The order of fossils in the geological column

[Simmeh]

Your point is that God did not reaaalllly design the ark?? If so I might call it more of a stub nosed twig than a point.

No, my point that flood apologists have to rely on invoking the supernatural in order to keep their models from being crushed under the weight of reality.

 

[Astrophile]

Clam fossils have been found atop Mt. Everest.

This is incorrect; there is no record of clams at the summit of Mount Everest. According to Wikipedia,
'From its summit to the top of the Yellow Band, about 8,600 m (28,200 ft) above sea level, the top of Mount Everest consists of the Qomolangma Formation, which has also been designated as either the Everest Formation or Jolmo Lungama Formation. It consists of grayish to dark gray or white, parallel laminated and bedded, Ordovician limestone inter layered with subordinate beds of recrystallized dolomite with argillaceous laminae and siltstone. Gansser first reported finding microscopic fragments of crinoids in this limestone.[43] Later petrographic analysis of samples of the limestone from near the summit revealed them to be composed of carbonate pellets and finely fragmented remains of trilobites, crinoids, and ostracods'. (My bolding.)

Clams are defined as 'bivalve molluscs that live buried in sand or silt'. Trilobites, crinoids and ostracods are not molluscs; trilobites and ostracods are arthropods, and crinoids are echinoderms. Notice also that the fossils at the top of Mount Everest are 'finely fragmented remains', not whole animals.

 

[Queller]

My model has the sea floor rising uniformly over a vast area, not flattening out as you suggest. The flood story suggests a gradual flood, thus a gradual rise in the sea floor. I suggest viewing some incoming tide video's on u-tube. They provide a good picture of how the flood came in.

Then your model is physically impossible.

One, For the sea floor to rise uniformly without flattening out would mean that all the continents would rise right along with them and there would be no flood.

The sea floors aren't separate from the continents, they are part of them. Look at the below picture, it is a diagram of how the continental plates fit together.

For the Atlantic sea floor to "rise up" as you claim, the North American Plate, The Eurasian Plate, The African Plate, and the South American Plate would all have to rise up. Ignoring for the moment that physically this isn't possible, as they rose up, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa would "rise up" right along with them and there would be no flood.

Two, the Bible does not describe a gentle flood. You have to ignore everything the Bible says about the flood to come to that conclusion. That's why I keep saying you are ignoring both science and the Bible when it comes to your flood model. It fits neither the evidence we have nor the descriptions of the event.

Could you please answer my question about why the flood has to be global. Since you have already acknowledged that for your model to be possible, we have to take some of the language of Genesis 7 and 8 as "poetic license," why can the flood being a global event not be taken as poetic license as well?

My model doesn't have the water distributed evenly over the earth. The sea floors would rise enough to cover those mountains with water. The sinking of the continents would help in this. A study of glacial rebound reveals how flexible the earth's crust actually is.

The continents would not sink as you are proposing. They are attached to the sea floor that you have rising up. They have to be flooded before they can start to sink. There is no way for them to sink, nor would there be any reason for them to. They would not be flooded by any water.

 

[Queller]

I proposed a rather gentle flood, not a tsunami, at least in the region of the ark. You are making the same mistake others have made, that is to change the flood model to one that supports your assumptions.

No, what we are describing is the flood model as described in the Bible.

Most notably you insist that the ark was an oversized 'ship'. It wasn't. It was a mammoth building capable of surviving the flood it was built for. In all probability Noah used some joinery methods that related to shipbuilding, but only to ensure that the structure was watertight.

It was, at best a 437ft long barge.

 

[Queller]

Had God done it your way, then no one would have had a chance to repent as the waters rose.

No deathbed confessions.

Since we have no deathbed confession from anyone at the time, that doesn't seem to have worked out very well.

 

[Queller]

Quantas Airlines?

From some of the other posts in this thread maybe it was Quahog Airlines.

 

[dad]

No, my point that flood apologists have to rely on invoking the supernatural in order to keep their models from being crushed under the weight of reality.

That is foolish. How could God directing Noah to build the ark, sending the flood waters, and animals, and closing the door to the ark be 'natural'???

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is foolish. How could God directing Noah to build the ark, sending the flood waters, and animals, and closing the door to the ark be 'natural'???

Good question, so why do religious people keep arguing it would work without magic?

 

[dad]

No, my point that flood apologists have to rely on invoking the supernatural in order to keep their models from being crushed under the weight of reality.

Absurd. The reality is that you do not know many things about the ark. Therefore dreaming up one that cannot float properly is your own invention.

 

[dad]

Good question, so why do religious people keep arguing it would work without magic?

Exactly. Of all the people who insist on explaining creation and all things without God, one would think believers would not be among them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly. Of all the people who insist on explaining creation and all things without God, one would think believers would not be among them.

One would think -- except some believers are so desperate that they'll use anything they can come across to validate their beliefs... including science.

 

[dad]

One would think -- except some believers are so desperate that they'll use anything they can come across to validate their beliefs... including science.

To use science is fine.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, what we are describing is the flood model as described in the Bible.

The bible reveals a slow moving flood that took 40 days from the time it started to reach and float the ark.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It was, at best a 437ft long barge.

Gen 6:16 describes a building, not a ship or barge.

"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."

Ships use the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. Buildings use the terms windows, doors, and stories.
The ark was a building.

 

[dad]

Gen 6:16 describes a building, not a ship or barge.

"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."

Ships use the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. Buildings use the terms windows, doors, and stories.
The ark was a building.

A portal is just a modern word for a type of window actually. Hatches and decks also are modern terms for concepts that once were named other things.

 

[janxharris]

The ark was a building.

Why are stipulating this?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly. Of all the people who insist on explaining creation and all things without God, one would think believers would not be among them.

I completely agree with you, if a deity is making talking bushes which are on fire, makes pillars of fire, and has the power to flood the world, I think it could spare a bit of magic to keep the ark floating. But hey, if people are going to keep insisting that the ark could float on its own, I'll continue to debate against that point, just because I get bored sometimes.

 

[Armoured]

Gen 6:16 describes a building, not a ship or barge.

"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."

Ships use the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. Buildings use the terms windows, doors, and stories.
The ark was a building.

Assuming the writers of the account were familiar with maritime terminology.

 

[janxharris]

I completely agree with you, if a deity is making talking bushes which are on fire, makes pillars of fire, and has the power to flood the world, I think it could spare a bit of magic to keep the ark floating. But hey, if people are going to keep insisting that the ark could float on its own, I'll continue to debate against that point, just because I get bored sometimes.

Researchers’ Stunning Claim About Noah’s Ark Might Surprise You | TheBlaze.com

 

[janxharris]

https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/676/475