Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[Loudmouth]

[/list]Good stuff. This evidence actually supports my contention. Certain local areas will reveal evidence of a huge flood, but there isn't widespread evidence. This is because the flood's 'footprint' isn't the same in all areas. We're on the same page.

Evidence for local flooding is evidence for local flooding, not evidence for global flooding. Also, why do you contend that evidence for a global flood will look exactly like no flood occurred?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evidence for local flooding is evidence for local flooding, not evidence for global flooding.

Topography determines inflow and outwash water velocity and thus erosion and deposition. As the terrain isn't uniform there can be no uniform evidence.

Also, why do you contend that evidence for a global flood will look exactly like no flood occurred?

Most floods have fast and slow water. Slow water might leave no evidence at all. Also weathering over the past 4000 or so years would alter or erase evidence especially where there was little evidence to begin with.

 

[Loudmouth]

Topography determines inflow and outwash water velocity and thus erosion and deposition. As the terrain isn't uniform there can be no uniform evidence.

But we should still be able to date the erosion in the same way that we date the deposition, and it should be recent.

In the case of lake varves, we should either a recent deposition or recent erosion. We see neither. Instead, we see no evidence of a flood either way. The layers keep on stacking up like nothing else happened.

Most floods have fast and slow water. Slow water might leave no evidence at all.

Slow water will leave the most evidence because it will allow the most sediment to settle out.

 

[florida2]

In other words no you can not. That is what I thought.

Please don't lie about what I said.

I said that Split Rock had already talked about it and that I felt there was no point me repeating what had already been said due to your inability to read other posts in this thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have been encountering quite an increasing number of dialogues about the lack of information on a particular science, biology, or specific History of some nation or event. However if the Bible were a textbook, it would be vastly huge. I mean it would have to cover every science and History, and from every nation, and from every era. On the contrary the lack of "textbookness" in the Bible is refreshing, as science changes every day, in nearly every country and in every era. If it was a science textbook it most likely would be so far advanced, that we would ridicule it and toss it in the trash as our science departments are still learning. God realizes this is an unacceptible endeavor. And the Bible is a book on Salvation, theology, soteriology, pneumatology, eschatology among other religious concepts. Any one can write a textbook, only God can divinely inspire a religious work! Anyway, here is a clip in support of what I have just said and some sources for more study. I realize this is not on par with the subject of global flood, however much time is wasted in this forum on the current subject, so if we can nip it all in the bud, that would be great. Anyway enjoy norman geisler-PhD,

"The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook. One principle that some overzealous Christian apologists sometimes forget is that, while the Bible makes no scientific mistakes (see BIBLE, ALLEGED ERRORS IN), neither is it a science textbook. It does not speak in technical scientific terms nor with precision. It uses round numbers. It employs observational, rather than astronomical, language (see BIBLE, ALLEGED ERRORS). The Bible only affirms partial truths in the various areas of science. It does not teach much geometry, any algebra, or trigonometry. One cannot assume conflicts without taking these factors into consideration.
Science Is Constantly Changing. Science understandings change continually. That means an apologist of years ago who succeeded in reconciling the Bible to some view of science might have been absolutely wrong since there wasn’t a real conflict to reconcile. Perfect conformity may be wrong today as well, since science may change tomorrow. Given that science is a tentative and progressive discipline, never reaching a final conclusion on everything, it behooves us not to assume that there are scientific errors in the Bible unless

1. something is known for certain to be a scientific fact, and
2. it conflicts with an interpretation of Scripture that is beyond all doubt.

For example, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible teaches that a theistic God exists (see THEISM). Hence, one would have to prove that it was a scientific fact beyond all uncertainty that God did not exist in order to show a real conflict. It is unlikely that real conflicts between science and the Bible will ever be demonstrated. Some apparent conflicts deserve note, along with some probable and even highly probable views of modern science that find an amazing parallel in the Bible. It is to these that we first turn.
Bible and Science Converge. Given that not much scientific information was known in Bible times, the Bible speaks with considerable scientific credibility, an evidence of its supernatural nature.
Origins. Universe had a beginning. The very first verse of the Bible proclaims that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It was common in ancient views to consider the universe eternal, yet the Bible taught that it had a beginning. This is precisely what most scientists now believe in accepting the Big Bang theory. Agnostic astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote that “three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion: All indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (God and the Astronomers, 111).
Order of events. Genesis 1 also indicates a progressive creation, universe, followed by formless earth, followed by what happened to give form to the earth. This is a much more scientifically sophisticated conception than held by the common ancient creation story. The Bible affirms that God said in the beginning, “Let there be light. And there was light” (Gen. 1:3). Jastrow wrote of the parallel of this statement with modern science, “the details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (ibid., 14).
No new matter is being created. The Bible declared from the beginning that creation is complete. God rested from his work (Gen. 2:2) and is still at rest (Heb. 4:4f.). In short, no new matter (energy) is coming into existence. This is precisely what the First Law of Thermodynamics declares, namely, that the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant (see THERMODYNAMICS, LAWS OF).
Universe is running down. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of useable energy. It is literally growing old. This is precisely what the Psalmist said: “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded” (Ps. 102:25–27).
Genesis declares that life first appeared in the sea (Gen. 1:21), and only later on land (1:26–27). This accords with the view that multicellular life teamed in the Cambrian waters before it multiplied on land.
Life produces after its kind. In Genesis 1:24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” According to agnostic paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, “Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless” (Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” 13–14). In that fossil record, as in Genesis, human beings were the last to appear.
Humans made from the earth. Unlike ancient myths or the Qur’an, which claims that humans were made from a “clot of congealed blood” (see Sura 23:14), the Bible states that “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Further, it adds, “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Gen. 3:19). According to science, the constituent elements of the human body are the same as those found in the earth.
Earth Sciences. Water returns to its source. Scripture affirms that “All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again” (Eccles. 1:7; cf. Job 37:16). While the author may not have been aware of the exact process of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, his description is in perfect harmony with these processes.
The earth is round. Isaiah spoke of God who “sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” (40:22). This is a remarkably accurate description for an eighth-century B.C. prophet (see ISAIAH, DEUTERO). And Solomon had given the same truth in the tenth-century B.C. (Prov. 8:27).
The earth hangs in space. In an era when it was common to believe the sky was a solid dome, the Bible accurately speaks of God spreading out the northern skies over empty space and suspending the earth over nothing (Job 26:7).
The Bible is not only compatible with true scientific findings, but it anticipated many of them. Scientific knowledge is compatible with the truths of Scripture.
Other scientific findings. Many other things discovered by modern science were stated in the Bible hundreds and even thousands of years in advance. These include the fact that: (1) the sea has paths and channels (2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 8:8; Prov. 8:28); (2) the sea has boundaries (Prov. 8:29); (3) life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11); (4) disease can be spread by physical contact (Lev. 13)."


Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (692–693). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[super animator]

Paragraphs makes things easier to read you know.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow. It is just really hard for you to admit you were wrong, isn't it? If an organism has a backbone, it is a vertebrate.

Agreed. However is cartilage considered bone? I am foggy on this one. If it is, I would question the taxonomy of that. I find it funny, I normally never question taxonomy. That is usually the hobby of the evolutionist, because of their hate for species and various classifications and taxonomy. Nevertheless, I would have to question that one. Cartilage would not be considered bone, Else what would you do with your joints? Cushion them with more bone? OR what about the cartilage disks in the spinal column? Again no answers.

It does not need to be made of bone, it can be cartilage.

wouldn't it be called back-cartilage, not back-bone? Thats technically what should it should be named.
Technically, there are other types of endoskeletons, but usually when one refers to an endoskeleton, it is a vertebrate one. That is what I meant. In any case, my point was that it could be cartilage and still be classifed as a vertebrate. No one classifies sharks as invertebrates. No one. The defining characteristic is a vertebrate column, not necessarily one made of bone. Here: Vertebrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well lets review your posts:

1. Fish are not invertebrates. They have a skeleton.

Here you say the vertebrates are classified by the presence of a skeleton.

Any organism with an endoskeleton is a vertebrate.

here you make another comment supporting the classification of vertebrates as one with a skeleton, namely (this time) and "endoskeleton."

If an organism has a backbone, it is a vertebrate.

here after being criticized you change the bars and state something different.

now lets look at your sources for the idea that a vertebrate is classified as such by the presence of an endoskeleton:

The word vertebrate derives from the Latin word vertebratus (Pliny), meaning joint of the spine.[6] It is closely related to the word vertebra, which refers to any of the bones or segments of the spinal column.[7]

note the word "bones" . SEcondly, note that the word vertebrate actually means "joint of spine" nothing to do with the skeleton, it's just the presence of a bony spine that is in question. So your own link does not make correlate the presence of a skeleton with it being a vertebrate. It's the bony spine. So I am not sure where you are getting the endoskeleton idea, or the idea of a skeleton at all for that matter. I mean would not this exclude those of different skeletal framworks, such as vertebrates of the exoskeletal arena? Poor vertebrates!

I am saying that fossils of a marine environment are indicative of a marine environment. Not a flood. Got it now?

well, I misunderstood, because you specifically stated

Marine, lake and river environments are not examples of any flood. Water does not mean "The Flood."

so it made it sound like you didn't believe there were any river, lakes or marine environments that were ever created by floods.

anyway, I have a question about your new comment. If fossils of mraine environments are indicative of a marine fossilization. What about all of the dinasaurs who are fossilized in marine environments? I mean, with some type of flood that overcame the valley and buried them, are they then converted to a marine environmental fossil? I am not sure what your point is.

You claimed plate tectonics was an idea created by creationists and stolen by evolutionists and twisted by them.

well some ideas of what is called "continental sprint" were later converted to the slower counterpart "continental drift" by another scientist in another country, 50 years later. An astronomer If I believe correctly.

This is false.

what is false? What exactly do you disagree with. Lets start there.

I never claimed that no creationist had come up with the idea that the continents were once together.

.

okay, fair enough. However this is a red herring from your original statement and intent:

you said

"Evolutionists" (whatever that means) did not adopt anything from creationists. Plate tectonics arose from Continental Drift theory, as its primary mechanism.

so what you have sealed yourself to is this, That plate tectonics came from continental drift, and assumed continental drift was the first theory. It was not. Like I said before there was a book and articles out 50 years prior that dealt with the unified continents, but simply sped up things a bit. Similar to what I currently hold. Continental sprint theory. More info on my view are here
Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology? - Answers in Genesis

and here:

Origins - Continental Sprint (Part 2/2) with Dr. Steve Austin - YouTube

This is hardly the same as plate tectonics

it's exactly the same, the theory of continental drift was modified and eventually replaced by the theory of plate tectonics.


"The popular theory of drifting continents and oceans is called "plate tectonics."-J.F. Dewey, Plate tectonics, Sci. Amer., v. 226, 1972, p. 56-68 and W. Sullivan, Continents in motion, the new earth debate: New York, McGraw- Hill,

though the concepts are obviously related.

actually they are subsequent theories, one after another. No relation, they replaced on another exactly.

In fact it was Alfred Wegener who described what he called continental drift in 1912. He actually proved more evidence than just the shape of the continents, but had no mechanism. It was the mapping of the ocean floor that provided the definitive evidence and the mechanism which became plate tectonics.

you are wrong, once again. Wegner did indeed have a mechanism for continental drift, it was the "pole fleeing force" theory. It was not correct, but He did in fact have a mechanism for what caused continental drift, or plate tectonics.

above theory and more info on wegners mechanism here:

from the UC Berkley museum of paleontology dept:
plate tectonics: history of an idea.

Please do. Also please show us your vast knowledge of vertebrate biology while you are at it.

at least I don't correlate vertebrates and endoskeletons lol.

I pointed out there was no original data and very little data at all provided by the paper you cited. For

give me one except that you disagreed with, rather than simply saying- there was no evidence. This just suggests you never actually read it.

you citing links is really nothing more than a game. Thank you for admitting this.

When I said game, I meant that one quotes a dry scientific site that no one wants to read, then the other debater quotes another dry scientific site that no one wants to read. And I see, that since you offer no summaries of the report, that you in fact did not read the report I linked to.

Thats fine, but it just shows that you are playing the game whether you want to admit it or not.

If you are using the bible as an historical guide, then it is quite telling that no ice age following the flood is indicated in the bible. The bible in fact goes into some detail concerning the events of flood and those following it. How could there have been an ice age immediately after the flood with no documentation in the bible? That would be like telling the history of 20th century Europe and including WWI but not WWII. If nothing else, this would indicate that the bible is a flawed history source, which still puts you in the same arkward position if relying on it as your ultimate source of information on earth's history.

I see, I replied to this last comment with a separate post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7731701/#post62772515

 

[createdtoworship]

Paragraphs makes things easier to read you know.

is the post null and void because of the lack of paragraph indentions, or because you didn't like what the material of those paragraphs contained? I see you are part agnostic, and part Christian. Welcome!

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

The earth is round. Isaiah spoke of God who “sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” (40:22). This is a remarkably accurate description for an eighth-century B.C. prophet (see ISAIAH, DEUTERO). And Solomon had given the same truth in the tenth-century B.C. (Prov. 8:27)./QUOTE]

Norm Geisler is not a Semitic culture scholar. If he were, he would know that there is nothing remarkable about "the circle of the earth." Like many other ancient cultures, the Hebrew looked all around them to the horizon, and what did they see? They saw a CIRCLE, a DISK! Indeed, ERETZ does not mean "planet earth", it means "land" or "country". The LAND an observer on the ground sees when he looks to the horizon in all directions is THE CIRCLE OF THE ERETZ ("the circle of land", a disk.)

The efforts of Geisler et al to change "circle" into SPHERE is something Hebrew lexicographers laugh at.

I'm a born-again Christian who reveres the Biblical text. But I don't lie about it just to sensationalize the text and sell books. "Stormin Norman" Geisler (as his ETS friends like to call him) has always been a bombastic expositor---but those of us who know him take his claims with a grain of salt, especially when he speaks outside of his areas of expertise.

The ancient Hebrews had words to express THREE DIMENSIONAL concepts like spheres. Yet the Hebrew word you refer to applies to two-dimensional circles, NOT spheres. And that's why the top Hebrew lexicons don't back up Geisler's claim.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

is the post null and void because of the lack of paragraph indentions, or because you didn't like what the material of those paragraphs contained?

Neither. It is frustrating because of the nonsense "logic" and factual errors.

The Bible stands well on its own. It should not be blamed for nonsense that is imposed upon it----such as "the circle of the ERETZ" efforts to turn CIRCLE into SPHERE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither. It is frustrating because of the nonsense "logic" and factual errors.

The Bible stands well on its own. It should not be blamed for nonsense that is imposed upon it----such as "the circle of the ERETZ" efforts to turn CIRCLE into SPHERE.

Ever heard of the Arctic Circle?

 

[rikerjoe]

Ever heard of the Arctic Circle?

Yes.... an actual circle.... not a 3-dimensional object....

 

[rikerjoe]

is the post null and void because of the lack of paragraph indentions, or because you didn't like what the material of those paragraphs contained? I see you are part agnostic, and part Christian. Welcome!

Wouldn't know since I didn't bother to read it. If the author can't be bothered with readability, why should I be bothered to read it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.... an actual circle.... not a 3-dimensional object....

Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

The Arctic Circle goes around the earth, does it not?

Can NASA launch a satellite that can circumnavigate the Arctic Circle around its z-axis?

Anyone who thinks that passage is talking about a flat earth is intentionally interpreting it that way.

 

[florida2]

Here: Vertebrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, I see what you have done. You've looked at the origin of the word 'vertebrate' rather than how it is used in taxonomy.

The classification of animals is far far far more complex than simply vertebrates and invertebrates. The vertebral column can be made of bone or cartilage. The word 'backbone' is a colloquial term. Vertebral column - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only 3% of animal species are vertebrates (that is, fit into the subphylum vertebrata in the phylum chordata). The rest are invertebrates which is a broad and unspecific term for all other animals and has no accurate scientific meaning.

This offers a glimpse at animal phyla. Phylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't got getting picky over someone else's use of terms until you've done some research.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah, I see what you have done. You've looked at the origin of the word 'vertebrate' rather than how it is used in taxonomy.

don't get too excited,
I was just using the etymology as a support for my valid theory that cartilage is not bone, and therefore should not (not is currently, but should not be) classified as a "back bone", hence the reply : it should be called a "back-cartilage not a back -bone."

The classification of animals is far far far more complex than simply vertebrates and invertebrates.

I understand this very well thankyou. I have debated evolutionists of taxonomy for years.

The vertebral column can be made of bone or cartilage. The word 'backbone' is a colloquial term. Vertebral column - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would question the use of colloguialism regarding to "backbone" since online technical journals such as this one:

"animals that have [do not have] a backbone” followed by lists of vertebrates
and invertebrates - ...[amphibians. ... Circle the animals that have (do not have) a backbone, given a diverse list of ver- tebrates and invertebrates. Page 8."

Trowbridge, John E., and Joel J. Mintzes. "Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross‐age study." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25.7 (1988): 547-571.

and agian cited in this more recent article:

ScienceDirect.com - The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology - No backbone but lots of Sox: Invertebrate Sox genes

so it would appear the word back bone, is technically and widely accepted as a term to describe vertebrates.

Only 3% of animal species are vertebrates (that is, fit into the subphylum vertebrata in the phylum chordata). The rest are invertebrates which is a broad and unspecific term for all other animals and has no accurate scientific meaning.

okay that comment has nothing to do with this debate, and shall be considered "word filler" - and given in order to gain attention and a following where a lack of original premise or factual matter does not exist (on your part). secondly, The amount of vertebrates is completely arbitrary and a red herring off of the original topic.

This offers a glimpse at animal phyla. Phylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes, have been looking at these cites for years, thank you.

Don't got getting picky over someone else's use of terms until you've done some research.

well it seems you need to do some reasearch yourself, sir.

and welcome to the debate!

 

[createdtoworship]

Wouldn't know since I didn't bother to read it. If the author can't be bothered with readability, why should I be bothered to read it?

well I could say the same for any peer review paper you link to!

thats is false reasoning and reveals your unwillingness to truly debate and questions your trolling of this thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

Neither. It is frustrating because of the nonsense "logic" and factual errors.

The Bible stands well on its own. It should not be blamed for nonsense that is imposed upon it----such as "the circle of the ERETZ" efforts to turn CIRCLE into SPHERE.

look up poisoning the well fallacy,

you just commited it

 

[AV1611VET]

Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

The Arctic Circle goes around the earth, does it not?

Can NASA launch a satellite that can circumnavigate the Arctic Circle around its z-axis?

Anyone who thinks that passage is talking about a flat earth is intentionally interpreting it that way.

All you e-scientists who like to say the Bible teaches flat earth ... feel free to jump right in here and answer this.

Let's not be shy all of a sudden.

A good point shouldn't go to waste.

 

[Tomk80]

don't get too excited,
I was just using the etymology as a support for my valid theory that cartilage is not bone, and therefore should not (not is currently, but should not be) classified as a "back bone", hence the reply : it should be called a "back-cartilage not a back -bone."

I understand this very well thankyou. I have debated evolutionists of taxonomy for years.

I would question the use of colloguialism regarding to "backbone" since online technical journals such as this one:

"animals that have [do not have] a backbone” followed by lists of vertebrates
and invertebrates - ...[amphibians. ... Circle the animals that have (do not have) a backbone, given a diverse list of ver- tebrates and invertebrates. Page 8."

Trowbridge, John E., and Joel J. Mintzes. "Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross‐age study." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25.7 (1988): 547-571.

and agian cited in this more recent article:

ScienceDirect.com - The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology - No backbone but lots of Sox: Invertebrate Sox genes

so it would appear the word back bone, is technically and widely accepted as a term to describe vertebrates.



okay that comment has nothing to do with this debate, and shall be considered "word filler" - and given in order to gain attention and a following where a lack of original premise or factual matter does not exist (on your part). secondly, The amount of vertebrates is completely arbitrary and a red herring off of the original topic.


yes, have been looking at these cites for years, thank you.



well it seems you need to do some reasearch yourself, sir.

and welcome to the debate!

Backbone refers to the vertebral column in animals (including fish). It does not specifically refer to actual bone, as the articles you cited indicate. If you search scholarly articles mentioning the vertebral column of fish, you'll see they often refer to it as the backbone. This does not suddenly imply that the biologists studying fish do not know that the fish vertebral column is made of cartilage.