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

[Loudmouth]

none of us know exactly, however theorizing is okay.

That's not what you are doing. You are making it up as you go along. That is not theorizing.

If you were building a theory you would actually cite real data from real scientific papers. You aren't doing that.

I theorize a body of water rushing over the surface of the earth, burying 10,000 dinasaurs as it stormed through the area we now call montana.

So are the deposits that these dinosaurs are buried consistent with a fast moving flood? Have you even attempted to show that this is the case? Or are you just saying "the flood did it" and hoping that no one challenges it?

I understand you don't have any answers, but I think part of the issue is that you don't WANT to find the answer to these issues.

How can I have answers when you don't even describe the geologic context that these fossils are found in, the deposits they are found in, the formations above and below the fossils, the age of the deposits, etc.?

noahs flood is actually a story that has been made up (according to you), in nearly every ancient culture, coming from different languages, cultures etc.

No, it isn't. There are many flood stories from civilizations that live by water, and wouldn't you know it they are all different stories. One story has a child climbing into a clay jar and surviving a quick flood. Another story has a couple climbing a tall hill and watching their villages be wiped out. They are all different.

More importantly, how do you explain Genesis borrowing the Sumerian flood myth described in the Enuma Elish? The plagarism is quite obvious.

 

[Mikecpking]

none of us know exactly, however theorizing is okay. I theorize a body of water rushing over the surface of the earth, burying 10,000 dinasaurs as it stormed through the area we now call montana.

Unless you can explain why this herd was buried in a 3 mile radius? All at the same time? I understand you don't have any answers, but I think part of the issue is that you don't WANT to find the answer to these issues.



as I said they are theories, and to have no theories at all is simply innadequate for an intellectual debate.

So in other words, saying nothing....is losing the debate.







noahs flood is actually a story that has been made up (according to you), in nearly every ancient culture, coming from different languages, cultures etc.

How do you explain that?

here is the details:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf

I haven't read the link but I see some good stuff from Creation.com, and plus I have researched this myself and it's not a myth.

check out the PDF when you have time.

Try these links, after the last ice age, sea levels rose more than 300 feet.

Google

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not what you are doing. You are making it up as you go along. That is not theorizing.

If you were building a theory you would actually cite real data from real scientific papers. You aren't doing that.



So are the deposits that these dinosaurs are buried consistent with a fast moving flood? Have you even attempted to show that this is the case? Or are you just saying "the flood did it" and hoping that no one challenges it?



How can I have answers when you don't even describe the geologic context that these fossils are found in, the deposits they are found in, the formations above and below the fossils, the age of the deposits, etc.?



No, it isn't. There are many flood stories from civilizations that live by water, and wouldn't you know it they are all different stories. One story has a child climbing into a clay jar and surviving a quick flood. Another story has a couple climbing a tall hill and watching their villages be wiped out. They are all different.

More importantly, how do you explain Genesis borrowing the Sumerian flood myth described in the Enuma Elish? The plagarism is quite obvious.

well it would not be a popular topic for uniformitarian peer review societies to endulge in thats for sure. I mean why advertise things that have no explaination? Unless you want to legislate noah and the ark into the public schools, and we can't obviously do that, so lets just ignore it and hope it goes away.


Sorry, I rambled....

but thats exactly what is happening, there is information on abone bed of dinasaurs actually 10,000 in number or greater, and in a smaller dimension than I said, it's only 1/4 mile wide.


"largely oriented east to west, indicating moving water"

more info here:

Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geologic Questions - Google Books

 

[Joshua0]

So are the deposits that these dinosaurs are buried consistent with a fast moving flood?

The bones are found in mudstone and sandstone. That is evidence of a flood. The main point is that if you weigh the evidence, there is more evidence that mass extinctions are catastrophic events and not uniform events.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

The bones are found in mudstone and sandstone. That is evidence of a flood

sandstone and mudstone are not only deposited in floods. The thing you want to note is the "grading" of the particle size as well as other features.

 

[Joshua0]

sandstone and mudstone are not only deposited in floods. The thing you want to note is the "grading" of the particle size as well as other features.

Do you have a better theory for how all those Utah Dinosaur bones were preserved, other then that they were buried by a flood? Utah is not really known for having sand storms, so I think we can rule something like that out. We do have a situation in China were dinosaur bones were preserved by volcanic ash produced by eruptions in Inner Mongolia 124 million years ago. This may not be a flood, but it is a catastrophic event and not a gradual extinction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have a better theory for how all those Utah Dinosaur bones were preserved, other then that they were buried by a flood? Utah is not really known for having sand storms, so I think we can rule something like that out. We do have a situation in China were dinosaur bones were preserved by volcanic ash produced by eruptions in Inner Mongolia 124 million years ago. This may not be a flood, but it is a catastrophic event and not a gradual extinction.

It very well could have been a flood that caused the flow that buried those dinosaurs. So what? It was a small local flood and not a world wide one. We have almost unlimited evidence that supports that. It would have been catastrophic for those duckbilled dinosaurs, it was not catastrophic for the vast majority of the Earth.

Every time you see the least evidence of a flood you should not keep mistaking that as evidence of a world wide flood.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

It very well could have been a flood that caused the flow that buried those dinosaurs. So what? It was a small local flood and not a world wide one. We have almost unlimited evidence that supports that. It would have been catastrophic for those duckbilled dinosaurs, it was not catastrophic for the vast majority of the Earth.

Every time you see the least evidence of a flood you should not keep mistaking that as evidence of a world wide flood.

This is a very key point. There are many local catastrophes in the geologic record. If the Floodists wish to draw a conclusion about the Flood of Noah these catastrophes must all be simultaneous and world wide.

If I had a myth story about a world wide fire, then finding evidence of a forestfire would not be evidence of my myth unless I could find indications of simultaneous massive fires all over the world.

 

[freezerman2000]

Do you have a better theory for how all those Utah Dinosaur bones were preserved, other then that they were buried by a flood? Utah is not really known for having sand storms, so I think we can rule something like that out. We do have a situation in China were dinosaur bones were preserved by volcanic ash produced by eruptions in Inner Mongolia 124 million years ago. This may not be a flood, but it is a catastrophic event and not a gradual extinction.

Utah may not be known for sandstorms now,but how about 124 million years ago?
Did you know that NA once had an inland sea the size of the Med?

North America (World of Earth Science) Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a very key point. There are many local catastrophes in the geologic record. If the Floodists wish to draw a conclusion about the Flood of Noah these catastrophes must all be simultaneous and world wide.

If I had a myth story about a world wide fire, then finding evidence of a forestfire would not be evidence of my myth unless I could find indications of simultaneous massive fires all over the world.

Yup, my point exactly, and though there may have been evidence of some sort of flood at that place at that time, I can guarantee you that that was not the case globally.

Massive extinction events are important in geology because we can see that they happened all around the world.

This was not one of those events.

 

[USincognito]

The bones are found in mudstone and sandstone. That is evidence of a flood. The main point is that if you weigh the evidence, there is more evidence that mass extinctions are catastrophic events and not uniform events.

Who is claiming that mass extinctions don't occur due to catastrophic events/conditions? And you do realize that uniformitarianism means that things operated in the past as they do today. That includes both gradual processes like erosion, deposition, etc., but catastropic events like localized flooding, volcanos, earthquakes, etc. as well as "combinations" like glaciation, right?

 

[Joshua0]

Who is claiming that mass extinctions don't occur due to catastrophic events/conditions?

Darwin's theory required gradualism. That is why the Cambrian Radiation was Darwin's dilemma. Yet there has been six extinctions followed by Radiations. That tends to coincide with the 6 days of Genesis and supports Creationism more than Darwin's Theory.

 

[USincognito]

Darwin's theory required gradualism. That is why the Cambrian Radiation was Darwin's dilemma. Yet there has been six extinctions followed by Radiations.

That's awesome. You realize that Darwin was familiar with extinctions, right?

Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct, as myriads have become extinct.​

Darwin - Origin

That tends to coincide with the 6 days of Genesis and supports Creationism more than Darwin's Theory.

Where Genesis 1 or 2 does it mention 6 different extinctions? Where does it mention the Cambrian Explosion? Was it Gen. 1:20 where it describes the 5th day and life in the seas and the air? It can't be because there were no fish, much less whales in the Cambrian and birds wouldn't evolve for another 400 million years.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Darwin's theory required gradualism. That is why the Cambrian Radiation was Darwin's dilemma. Yet there has been six extinctions followed by Radiations. That tends to coincide with the 6 days of Genesis and supports Creationism more than Darwin's Theory.

6 is a lucky number in Chinese because it is a homophone for liquid which is considered a synonym for wealth. But since liquid = water I think we have another contender for ancient biblical wisdom here!

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Darwin's theory required gradualism.

Not sure exactly what that means. But if it means that the last human being to study evolution was Charles Darwin in the 19th century and that evolutionary theory has not in any way gained from nearly 150 years of study, then I might suggest an update on the info.

Evolution requires time but even within evolution there is a thing called "punctuated equilibrium" and various other hypotheses.

That is why the Cambrian Radiation was Darwin's dilemma.

Again, Darwin wasn't the last person to study evolution. The Cambrian represents an increase in the number of species and body types and even the increase in preserved hard parts, but life existed on earth long before the Cambrian Explosion. This is important to remember. Life didn't just "pop" into existence at the beginning of the Cambrian.

We've learned a lot in the last 150 years of research.

Yet there has been six extinctions followed by Radiations.

If those extinctions had rendered earth completely free of all life and it popped back into existence then it might be of interest. Instead it represents in most cases a large loss of biodiversity which is then replaced over time by a new biodiversity.

That tends to coincide with the 6 days of Genesis and supports Creationism more than Darwin's Theory.

In what way? 6 Mass Extinctions only corresponds to the 6 days of Creation in Genesis in that they both include the number 6. There is nothing in Genesis Creation story that indicates numerous extinctions and creations by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[TheBear]

noahs flood is actually a story that has been made up (according to you), in nearly every ancient culture, coming from different languages, cultures etc.

How do you explain that?

According to the storyline, Noah's FLOOD killed everyone on the planet except for the few on the Ark. If that's true, then how do you account for cultures and peoples writing about a great flood, unless they were writing about a local flood?

How do you explain that???

 

[AV1611VET]

According to the storyline, Noah's FLOOD killed everyone on the planet except for the few on the Ark. If that's true, then how do you account for cultures and peoples writing about a great flood, unless they were writing about a local flood?

How do you explain that???

-- Oooh! Oooh! I know! I know!

 

[Split Rock]

Darwin's theory required gradualism.

False

That is why the Cambrian Radiation was Darwin's dilemma. Yet there has been six extinctions followed by Radiations. That tends to coincide with the 6 days of Genesis and supports Creationism more than Darwin's Theory.

Strange then that the six days of GEN mention nothing at all about any extinctions... isn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

well it would not be a popular topic for uniformitarian peer review societies to endulge in thats for sure. I mean why advertise things that have no explaination?

The most exciting thing for a scientist is something that has no explanation.

Sorry, I rambled....

but thats exactly what is happening, there is information on abone bed of dinasaurs actually 10,000 in number or greater, and in a smaller dimension than I said, it's only 1/4 mile wide.


"largely oriented east to west, indicating moving water"

more info here:

Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geologic Questions - Google Books

I need to see the original citations, not creationist quotemines. We already know what creationists do with their quotes.

 

[Joshua0]

Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself.

In a being? I thought it was populations that evolved, not individuals. To the point where individual have to be sacrificed for the benefit of the population or the community.