Atheist challenge #2

tacoman528 · #41 21st December 2002, 02:33 PM

by the way,
where is the evidence against the flood

seebs · #42 21st December 2002, 02:46 PM

The evidence against the flood is that, were there a flood, I'd expect to see a lot of evidence for it, but I haven't seen any.

Pete Harcoff · #43 21st December 2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by tacoman528
by the way,
where is the evidence against the flood

An oft-cited one is that archaeological evidence of civilizations at the time give no mention of a flood. For example, the Egyptian civilization existed before, during and after the flood, with absolutely no record or evidence of such a cataclysmic event.

There's also no evidence of mass biological extinction at the time (unlike earlier periods in Earth's history). If a flood really did wipe out almost all land-dwelling life 4000 years ago, there would be physical evidence of such an extinction occuring.

tacoman528 · #44 21st December 2002, 03:02 PM

considering that no one is talking to me, I will now show you why I think there was a flood.

experiment:
take a glass jar, fill it halfway with dirt, then fill it with water. You will get mud, put the jar onto a table and let it sit for a few minutes. What do you see? What does it kinda look like? It looks like the layers of rock that make up the crust of the earth. The evolutionary scientists say that each layer is a million years older than the layer on top. That's not necessarily true. With water covering the whole earth, the tides and currents are not blocked by land so they just...flow. causing the dirt at the bottom to get mixed up. Which would cause the same effect as the jar with water. You get layers. Not necessarily older and younger, just heavier and lighter.

They have found trees standing through many of these rock layers. If the evolutionary scientist was right, these trees would have to have lasted for millions of years without rotting. It takes a heck of a lot less time for trees to rot than that. And how could the trees have lived millions of years. Even if there were trees that could do that, the continuous pileup of sediment would cover their trunk and kill them. Also, I dont think that a tree could grow through solid rock very far, I've seen concrete broken by trees, but these trees (that are fossilized by the way) are going through many dozens of feet of rock. They would not live. If you need proof of this, hovind has pictures on his website at www-drdino-com. If you don't want to go there, you're just shunning the truth. I don't want to get off subject here so I will continue:

They say that the older things are found in the lower rock layers. The evolutionary scientist would say that this disproves the flood. Not necessarily, the clams that they said evolved first, were already on the bottom when the flood started, unlike birds and humans, who could climb up rocks until they got stuck. The clams, therefore, would be lower than human and bird bones. Clams are also denser then birds or humans.

About all the many arthropod species that had to have survived the flood.
Most of them probably died, but keep in mind that insects can live many months longer than chordates (animals with a backbone) can. All the dead trees and animals that float to the top would probably be sufficient for these insects. These boyant objects would even double as a boat. I don't think that Noah took all the insect onto the ark.

About elephants and rhino's and possibly even dinosaurs, Noah would probably take babies. They eat less, sleep more, and they don't take up as much space as their adult counterparts. And about how they would grow up. Noah was only on the ark for 5 months, not long enough for an elephant to reach full size.

Also, many other cultures have a flood story quite similar to the Bible's (though they can vary by time and names) they are basically the same story.

Also, I think the flood happened about 4000 years ago, because you won't find any living things or things not easy to have under 5 miles of water here on earth,

list of things about 4000 years old or younger

oldest tree

Nile, amazon, ganges rivers

niagra falls

The sahara desert (yes, they can find how old a desert is. They find it by the desert's rate of growth)

and a few other things.

There you have it, I'm expecting a long list of people saying, "thats not true" good thing I'm on christmas break now. NO SCHOOL!!! YAY!!! so I will be much more able to answer your questions. Thank you.

tacoman528 · #45 21st December 2002, 03:07 PM

To seebs,
Please read above,

To Pete,
There is no record of the Egyptians saying, "We lived from 5000-3000 BC" as you seem to say there is. There is, however, a record that, very boldly states that there was a flood. Please show me a record that belonged to the egyptians saying they lived during that time period. I'll be anxious to hear your response.

tacoman528 · #46 21st December 2002, 03:10 PM

Editation,
when I said that insects could live longer than chordates, I meant that they could live longer without food. Forgive me for my mistake

seebs · #47 21st December 2002, 03:11 PM

I don't find the above convincing at all, because we can observe the rate at which sediment accumulates, and we can compare the kinds of formations we see to those we get from floods... and on both counts, the world doesn't look like it had a flood.

Note that finding the age of a desert is always a *guess*; rate of growth changes over time.

I don't find that evidence persuasive. I would expect a consistent layer at some depth, and I would expect, not just "no trees over a few thousand years old", but "studies of tree rings and fossilized tree rings show massive die-off four thousand years ago". If we don't have that, we don't have our flood.

No gods · #48 21st December 2002, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by tacoman528
They have found trees standing through many of these rock layers. If the evolutionary scientist was right, these trees would have to have lasted for millions of years without rotting. It takes a heck of a lot less time for trees to rot than that. And how could the trees have lived millions of years. Even if there were trees that could do that, the continuous pileup of sediment would cover their trunk and kill them. Also, I dont think that a tree could grow through solid rock very far, I've seen concrete broken by trees, but these trees (that are fossilized by the way) are going through many dozens of feet of rock. They would not live. If you need proof of this, hovind has pictures on his website at www-drdino-com. If you don't want to go there, you're just shunning the truth. I don't want to get off subject here so I will continue:

Tacoman:

Here is a link that refutes this specific argument. "If you don't want to go there, you're just shunning the truth."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

tacoman528 · #49 21st December 2002, 03:18 PM

To seebs,
first question: This was no ordinary flood. Also, did you try the jar experiment? I encourage you to.

second question:When they found the age of the Sahara, they took that into consideration, giving us the results we have.

third question: there was a massive die-off of trees. There are national parks dedicated to huge fossilized tree forests (I'm sure you've hear of them). only they weren't forests, they were just a place where the floating logs were blown to, and then sunk. Like I said, no tree survived the flood. The oldest tree alive today is about 4000 years old. Obviously planted recently after the flood took place.

seebs · #50 21st December 2002, 03:22 PM

The jar experiment is not comparable... But if we're saying it's not ordinary, then all we can say is "we have no evidence for this".

You can't "take that into consideration" for the age of the Sahara. You can *guess*. Also, the flood wouldn't have produced deserts; floods result in unusually fertile soil.

As to the massive die-off, there's been lots of different ones in different places at different times; there's no universal 4000 year mark.