alehm said:
This is a scientific assumption that I have been talking about.
It's not an assumption. It's a
deduction from the statements of the original theory. Remember, the geography pre-Flood in the Bible is the same as the geography post-Flood. And Genesis 6-8 does say that the water covered the mountains, so there were mountains before the Flood.
The assumption is the mountain was always a mountain and will always be a mountain. Mountains form around tetonic plates. There are tetonic plates all over the ocean floor, could it be possible that a mountain was at one time under the sea? Hawaii is nothing more than a mountain that sprung up from the ocean floor.
Now you are changing the statements of the theory so that you can avoid the falsification. You are claiming that these particular mountains were formed during the year of the Flood. Specifically, you are claiming that they were ocean bottom thru the first part of the Flood and then were thrust up to their present height toward the end of the Flood. Right?
OK, that modified statement can also be tested:
1. We don't find the fossils of mobile mammals on
any mountaintops, do we? What happened to the mountains mentioned in Genesis 6-8? Aren't they still there?
2. What independent tests do you have to determine that this mountain (Alps) was formed during the Flood?
3. How much crustal movement is needed to get these mountains? What type of earthquakes and tsumanis result from the crustal movements we see today? Could any craft survive such seas for these crustal movements? i.e. the Ark is drowned.
4. Why are the sediments at the tops of mountains rock? Sedimentary rock only forms from extensive pressure on the sediments. If these were the upper levels of the seafloor and were then thrust up to be the tops of mountains, there was never any pressure on them to transform the sediments to rock.
I could go on but you get the idea. However, the rate of seafloor spreading due to plate tectonics has been measured using flows at the mid-oceanic ridge. They show that plate tectonics did not move nearly fast enough to do what you need.
I hope you aren't proposing science has proved that dead animals don't float? If living animals drowned on the top of a mountain that once underwater gravity and a current wouldn't either move it down or that it wouldn't float away and deposit somewhere else?
No, dead animals sink. That's how you find the carcasses of fish today on the bottom of the ocean and not simply floating.
You have problems with Dinosaur National Park in Utah. These fossils of dinos are high up in mountains. And they were drowned in a Flood.
I thought the bible said the earth was flooded for more than a year?
It does.
Oh wait, that is for inbred christians who can't think to believe an actual number of days the earth was actually flooded.
You know, I haven't insulted you like this, have I? Then why are you trying to make insults where there aren't any? Are you hoping I'll respond in kind so you can ignore evidence and just point a finger at those "awful, insulting evolutionists"?
Yup and it proves God is really the greatest comedian ever. God asked Noak to spend 120 years of his life building a boat for a local flood instead of asking him to move somewhere where it wasn't going to flood.
The story isn't literal, remember? Therefore there is no need to try to make God look foolish by sticking with a literal interpretation.
I'm not trying to make God look foolish, why are you?
If the Flood was local isn't God still making the point that He can punish the unrighteous and still protect the righteous? Isn't that point made better by saving Noah rather than having him move away?
I bet everytime he looked at the various birds on the Ark he just laughed and laughed and wouldn't let them out of the cage to go live with the other birds that were happily living in trees on dry land right outside.
Who says it really was a year? Who says Noah took every bird and not just the domesticated chickens (who don't fly very well)? It's not literal, remember? Also, if Noah's entire world was the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, of course he was going to wait until the waters there subsided. You forget the limited perspective of peoples past.
Alehm, science
started out accepting the Flood as true. From 1700-1831 Flood Geology was
the accepted scientific theory. The geologists of the time, all Christians, most ministers, and all creationists, falsified the Flood.
"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:
Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143) Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126
