ThouShaltNotPoe
Learn whatever I can.
Yes you did. Your previous post said:
If you weren't referring to "junk DNA", tell me what you were talking about? What other kind of "junk" would apply in that context?
Upvote
0
Where do the flood strata start and end?
- Thread starter troodon
- Start date
Yes you did. Your previous post said:
If you weren't referring to "junk DNA", tell me what you were talking about? What other kind of "junk" would apply in that context?
ThouShaltNotPoe
Learn whatever I can.
OK. With that clarified, why is "junk DNA" relevant to the discussion----and how does it address the OP: Where do the flood strata begin and end?
The closest thing to an answer to that question that I've ever seen on CF was "the K-T boundary layers". But that was debunked long ago because of the many animal burrow/tunnels which SURELY no creationist would ever claim could have withstood an entire YEAR of inundation by what they claim was violent, churning flood waters---almost six miles deep, many creationists insist. [The startling "the flood was 15 cubits above Mt. Everest" is based on a traditional misunderstanding of the Hebrew syntax in Genesis 7:20. Noah's Flood was only 15 cubits deep IN TOTAL *and* it covered the highest HARIM, "hills". That could easily be visually determined by him. But haven't they ever wondered how Noah would go about managing some 29,000+ feet of depth sounding rope? And this is yet another example of where the Biblical text evidence is disputed but the evidence from God's creation is INDISPUTABLE! God tells us through the evidence he placed in the earth itself that Noah's flood was neither 5+ miles deep nor GLOBAL. The Creator blessed us with TWO excellent books for our consultation.We can use BOTH to answer our questions. Sadly, many creationists disrespect God's Book of Creation because it debunks their favorite traditions!]
So if young earth creationists are going to claim that there is geologic evidence for a global flood, they should have no problems identifying WHERE we can find that evidence throughout the planet! The flood strata should provide CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the flood was GLOBAL (even if the Biblical text contains no evidence of a GLOBAL flood.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ChetSinger
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I have little interest in geology so I won't pursue this. I only mentioned the ENCODE stuff because papias and pshun2424 began discussing common descent.
Upvote
0
ThouShaltNotPoe
Learn whatever I can.
OK. Fair enough.
I do hope that someone on these forums will step up to address the OP. Young earth creationists keep telling me that they have abundant evidence for a global flood---but they won't tell me which strata I should look in to find them?
Upvote
0
TSNP:>>I do hope that someone on these forums will step up to address the OP. Young earth creationists keep telling me that they have abundant evidence for a global flood---but they won't tell me which strata I should look in to find them?
Dear TSNP, The USS Thresher imploded at a depth of some 2k feet. According to Scripture, the Ark was 15 cubits above the tallest mountains. On this Earth, that means that water would be covering our Planet for more than 29k feet exerting a tremendous crushing pressure.
This fact shows that our Planet has NEVER suffered a Global Flood. Scripture does not say that Noah's flood was on this Earth, Instead, God's Holy Word shows that it was the world that THEN WAS which was totally and completely destroyed. The world of Adam was destroyed but NOT our Earth. That is obvious since we are still here.
The heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW will be burned. Read ll Peter 3:3-7 and you will see that it is useless to try to find evidence of a Global Flood on our Earth.
In Love,
Aman
Dear TSNP, The USS Thresher imploded at a depth of some 2k feet. According to Scripture, the Ark was 15 cubits above the tallest mountains. On this Earth, that means that water would be covering our Planet for more than 29k feet exerting a tremendous crushing pressure.
This fact shows that our Planet has NEVER suffered a Global Flood. Scripture does not say that Noah's flood was on this Earth, Instead, God's Holy Word shows that it was the world that THEN WAS which was totally and completely destroyed. The world of Adam was destroyed but NOT our Earth. That is obvious since we are still here.
The heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW will be burned. Read ll Peter 3:3-7 and you will see that it is useless to try to find evidence of a Global Flood on our Earth.
In Love,
Aman
Upvote
0
ThouShaltNotPoe
Learn whatever I can.
I certainly agree that the Hebrew text says nothing to indicate the flood was GLOBAL. It only refers to the ERETZ ("land"), not "planet earth", being flooded.
But as to "15 cubits above the tallest mountain." The Hebrew in Genesis 7:19 and 20 is tricky. My conclusion is that the 15 cubits IN HEIGHT (there is no Hebrew word of that period for "depth" per se) and the "covered the highest HARIM" [hill or mountain] ARE IN SEPARATE CLAUSES. To put it another way, some translators put a semicolon stop between them.
That makes sense for the fact that Noah would have no means of measuring such a depth of over 29,000 feet. No, he simply observed that the tallest HILLS were covered and the waters of the flood were 15 cubits high. What we can say FOR SURE is that the Hebrew of that passage is hard to be dogmatic about as to the depth of the water.
Of course, judging by today's geologic evidence, there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.
Upvote
0
TSNP:>>But as to "15 cubits above the tallest mountain." The Hebrew in Genesis 7:19 and 20 is tricky. My conclusion is that the 15 cubits IN HEIGHT (there is no Hebrew word of that period for "depth" per se) and the "covered the highest HARIM" [hill or mountain] ARE IN SEPARATE CLAUSES. To put it another way, some translators put a semicolon stop between them.
That makes sense for the fact that Noah would have no means of measuring such a depth of over 29,000 feet. No, he simply observed that the tallest HILLS were covered and the waters of the flood were 15 cubits high. What we can say FOR SURE is that the Hebrew of that passage is hard to be dogmatic about as to the depth of the water.
Dear TSNP, You are correct. Since the waters were NEVER on this Earth, they did not have to be 29k feet deep. They could have been 15 cubits deep and STILL have covered the highest hills of Adam's Earth.
TSNP:>>Of course, judging by today's geologic evidence, there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.
Amen. The Flood destroyed the world of Adam and NOT the present world. Those who look for the Flood here will NEVER be able to find it. The only remnants which could possibly be found, on our Planet, are the remains of the Firmament or the Ark. I would suggest looking for them in Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat, since a ship 450 feet long would fit better in the largest Lake in the region, instead of on a mountain top.
In Love,
Aman
That makes sense for the fact that Noah would have no means of measuring such a depth of over 29,000 feet. No, he simply observed that the tallest HILLS were covered and the waters of the flood were 15 cubits high. What we can say FOR SURE is that the Hebrew of that passage is hard to be dogmatic about as to the depth of the water.
Dear TSNP, You are correct. Since the waters were NEVER on this Earth, they did not have to be 29k feet deep. They could have been 15 cubits deep and STILL have covered the highest hills of Adam's Earth.
TSNP:>>Of course, judging by today's geologic evidence, there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.
Amen. The Flood destroyed the world of Adam and NOT the present world. Those who look for the Flood here will NEVER be able to find it. The only remnants which could possibly be found, on our Planet, are the remains of the Firmament or the Ark. I would suggest looking for them in Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat, since a ship 450 feet long would fit better in the largest Lake in the region, instead of on a mountain top.
In Love,
Aman
Upvote
0
I addressed it almost immediately. I also gave the reasons why such a venture would not be possible. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the beginning posts...they also contain rebuttals against my address of the OP and rebuttals to the rebuttals etc., then over time other factors I believe are related were somewhat glossed over sometimes ignored or refuted in the opinion of others...there is no single discernible "flood Strata" and there are reasons why it would not be able to be discerned but because the argument demonstrates that gradualistic uniformitarianism cannot be true it was rejected and vehemently fought against by those who insist on this disproved perspective. In simple form, if gradualistic uniformitarianism is correct then the earth would demonstrate much more consistency in the number of geological layers and the specific kind of layers would appear in the appropriate places in the column much more consistently around the world (which they do not). Then it spun off into a whole slew of different (I believe) related subjects that must be viewed as a whole and explained coherently that IMO has not been "explained" (not proven) adequately...for example I could bring up why conglomerate cone structures and sea fossils appear on mountain tops all over the world (while in many cases being so much younger than the mountains themselves) which refutes them all occurring when the moountains in question rose out of the sea and the rebuttals would flow (as so typically predictable) explaining (in other words there interpretation of the data in light of their preconceived conclusion) each as a separate case or explaining how these things "could" happen (could be not being equal to is), and so on...
The input of Chet Singer's Encode project WAS indeed relative at the time he posted it. Encode (and many other such investigation based conclusions by "real" scientists) demonstrates what the neo-Darwinian school called "junk" and defined as being archaic residue from a past ancestral inheritances is neither junk nor necessarily any evidence at all that common descent is proved herewith.
The answer to the OP is NO! One cannot "prove" any particular strata as being "the flood layer".
In His love
Paul
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ChetSinger
Well-Known Member
Hello. I find this subject interesting. But sorry, it's not my practice to engage atheists here because this is a Christian-only part of the forum.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
