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

[Herman Hedning]

It was first introduced in ancient Greek, not English. Read the link. People are critical of the Bible for not using words that didn't exist.

Yes exactly. Introduced into English in the 13th century via French, Latin, and Greek. Originating possibly in Persian so maybe introduced into Greek during the time of Alexander. Before that, another word was of course used.

 

[createdtoworship]

It was first introduced in
ancient Greek, not English. Read the link. People are critical of
the Bible for not using words that didn't exist.

I am unsure of what you are saying, "ball" is actually in the hebrew and it's (Dur). here is a lexicon of no consequence as support of this:

1885 III. דּוּר (dûr): n.[masc.]; ≡ Str 1754; TWOT 418a—1. LN 79.91–79.94 encircling position, circular shape, all around, i.e., pertaining to a shape that is a circle, round and without corners (Isa 29:3+); 2. LN 79.91–79.94 ball, sphere, i.e., an object which is a spherical shape and conducive to being thrown (Isa 22:18+), see also domain LN 6

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

I am APPALLED that the Bible
used the word "circle" to describe a sphere. HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A
THING?????

they didn't, you did. In substitution of a modern word "sphere" for "ball"

Oh. The word "sphere" wasn't even
invented
until 1250 - 1300 AD. That might explain it.

hold on a minute, you are all proud over a little discovery that has nothing to do with the subject. There are many ways to describe a sphere without literally calling it sphere:
"...ball, ...marble, ...globe, globule, orb" -thesaurus.com

ball happens to be in the Bible, hence sphere is in it too. The verse in question is literal and is accurate in the english translations. If you would like me to look it up again, I can post hundreds of dictionaries, lexicons, etc for you. The confusion is this: the word for circle in hebrew can mean either a circle or an arched globular object, a half sphere. So while the Bible literally doesn't say that the earth is "round"- like a ball. It does say that the God sits on the earth, which is not flat like a circle would be but an arch, or a half sphere. So while the scientists believed a flat earth sat on an elephant, the Words of the Bible said something entirely more accurate. That the earth is rounded, not flat. Which was a new concept. Here is another greek dictionary that I like to use alot:

2329. חוּג ḥûg̱: A masculine noun indicating a circle, a vault, the horizon (circular). Figuratively, it refers to the “roof” or vault of the heavens which the Lord walks on or sits on (Job 22:14; Isa. 40:22); the horizon or circular edge of the deep (ḥûg̱ ʿal-penēy tehôm) (Prov. 8:27) that God established at the time He created the earth.

Baker, W., & Carpenter, E. E. (2003). The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament (318). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

It's like children trying to mock the mighty and wise
king. They giggle and think themselves profound but their foolishness
amuses nobody but themselves.

abusive ad hominem to change the focus of the conversation to the circumstancial.

here is more info on it so you can be aware of this in the future:

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). This is argument by character assassination. “Reject whatever he says because he is a bad person.” Literally, the fallacy’s name means “argument against the man.” It is not an attack on the proposition, but against the person. It is like a lawyer standing up and saying, “We have no case, your honor; but certainly you’re not going to believe the alcoholic, El Sleazo, ambulance chaser that the plaintiff hired.”

“Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of taxgatherers and sinners!” [Matt. 11:19]
“Kubler-Ross’s views on the stages of grief should be rejected because she has contact with departed spirits.”

It should be noted here that whether the accusations are true or not makes no difference, since the argument is irrelevant. Even if Kubler-Ross has had contact with “departed spirits,” her work on the grief process (which has been verified by others) is still helpful. Jesus’ claim to be God was in no way diminished by the fact that he associated with sinners. These attacks are simply ways to dodge the issues.
Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial). Sound familiar? Same song; second verse. This time, the argument is not an assault on the man’s character, but on some special circumstances surrounding him. This form of the fallacy occurs in the following:

Why should we believe Solomon when he tells us to be satisfied with “the wife of your youth” (Prov. 5:18)? He wasn’t.

Here it is seen as inconsistent for Solomon to be giving advice on marriage when he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Isn’t it nice to know that God uses imperfect people? Who would know the problems of marital infidelity better than Solomon? Besides, if all the writers of Scripture had to be perfect, we would have no Bible! Paul and Moses were murderers, Matthew was a tax-gatherer, and Peter had denied the Lord, but God used them all. The circumstances may seem inconsistent, but that does not change the truth of the propositions they uttered. The objection is irrelevant."



Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason: An introduction to logical thinking (93–94). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

 

[Tomk80]

Well destruction" is the main enemy of fossilization. In any type of rock. (Be it scavengers, or bacteria) That is why it's a rare event. It just so happens that water is a solvent capable of countering the destruction sealing and crystalizing the chemicals that rid the impression of bacteria/scavengers and other types of "destroyers."

without the sealing, there would be no cementing. That is what we call the fossil. So my point still stands, show me a sedimentary or nonsedimentary rock with a fossil in it, that did not involve water.

As I mentioned before, that it involved water does not mean it is the result of a global flood. Marine and marsh environments and local floods are better explanations, given the amount of time required for the process to complete..

As for fossils not the result of water, the fossils from the la Brea tar pits seem to qualify. Insects trapped in ember are another. Fossils that result from mummification in arid regions are also interesting in that respect.

Derived fossils also cannot be the result of a recent, global flood.

 

[createdtoworship]

I actually am encouraged by all the science in the Bible, though it's not an actual textbook of chemistry, geometry, or science it has quite a bit to say!

After clearing up the confusion of sphere, versus ball (or dome, canopy etc)

I thought I would give you some more info on it:


SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE


The Bible and Earth’s Free-float in Space



At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He … hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). Science didn’t discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650.


The Scriptures Speak of an Invisible Structure

Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of things that we cannot see—invisible atoms. In Hebrews 11:3, written 2,000 years ago, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”


The Bible Reveals that the Earth is Round



The Scriptures tell us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated “circuit” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 B.C. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere. It was another 2,000 years later (at a time when science believed that the earth was flat) that the Scriptures inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.


The Bible and the Science of Oceanography

Matthew Maury (1806–1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression “paths of the sea” in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, “If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them.” Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.


The Bible and Radio Waves

God asked Job a very strange question in 1500 B.C. He asked, “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). This appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that all electromagnetic radiation—from radio waves to x-rays—travels at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. The fact that light could be sent and then manifest itself in speech wasn’t discovered by science until 1864 (3,300 years later), when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).


The Bible and Entropy

Three different places in the Bible (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25, 26; and Hebrews 1:11) indicate that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increasing Entropy) states: that in all physical processes, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Everything is running down and wearing out as energy is becoming less and less available for use. That means the universe will eventually “wear out” to the extent that (theoretically speaking) there will be a “heat death” and therefore no more energy available for use. This wasn’t discovered by science until recently, but the Bible states it in concise terms.


The Bible and the Water Cycle

The Scriptures inform us, “All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again” (Ecclesiastes 1:7). This statement alone may not seem profound. But, when considered with other biblical passages, it becomes all the more remarkable. For example, the Mississippi River dumps approximately 518 billion gallons of water every 24 hours into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? And that’s just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, so well brought out in the Bible.



Ecclesiastes 11:3 states that “if the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth.” Look at the Bible’s concise words in Amos 9:6: “He … calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth.” The idea of a complete water cycle was not fully understood by science until the seventeenth century. However, more than two thousand years prior to the discoveries of Pierre Perrault, Edme Mariotte, Edmund Halley, and others, the Scriptures clearly spoke of a water cycle.


The Bible and the First Law of Thermodynamics

The Scriptures say, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Genesis 2:1). The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb “finished,” indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was “finished”—once and for all. That is exactly what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed.
It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle’s “Steady-State” (or “Continuous Creation”) Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called “irtrons,” matter (or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no “creation” ongoing today. It is “finished” exactly as the Bible states.


The Bible and Ship Dimensions



In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.5 million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing shipbuilding. By 1900 every large ship on the high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by “Lloyd’s Register of Shipping” in the World Almanac).


The Bible and Meteorological Laws

The Scriptures describe a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them: “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6). We now know that air around the earth turns in huge circles, clockwise in one hemisphere and counterclockwise in the other.


The Bible and Science



“In antiquity and in what is called the Dark Ages, men did not know what they now know about humanity and the cosmos. They did not know the lock but they possessed they key, which is God. Now many have excellent descriptions of the lock, but they have lost the key. The proper solution is union between religion and science. We should be owners of the lock and the key. The fact is that as science advances, it discovers what was said thousands of years ago in the Bible.” Richard Wurmbrand, Proofs of God’s Existence


Comfort, R. (2001). Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin (11–16). Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos.

 

[createdtoworship]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

here is another one: enjoy



"Science and the Bible. The conflict between science and the Bible has been bitter, especially in the last 150 years. Most reasons for this hostility relate to what one perceives to be the nature and procedure of either domain. For many, the alleged conflict is resolved by separating the two spheres entirely. This is sometimes done by limiting the role of religion or the Bible to matters of faith and science to matters of fact. Specifically, some Christians in science argue that the Bible tells us “Who and Why” (God), and science deals with “How.”
However, this neat separation of the domains of science and the Bible is unsatisfactory since the Bible does not so limit itself to questions of Who and Why. It often makes assertions of fact about the scientific world. Neither does science limit itself merely to questions of How. It also deals with origins (see ORIGINS, SCIENCE OF).
From a Christian perspective the relation between the Bible and Nature is the relation between two revelations of God, special revelation and general revelation (see REVELATION, GENERAL and REVELATION, SPECIAL). The first is found in God’s revelation in Scripture (see BIBLE, EVIDENCE FOR) and the latter in his revelation in Nature. Between these two, when properly understood, there are no conflicts, since God is the Author of both, and he cannot contradict himself.
However, since scientific understanding is merely a fallible human understanding of Nature and since Bible scholars have only a fallible interpretation of infallible Scripture, it is understandable that there will be contradictions in these areas. The situation can be diagrammed as follows:

Scripture
no conflict
Nature
Theology
some conflict
Science

Biblical theology involves human understanding of the biblical text. As such, it is subject to misunderstanding and error. Likewise, science is fallible human attempts at understanding the universe. So conflict is inevitable. For example, most scientists believe the universe is billions of years old. Some Bible scholars hold that it is only thousands of years old. Obviously, both cannot be right.
Principles of Reconciliation. Before areas of specific conflicts are noticed, several guidelines are useful to the nature and procedure of both disciplines.
Either Group Is Subject to Error. Informed persons from both sides, both Bible interpreters and scientists, have made mistakes. Many Bible scholars once believed the sun revolved around the earth (as did many scientists); some believed the earth to be square. But they were wrong. Likewise, the model of an eternal cosmos has been discarded in favor of the big bang model. Evolutionary theories about inheriting acquired characteristics have been overthrown (see EVOLUTION, BIOLOGICAL; EVOLUTION, CHEMICAL).
Either Group Is Subject to Correction. Another important principle is that both areas are subject to correction by the other. For example, scientific fact has refuted the flat-earth theory. Hence, any interpretation that takes verses about the “four corners of the earth” as literal depictions of geography are wrong. Science has proven them wrong.
Likewise, scientists who insist that the universe is eternal hold a theory that has been proven false, both by science and in critiques by Christians (see CREATION, VIEWS OF; EVOLUTION, COSMIC; BIG BANG THEORY).
Not all conflicts are so easily resolved. Very few things are proven with certainty in science. Some things are only probable or highly probable. For example, that the earth moves around the sun is not absolutely proven. This theory fits the facts as they are known and is a highly probable scientific interpretation of Nature that conflicts with a disputable interpretation of Scripture, then we should assume the latter is wrong. And vice versa. For example, macro-evolution is disputable and the creation of the universe, first life, and new life forms is highly probable. Hence, creation should be accepted as true and macro-evolution rejected (see EVOLUTION).
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 (691–693). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[createdtoworship]

High & Dry Sea Creatures - Answers in Genesis

 

[StormanNorman]

High & Dry Sea Creatures - Answers in Genesis

Global flood waters thousands of feet above sea level?? One has to wonder where all that water came from ... and where it all went???

 

[Tomk80]

High & Dry Sea Creatures - Answers in Genesis

As people have explained multiple times by now, not on mountains, in mountains. Why do you keep ignoring that?

 

[createdtoworship]

What evidence do you have that a global flood can produce hundreds of feet of limestone at the top of mountains?



I have been encouraging you to show me a flood that an deposit hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone.


It takes marine life to created the limestone, and there is not enough life to produce hundreds of feet of limestone. Chalk is nothing more than the tiny skeletons of coccolithophores, and there are literally hundreds of feet of these tiny little critters all stacked up. The deposits in the middle of North American are made up of thousands of feet of broken sea lilly parts. THOUSANDS OF FEET THICK. A single, year long global flood can not produce these deposits.

I understand your delemna, but you also have to add the several thousand of years between now and the flood. This part you missed. So we basically have to show if it is possible to lay this much chalk in 2-4K years. There is a lot of math in this reply so get out your calculator:


below excerpt from AIG, answers in genesis:

"Dr Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute ... suggests that in the surface layers of the ocean these carbonate-secreting organisms at optimum production rates could produce all the calcareous ooze on the ocean floor today in probably less than 1,000 or 2,000 years. He argues that, if a high concentration of foraminifera of 100 per litre of ocean water were assumed,11 a doubling time of 3.65 days, and an average of 10,000 foraminifera per gram of carbonate,12 the top 200 metres of the ocean would produce 20 grams of calcium carbonate per square centimetre per year, or at an average sediment density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre, 100 metres in 1,000 years. Some of this calcium carbonate would be dissolved at depth so the time factor would probably need to be increased to compensate for this, but if there was increased carbonate input to the ocean waters from other sources then this would cancel out. Also, reproduction of foraminifera below the top 200 metres of ocean water would likewise tend to shorten the time required.

Coccolithophores on the other hand reproduce faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest growing planktonic algæ,13 sometimes multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day. Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith has a volume of 22 x 10–12 cubic centimetres, an average weight of 60 x 10-12 grams per coccolith,14 20 coccoliths produced per coccolithophore, 13 x 106 coccolithophores per litre of ocean water,15 a dividing rate of two times per day and a density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre for the sediments produced, one gets a potential production rate of 54cm (over 21 inches) of calcium carbonate per year from the top 100 metres (305 feet) of the ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average 100 metre (305 feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again, other factors could be brought into the calculations to either lengthen or shorten the time, including dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due to the heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 metres of ocean surface, but the net result again is to essentially affirm the rate just calculated.

John Woodmorappe approached the matter in a different way. Assuming that all limestones in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the geological column are all chalks, he found that these accounted for 17.5 million cubic kilometres of rock. (Of course, not all these limestones are chalks, but he used this figure to make the ‘problem’ more difficult, so as to get the most conservative calculation results.) Then using Roth’s calculation of a 100 metre thickness of coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe found that one would only need 21.1 million square kilometres or 4.1% of the earth ’s surface to be coccolith-producing seas to supply the 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths in 1,600-1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He also made further calculations by starting again from the basic parameters required, and found that he could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million square kilometres of ocean area or 2.5% of the earth’s surface to produce the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths."


Roth, A.A., 1985. Are millions of years required to produce biogenic sediments in the deep ocean? Origins 12(1):48–56.
Berger, W.H., 1969. Ecologic pattern of living planktonic foraminifera. Deep-Sea Research 16:1–24.
Berger, W.H., 1976. Biogenous deep sea sediments: production, preservation and interpretation. In: Chemical Oceanography, J. P. Riley and R. Chester (eds), 2nd edition, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 5, pp. 265–388.
Pasche, E., 1968. Biology and physiology of coccolithophorids. Annual Review of Microbiology 22:71–86.
Honjo, S., 1976. Coccoliths: production, transportation and sedimentation. Marine Micropaleontology 1:65–79; and personal communication to A.A. Roth.
Black, M. and Bukry, D., 1979. Coccoliths. In: The Encyclopedia of Paleontology, R. W. Fairbridge and D. Jablonski (eds), Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences, Dowden. Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania, 7:194–199.
Woodmorappe, J., 1986. The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the entire fossil record. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks and R.S. Crowell (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 205–218.

Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds? - Answers in Genesis

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I was right!

 

[createdtoworship]

As people have explained multiple times by now, not on mountains, in mountains. Why do you keep ignoring that?

well "In" mountains is technically not the OP - Is it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Global flood waters thousands of feet above sea level?? One has to wonder where all that water came from ... and where it all went???

so you didn't read it? Figures.

ocean crust expansion, as the article mentions:

it was the same amount of water, just relocated.

Mountains can also rise due to uplift.

"We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood."

so thousands of feet above sea level, no problem for expansion, but 25000 feet above sea level, well thats a different story. Those mountains most likely were uplifted toward the end of the flood.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am unsure of what you are saying, "ball" is actually in the hebrew and it's (Dur). here is a lexicon of no consequence as support of this:

Is, or was? My sources report that there was NO word for ball in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the first recorded use of the term "sphere" was 1250-1300 AD. The point is that if there aren't words in the lexicon at that time, how can we complain that they weren't used? If you mentioned the word "ball" to an acient Greek in 500 AD he would have no idea what you were describing.

they didn't, you did. In substitution of a modern word "sphere" for "ball"

The sphere post came first. I pointed out that the word didn't come about until much later. Then I was told they had a word for "ball." In looking for that, I found out they had none.

Wouldn't the presence of anachronistic words in a manuscript negate its validity?

ball happens to be in the Bible, hence sphere is in it too.

Reference?

So while the Bible literally doesn't say that the earth is "round"- like a ball. It does say that the God sits on the earth, which is not flat like a circle would be but an arch, or a half sphere. So while the scientists believed a flat earth sat on an elephant, the Words of the Bible said something entirely more accurate. That the earth is rounded, not flat. Which was a new concept.

My point was that the internet scientists are using modern language to criticize something that was written thousands of years ago before the words they prefer were invented. It's all about small people trying to discredit the Bible and mock the Creator of the universe. It's why they continue to repeat the "flat earth" lie.

abusive ad hominem to change the focus of the conversation to the circumstancial.

Actually, I think it's a pretty apt description. Their arguments are infantile and childish. Their assertions are based in ignorance and their hatred for all things religious is very evident. Take away the personal attacks and their posts are reduced by half.

 

[createdtoworship]

how can we complain that they weren't used?

I see your argument, and it is valid. However it has some flaws, mainly that there are other words that sphere in the Bible that properly relay a spherical object, ball is a perfect example. So for some reason God chose not to use ball/sphere when referring to the earth. But this is no prob, as the definition that we have evidence for is actually still more comprehensive than 1000's of years of science to come, namely a rounded earth (anything other than flat, to bre precise), an arched earth, a half cicle, the part we live in. Not the full globe, or the part of the earth we don't see.

The point is that if there aren't words in the lexicon at that time,

Well it is all a matter of if sphere or ball was used when the lexicon was written, we know for a fact that ball was used. Sphere maybe not. But The Bible doesn't refer to a spherical earth in the technical definition, it refers to a round earth , a dome earth or canopy. One on which God sits. It can be interpreted as sphere but this is a slight stretch, a ball, well okay. But ball in hebrew is a different word than the word used. For more info on the arch, dome that God sat see my previous posts regarding this.

Is, or was? My sources report that there was NO word for ball in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the first recorded use of the term "sphere" was 1250-1300 AD.

so I already told you "ball" was in the Bible, but here you go. Just so you know you can typically trust lexicons and dictionaries. If a word is missing in some manuscripts it is generally known and will be mentioned. But "ball-כַּדּוּר "as in isaiah 22:18 is not missing, in fact here is the actual hebrew bible, two different versions:
try to locate the hebrew word for ball=כַּדּוּר
צָנוֹף יִצְנָפְךָ צְנֵפָה כַּדּוּר אֶל־אֶרֶץ רַחֲבַת יָדָיִם שָׁמָּה תָמוּת
The Hebrew Bible: Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text. 2008 (Is 22:18). Logos Bible Software.
[/BIBLE]

here is another one just so you don't criticise the sole source:

צָנ֤וֹף יִצְנָפְךָ֙ צְנֵפָ֔ה כַּדּ֕וּר אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ רַחֲבַ֣ת יָדָ֑יִם שָׁ֣מָּה תָמ֗וּת
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit. 2006 (Is 22:18). Logos Bible Software.[/BIBLE]

heck I will give you update 3.5 of the Hebraica Stuttgartensia:

צָנֹ֤וף יִצְנָפְךָ֙ צְנֵפָה כַּדּ֕וּר אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ רַחֲבַ֣ת יָדָ֑יִם שָׁ֣מָּה תָמ֗וּת
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. 2001 (electronic ed.) (Is 22:18). Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary.[/BIBLE]

now you can verify that that is the genuine hebrew text for ball just by copy and pasting to google. here is one :כַּדּוּר בא×[bless and do not curse]גלית

Is that enough proof for you? (if you want I can search the septuigant version as well)

heck here is a picture of the dead sea scrolls, see if you can find it in this paragraph:

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#22:18

If you mentioned the word "ball" to an acient Greek in 500 AD he would have no idea what you were describing.

how so? The greeks invented the olypic games! Here is more info from wikipedia: Ancient Greeks

Among the Greeks games with balls (σφαῖρα&#953 were regarded as a useful subsidiary to the more violent athletic exercises, as a means of keeping the body supple, and rendering it graceful, but were generally left to boys and girls. Of regular rules for the playing of ball games, little trace remains, if there were any such. The names in Greek for various forms, which have come down to us in such works as the Ὀνομαστικόν of Julius Pollux, imply little or nothing of such; thus, ἀπόρραξις (aporraxis) only means the putting of the ball on the ground with the open hand, οὐρανία (ourania), the flinging of the ball in the air to be caught by two or more players; φαινίνδα (phaininda) would seem to be a game of catch played by two or more, where feinting is used as a test of quickness and skill. Pollux (i. x. 104) mentions a game called episkyros (ἐπίσκυρο&#962, which has often been looked on as the origin of football. It seems to have been played by two sides, arranged in lines; how far there was any form of "goal" seems uncertain.[3]
Ancient Romans

Among the Romans, ball games were looked upon as an adjunct to the bath, and were graduated to the age and health of the bathers, and usually a place (sphaeristerium) was set apart for them in the baths (thermae). There appear to have been three types or sizes of ball, the pila, or small ball, used in catching games, the paganica, a heavy ball stuffed with feathers, and the follis, a leather ball filled with air, the largest of the three. This was struck from player to player, who wore a kind of gauntlet on the arm. There was a game known as trigon, played by three players standing in the form of a triangle, and played with the follis, and also one known as harpastum, which seems to imply a "scrimmage" among several players for the ball. These games are known to us through the Romans, though the names are Greek.[3]

The sphere post came first. I pointed out that the word didn't come about until much later. Then I was told they had a word for "ball." In looking for that, I found out they had none.

well now you know

Wouldn't the presence of anachronistic words in a manuscript negate its validity?

how is ball anachronistic?


Reference?

see above

My point was that the internet scientists are using modern language to criticize something that was written thousands of years ago before the words they prefer were invented. It's all about small people trying to discredit the Bible and mock the Creator of the universe. It's why they continue to repeat the "flat earth" lie.

I see your point, however as I said in my last post. the Word for circle of the earth in the verse in question, actually means a dome or half circle, not a flat circle.

Actually, I think it's a pretty apt description. Their arguments are infantile and childish. Their assertions are based in ignorance and their hatred for all things religious is very evident. Take away the personal attacks and their posts are reduced by half.

I actually agree with you on this point, but remember to check your sources on everything else you said.

thanks for the post

 

[StormanNorman]

Mountains can also rise due to uplift.

Well, I buy that; in fact, plate tectonics tells us that the Indo-Australian Plate containing the island continent of India collided with the Eurasia Plate about 50 million years ago forming the Himalaya Mountains which are still possibly growing to this day.

"We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood."

But, I don't buy any of this as it sounds like it's coming from people (a.k.a. find your "Answers in Genesis") who first came up with their story and are trying to morph the evidence any way they can to fit that nice little story. And that's fine; that's their right, but that is what they are doing.

So, what do you think caused these "ocean crust expansion" to flood the entire planet anyway (I assume that there was more than one in order to drown the entire planet)?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, I buy that; in fact, plate tectonics tells us that the Indo-Australian Plate containing the island continent of India collided with the Eurasia Plate about 50 million years ago forming the Himalaya Mountains which are still possibly growing to this day.

agreed, accept the 50 mill part.

But, I don't buy any of this as it sounds like it's coming from people (a.k.a. find your "Answers in Genesis") who first came up with their story and are trying to morph the evidence any way they can to fit that nice little story. And that's fine; that's their right, but that is what they are doing.

fair enough, however everyone has a world view that they squeeze their theories into. If it's not creationism, it's humanistic based.

So, what do you think caused these "ocean crust expansion" to flood the entire planet anyway (I assume that there was more than one in order to drown the entire planet)?

well, looks like either plate tectonics, hydroplate (newer theory), or expanding earth theory, those are the options, I go with the catastrophic plate tectonics.

most tested theory:
Catastrophic plate tectonics - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

second place goes to:
Hydroplate theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

third place goes to:
Expanding earth theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[StormanNorman]

agreed, accept the 50 mill part.



fair enough, however everyone has a world view that they squeeze their theories into. If it's not creationism, it's humanistic based.

But, I don't think it is quite the same on the humanistic side, is it? Take me, for example; I absolutely do not have any bias concerning the age of the Himalayas. They could be 50 million years, 5 million, or 5,000 years old. I don't care; I just want to know how old they are. Also, scientific theories don't always "squeeze" as you say; in fact, many have been proven wrong throughout the years and some scientists have become famous for it ...just ask Einstein.

well, looks like either plate tectonics, hydroplate (newer theory), or expanding earth theory, those are the options, I go with the catastrophic plate tectonics.

most tested theory:
Catastrophic plate tectonics - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

second place goes to:
Hydroplate theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

third place goes to:
Expanding earth theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

So, what do you think caused this catastrophic plate tectonics?

 

[createdtoworship]

But, I don't think it is quite the same on the humanistic side, is it? Take me, for example; I absolutely do not have any bias concerning the age of the Himalayas. They could be 50 million years, 5 million, or 5,000 years old. I don't care; I just want to know how old they are.

well when you have people who have devoted hours of research to a thing, they don't do so well when you come up and say, hey your doing it entirely wrong! Resultingly most humanists will keep old dates and toss out young dates in their tests. You do know that all dating methods have a spectrum of dates that come back and it is up to the personality of the tester to decide which dates are the norm and which dates are anomylies. I recommend a book by John Woodmorappe about dating methods, it was a great read. It's a little much to quote here and now, but He has a break down of all major testing methods and how they are biased and errorsome. Carbon dating being the best of the lot, but still had some erros.

Also, scientific theories don't always "squeeze" as you say; in fact, many have been proven wrong throughout the years and some scientists have become famous for it ...just ask Einstein.

well that is a great theory in practice, but sorry if I doubt. I mean how much money would it take our Government to convert all evolutionary ideas to Creationism? Thats a lot of erasing, confessing, blushing, apologizing, etc. Too much for anyone, let alone an entire government.

So, what do you think caused this catastrophic plate tectonics?

seeing they are catastrophic, I would take a wild guess that a global scale catastrophy like noahs flood would be a good hypothesis.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

well when you have people who have devoted hours of research to a thing, they don't do so well when you come up and say, hey your doing it entirely wrong! Resultingly most humanists will keep old dates and toss out young dates in their tests. You do know that all dating methods have a spectrum of dates that come back and it is up to the personality of the tester to decide which dates are the norm and which dates are anomylies. I recommend a book by John Woodmorappe about dating methods, it was a great read. It's a little much to quote here and now, but He has a break down of all major testing methods and how they are biased and errorsome. Carbon dating being the best of the lot, but still had some erros.

i think woodmorappe (that's a pen name of his, isn't it? Isn't his real name Jan Peckzis or something?), but I think Woodmorappe's view of the science is pretty sketchy. A geologist by the name of Kevin Henke (his real name) has seceral essays rebutting Woodmorappe's take on this science.

seeing they are catastrophic, I would take a wild guess that a global scale catastrophy like noahs flood would be a good hypothesis.

so the flood can move plates around? But this flood left no evidence in the form of global contemporaneous flood deposits?

Interesting.

So was the flood down at the moho? Or was it on the surface? How does the water move the plates around?

 

[StormanNorman]

well when you have people who have devoted hours of research to a thing, they don't do so well when you come up and say, hey your doing it entirely wrong!

No doubt. I'm sure there have been those scientists that have doggedly clung onto their theories. But, at the end of the day, they lose. Science is a collective effort, not an individual one. It's competitve, in the public domain, and no one individual can dictate its course. It moves on which is why theories and hypotheses change quite often.

Resultingly most humanists will keep old dates and toss out young dates in their tests. You do know that all dating methods have a spectrum of dates that come back and it is up to the personality of the tester to decide which dates are the norm and which dates are anomylies. I recommend a book by John Woodmorappe about dating methods, it was a great read. It's a little much to quote here and now, but He has a break down of all major testing methods and how they are biased and errorsome. Carbon dating being the best of the lot, but still had some erros.

I would have to look at the data. There are multiple methods and even when there is a variance including large outliers, you can still statistically derive the best point estimate within reasonable confidence intervals. But, like I said, I would have to see the data first hand.

well that is a great theory in practice, but sorry if I doubt. I mean how much money would it take our Government to convert all evolutionary ideas to Creationism? Thats a lot of erasing, confessing, blushing, apologizing, etc. Too much for anyone, let alone an entire government.

I'm not following you here.

seeing they are catastrophic, I would take a wild guess that a global scale catastrophy like noahs flood would be a good hypothesis.

Wait a second. I thought that the ocean crust expansions caused the flood...not vice versa.