Scientific Noah's flood.

[Phred]

Shame on you for that.

Really?

Let's examine just ONE thing.

The ark was supposedly covered in pitch. Now pitch is a substance made from oil tar. It's very sticky and does a pretty good job of making things watertight.

Only the folks at ICR tell us that oil was created by the flood itself. Before the flood there was no oil. The pressures and such required to create oil didn't occur on the earth until the cataclysm that was the flood.

So how exactly did Noah get pitch, a substance he obviously knew of... a substance the writer of the Bible knew of, before it was created?

 

[Jamin4422]

Or that life as we know it was bottlenecked down to just a few animals who landed in the Middle East and fanned out from there.

Close but no bannana. There really was not a bottleneck because these were all newly domesticated animals and plants. According to science if you go back 10,000 years NOTHING was domesticated. Not even the dogs.

For YOUR theory to be true, then domestication would have been a slow gradual process over a long period of time. At least 30,000 years. So the evidence right now supports creationism.

 

[Promethean]

Close but no bannana. There really was not a bottleneck because these were all newly domesticated animals and plants. According to science if you go back 10,000 years NOTHING was domesticated. Not even the dogs.

Again with the ignorant claims. Had you actually read Savolainen's work, you would know that dogs were domesticated at least 15 000 years ago.

 

[Tiberius]

My answer is given to the question: where is the sedimentary rock layer created by the global flood? Use your example, my answer means it could be formation A or formation G.

You asked: which one exactly? I say: It does not matter. May be one of them, or may be none of them. The key idea is: THERE COULD BE ONE, somewhere. The emphasis is on the possibility of its existence.

The question I answered is actually an ignorant one given by one who does not know sedimentology and has no vision on how would a global flood look like. A global flood should not create a sedimentary layer which is different from any known sedimentary layer, precluded formation of subaerial origin.

So, the blue-colored question is actually a much better one. The answer is: It does not need to have any "particular" feature.

So basically, your argument is:

"But, there could be a layer of sediment laid down by the flood somewhere, therefore the flood MUST have happened."

That's a pretty weak argument.

 

[Jamin4422]

Again with the ignorant claims. Had you actually read Savolainen's work, you would know that dogs were domesticated at least 15 000 years ago.

You got China (Far East) mixed up with the Middle east. We are talking about the domestication of the plants and animals that we find on Noah's Ark. As far as we know there were no dogs on Noah's Ark. As much of a disappointment as that maybe to dog lovers.

If you go by the so call science experts the domestication of dogs could have happened any time any where between 30,000 years ago and 7,000 years ago. Just about everyone has their own theory on that and very very little agreement between the various experts on the subject.

Like a grade school bully you call me "ignorant" yet I am going by science and they are the ones that do not seem to agree and do not seem to be able to figure this all out.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how exactly did Noah get pitch, a substance he obviously knew of... a substance the writer of the Bible knew of, before it was created?

QV please:

Let's make a distinction here.

There are only two ingredients mentioned in the building of the Ark: gopher wood and pitch.

The two are as different as balsa wood and super glue; unless the gopher tree provided the pitch, which I don't think happened.*

In any event, Wikipedia says the pitch pine is native to New Jersey, and since the Ark ended its journey in Mesopotamia, I assume the Ark began its journey elsewhere; and according to the aforementioned Wikipedia, I surmise it began its journey from New Jersey.

The alternative would be to think the Ark did one of two things:

1. Just bobbled around in Mesopotamia for a year.
2. Circumnavigated the globe and ended up where it started.

* Since the gopher tree and the pitch pine grew together, I would assume that when God refloraed the earth after the Flood, He did not see fit to bring back the gopher tree -- but He did bring back the pitch pine.

 

[Jamin4422]

Just bobbled around in Mesopotamia for a year.

What else were they suppose to do? If he had an army maybe he could conquer some new land. Otherwise he had to wait for the water to dry on the land he had.

 

[juvenissun]

So basically, your argument is:

"But, there could be a layer of sediment laid down by the flood somewhere, therefore the flood MUST have happened."

That's a pretty weak argument.

No. You still don't get it.

My argument is defensive. It is an answer to the question: where is the layer of the flood deposit?

A rock layer which could be made by the flood, is not necessary made by the flood.

 

[Tiberius]

QV please:

Yes, AV. Noah built the ark in New Jersey...

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, AV. Noah built the ark in New Jersey...

Either that or Mesopotamia ... and I go with the former for aforementioned reasons; viz., I don't think the Ark just bobbled around in geosynchronous flotation; rather, I think the Ark traveled from New Jersey to the mountains of Ararat.

 

[Tiberius]

No. You still don't get it.

My argument is defensive. It is an answer to the question: where is the layer of the flood deposit?

A rock layer which could be made by the flood, is not necessary made by the flood.

So you have absolutely zero evidence that ANY rock layers were made by the flood. By your own admission, for any particular rock layer, there MUST be a non-flood explanation.

 

[Promethean]

You got China (Far East) mixed up with the Middle east. We are talking about the domestication of the plants and animals that we find on Noah's Ark. As far as we know there were no dogs on Noah's Ark. As much of a disappointment as that maybe to dog lovers.

If you go by the so call science experts the domestication of dogs could have happened any time any where between 30,000 years ago and 7,000 years ago. Just about everyone has their own theory on that and very very little agreement between the various experts on the subject.

Like a grade school bully you call me "ignorant" yet I am going by science and they are the ones that do not seem to agree and do not seem to be able to figure this all out.

Again you keep making these ignorant claims that usually get flushed down the toilet when they are sourced from that end. Nobody is bullying you. It's simple don't make ignorant claims and people won't point out that you are making ignorant claims.

Domestication is at least 15ky old. The thing is that fools don't have theories, they make claims. Stop making these ignorant claims. Try reading a journal from time to time, it will spare you the embarrassment when you make things up (did you know lying is a sin) and people call you on it.

There is nobody suggesting 7K for dogs. By 12Ky we already had little dogs.
Small dogs originated in the Middle East, genetic study finds

 

[Jamin4422]

making ignorant claims usually get flushed down simple ignorant claims making ignorant claims. The thing is that fools making these ignorant claims. embarrassment make things up

So you admit what your doing, that is mighty big of you.

 

[Tiberius]

So you admit what your doing, that is mighty big of you.

Good lord that's a childish post.

 

[mzungu]

Either that or Mesopotamia ... and I go with the former for aforementioned reasons; viz., I don't think the Ark just bobbled around in geosynchronous flotation; rather, I think the Ark traveled from New Jersey to the mountains of Ararat.

You know; With one gram of liquid detergent you can wash up to 100 plates but with 1 gram of cocaine you can wash all the dishes, wash your car, paint your house, do the laundry, fix the roof and...........

I think you get my point! Reality vs wishful thinking!

 

[SkyWriting]

So you have absolutely zero evidence that ANY rock layers were made by the flood. By your own admission, for any particular rock layer, there MUST be a non-flood explanation.

Evidence requires recreation of the original events JUST to be considered as a possibility. Given that God has promised never to produce such an event again, all examination of the flood remains outside of the realm of science. The Flood might not have even been regular water.
When Peter walked on water, was the water hard or was he "light"? No one knows. We can't recreate the events.
Yes, Y.E. Creationists have been duped by education to believe everything in scripture might have a scientific explanation.

NOVA | Forensics on Trial

 

[AV1611VET]

You know; With one gram of liquid detergent you can wash up to 100 plates but with 1 gram of cocaine you can wash all the dishes, wash your car, paint your house, do the laundry, fix the roof and...........

Check your reps!

I read this to my wife and laughed all through it!

 

[Tiberius]

Evidence requires recreation of the original events JUST to be considered as a possibility. Given that God has promised never to produce such an event again, all examination of the flood remains outside of the realm of science. The Flood might not have even been regular water.
When Peter walked on water, was the water hard or was he "light"? No one knows. We can't recreate the events.
Yes, Y.E. Creationists have been duped by education to believe everything in scripture might have a scientific explanation.

NOVA | Forensics on Trial

I get the feeling that you aren't really listening to me...

If Layer A has a flood origin, then layer G must have a non flood origin. But likewise Layer G (which has a non-flood origin) could also have a flood origin. But if Layer G was created by the flood, then layer A CAN'T have a flood origin. So we have a non-flood origin possible for layer A and also a non-flood origin for layer G. And, by the same logic, we have a non-flood origin for ALL the layers.

So since each layer can be explained with a non-flood origin and given that there's no evidence in reality that requires a flood, why should we conclude that the flood origin for any of the layers is correct?

 

[CabVet]

Evidence requires recreation of the original events JUST to be considered as a possibility.

Only in your ill-informed mind that sentence is true.

 

[SkyWriting]

I get the feeling that you aren't really listening to me...

If Layer A has a flood origin, then layer G must have a non flood origin. But likewise Layer G (which has a non-flood origin) could also have a flood origin. But if Layer G was created by the flood, then layer A CAN'T have a flood origin. So we have a non-flood origin possible for layer A and also a non-flood origin for layer G. And, by the same logic, we have a non-flood origin for ALL the layers.

So since each layer can be explained with a non-flood origin and given that there's no evidence in reality that requires a flood, why should we conclude that the flood origin for any of the layers is correct?

When one asks the question clearly enough, the answer is revealed.
As I said, if your discussing "The Flood" no evidence can be duplicated.