earth. Doesn't sound like a lot...until you turn it into a real global flood. To cover Colorado, for instance, you'd need to raise sea level by 2000 meters, raising the number to 8000% of the current cloud cover. That still doesn't come close to covering even smallish mountains, which you'd absolutely need to do for a global-killer flood.
You'd never see the sun at all with the additional cloud cover required by the canopy. Flooding would be the least of Noah's problems.
2)You have not provided a mechanism to keep all of that water in the air. See, normal clouds go through a cycle - they eventually cause rain, and they don't stay up for decades at a time not participating in that cycle. What mechanism causes your canopy clouds to be special?
3) Where did the water go? After the Flood, we still dont have enough water on the entire planet to cause a meaningful global flood. That includes subterranean water, and water trapped in rocks. Where did the water go when the flood waters subsided?
Edited by Rahvin, : Dammit, did some bad math. Fixed it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 10:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 96 (463285)
04-14-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Otto Tellick
04-14-2008 6:58 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Hi Otto. Glad you're aboard and I hope you find this site a place you'll want to hang out. I need to get up a quick reply for now and perhaps more sometime later.
For now, methinks those dino teeth of the larger varieties were for consuming larger tougher vegetation which the smaller animals would not be interested in. Certainly just about any carnivorous animal is capable of eating vegetation, fruits and vegies. Likely that was their food then and they have microevolved into being carnivorous. According to the prophecies, the implication for the messianic kingdom is that the lion will lie down with the lamb the child will play around the hole of a cobra and they will go for the plush vegies again.
Imo, the earth will heat up as per Revelation 16 and other prophecies and the canopy will return to effect again the super climate. I did a thread on that many moons ago somewhere in the archives. That was in the earlier days 3 or 4 years ago when I was establishing myself as the whakey old forum feller. I don't mind though. I sincerely believe I'll some day have the last laugh later in this life or in the next.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-14-2008 6:58 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-15-2008 2:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 96 (463286)
04-14-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rahvin
04-14-2008 11:35 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Gotta run now, Rahvin but in the meantime, think shallow oceans an smoother earth surface pre-flood and much deeper oceans and irregular surface post flood. Also don't forget the subterain and the ice caps at the poles as well as the huge tundra, etc.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 04-14-2008 11:35 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Rahvin, posted 04-14-2008 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by Rrhain, posted 04-15-2008 12:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 04-15-2008 12:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 40 of 96 (463287)
04-14-2008 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Gotta run now, Rahvin but in the meantime, think shallow oceans an smoother earth surface pre-flood and much deeper oceans and irregular surface post flood. Also don't forget the subterain and the ice caps at the poles as well as the huge tundra, etc.
The ice caps, subterranean water, and tundra were all taken into account with the water estimate I gave. It even includes all of the water in clouds right now.
Bringing catastrophic plate tectonics into play (necessary if you want to raise and lower the altitude of the land) makes your scenarios even worse.
So, you're either proposing catastrophic plate tectonics, which is a stupid idea refuted a thousand times, or you're suggesting that a global flood could cause mountains and valleys to form and continents to shift in such a way that we have mountains that rise several thousand feet above sea level, and yet wind up with the amount of water we see today...which is an even more ridiculous statement.
Immediately explain the mechanism by which flooding can in any way cause a mountain to form. Explain the mechanism that allows a global flood to take a uniform-surface Earth and form the surface we see today.
How can a flood cause a mountain to form that is higher than the level of the flood? If you believe the water did cover the mountains before it receded, you still need to raise the water level higher than the level of the mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 41 of 96 (463288)
04-15-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Gotta run now, Rahvin but in the meantime, think shallow oceans an smoother earth surface pre-flood and much deeper oceans and irregular surface post flood.
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to raise a mass the size of the continents? Assuming a roughly conical shape, Mt. Everest is about 72 km in diameter at its base and is about 9 km tall. That gives a volume of about 12,000 cubic km. It's made up primarily of marble which has a density of about 2,500 kg/m^3 which gives Mt. Everest a weight of about 3x10^17 kg.
Thus, to raise Mt. Everest by one meter would require on the order of 3x10^17 Joules of energy. That's 300,000 TJ (tera-Joules).
The largest nuclear explosion was about 250,000 TJ.
And since energy cannot be converted entirely to work, it's going to take much more than that to actually move the mountain. And all that extra energy will be bled out as heat.
The surface of the planet would have liquified and the water would have boiled away.
quote:
Also don't forget the subterain and the ice caps at the poles as well as the huge tundra, etc.
It's not forgotten. It's included in the total amount of water on the planet.
You're still ignoring the geometric impossibility of a global flood. The fact that we have any dry land at all means that it is geometrically impossible to flood it all simultaneously. If we could, then it would already be flooded.
Local floods are possible because we take water away from somewhere else to dump it in a local area: You can cover dry land here because you expose dry land there. It's a zero-sum game. It doesn't matter if the highest elevation is 5 miles or 5 inches. If it's above water, then it cannot be flooded without exposing dry land somewhere else.
This is the second time I've posted this here, so please pay attention:
97% of all the water on the earth is in the oceans. Atmospheric, non-oceanic surface (rivers, lakes, snowpack, etc.), and underground water accounts for only 3% of all the water the planet has.
It isn't enough.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 42 of 96 (463289)
04-15-2008 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 11:27 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
As I said volcanic activity would have most certainly been extensive relative to both flood events
Why? What geological principle do you base this claim on?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 43 of 96 (463290)
04-15-2008 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
...think shallow oceans an smoother earth surface pre-flood...
I love the number crunching youall are doing to show Buz just how wrong he is.
Can one of you do the maths to figure out just how much smoother and smaller the Earth would have to be in order to allow the available water to cover it to flood depth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rahvin, posted 04-15-2008 12:55 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 04-15-2008 1:42 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 48 by lyx2no, posted 04-15-2008 3:18 AM molbiogirl has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 44 of 96 (463294)
04-15-2008 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
04-12-2008 8:34 PM


Thus also the possibility of explaining the phenomena of frozetropical animals existing in the ice in regions of Siberia etc.
What frozen tropical animals in Siberia?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2008 8:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 45 of 96 (463295)
04-15-2008 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by molbiogirl
04-15-2008 12:35 AM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Can one of you do the maths to figure out just how much smoother and smaller the Earth would have to be in order to allow the available water to cover it to flood depth?
That's rather difficult. The terms "smaller" and "smoother" don't give us much to go on. You could raise the ocean floor to raise sea level, for instance, or you could lower the altitude of the land-based features, or some combination of both. In any case: either more water than Buz can imagine is necessary (water that came from and went to nowhere, apparently), or geological activity is required (again, with no mechanism showing why increased geological activity would happen or why it would cease after the flood) that would sterilize the planet with the amount of heat and energy required.
But if you attribute the formation of a geological feature to a global flood, the water must have been high enough to cover the feature at the moment the water began to recede. That means you can't cause the land to be, say, 2000 meters above sea level without making the water be 2000 meters above sea level.
He's not resolving the problems by assuming a differently-shaped Earth, hes just making it more complicated because he's too lazy to actually do any math or research any mechanisms himself.
Note how no mechanism is proposed to explain how a global flood can take a "smoother and smaller Earth" and create the features we see today. He simply insists that the flood is responsible without anything to show how.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 04-15-2008 12:35 AM molbiogirl 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