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

USincognito said:

There hasn't been a "Hebrew people" in ~2000 years.

Click to expand...

The Bible says there will be 144,000 pure and undefiled. 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. God has kept them pure onto Himself. Did you see the movie: "A Stranger Among Us"?

Joshua0 said:

The Bible says there will be 144,000 pure and undefiled. 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. God has kept them pure onto Himself. Did you see the movie: "A Stranger Among Us"?

Click to expand...

No. And if it claims "Hebrew people" exist today, then it belongs in the fiction section.

How about trying to address the actual problem of genetic bottlenecks instead of changing the subject?

Subduction Zone said:

He was plain old wrong. For the first several thousand layers counting can be done by eye. Then the deeper in the core they go they use various overlapping methods of counting. There is no circular reasoning. Sometimes they check their dates against other sites. But circular reasoning is not used.

Volcanic dust is recognizable as such and can be used as a very accurate marker for beds that it appears in. The claim that it could come from erosion is either wishful thinking or an outright lie by your source.

Click to expand...

if you count by eye you still are using the definitions provided by the circular argument. For example, if I told you that one ring ment 10 years on a tree, versus 1 year. The age would then be 10X older than it truly is simply because of a calibration of the dating mechanism.

You would have to prove the dating method, not simply state that you did it by "eye."

(no lies here, just sometimes very blunt honesty-lol)

Joshua0 said:

I do not know what your talking about. Noah's flood is what we would call a "LOCAL" FLOOD because only Noah's ecosystem was flooded, not the whole biosphere.

Click to expand...

interesting. That means that there was not enough water to float the boat! Also no need to spend 70 years of hard hard labor, cutting wood with a jig saw and plastering pitch onto planks! Why not take a hike for 15 miles? I mean people hike half dome in yosemite in one day (18 miles! with a 3000 foot change in altitude). Hiking for 50 miles in one week would not be a problem, I have done that myself while traveling.

In fact let me give it the benefit of the doubt, say they only hiked 25 miles a month! That would put them 200 miles removed in the first year. 2000 miles removed in the first decade. And by the time 70-100 years were up. (because shem was logically 20 years old when the message came to noah, and 98 when the flood came (98-20=68 years approx).

so technically Noah and fam could have walked at a relatively slow pace around earth nearly!

(24,859.82 miles around)


So a local flood would not be a threat to him?

How do you reconciled the wasted energy of an ark, when all that needed to happen was a little walk.

Animals migrate themselves very efficiently, no need to stock up food, hay, water for animals either!

The ark was a divine waste of time and money in this view!

again how do you reconcile these contradictions!

Thanks for the post

(let me know if you need any scripture quotes regarding the above information)

freezerman2000 said:

And erosion is one of the powers that God bestowed on His creation..are you questioning that?

Click to expand...

I have my doubts about that.

That's like Leonardo da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa with self-destructing paint.

"This painting will self-destruct in 5 years."

USincognito said:

How about trying to address the actual problem of genetic bottlenecks instead of changing the subject?

Click to expand...

There was no "genetic bottleneck" created by the Flood.

The gene pool back then was much purer than it is now, so "interbreeding" would not have been a problem back then.

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

AV1611VET said:

I didn't read it, and I have no intention of doing so.

It was probably written from a scientific standpoint ... meaning scientists are vindicating scientists.

Romans 2:15b ... and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Click to expand...

So you and Josh and Gradyll can't comment on Creationism, as that would be creationists trying to vindicate creationists?

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, AVET has decided that even with all of its countless self contradictions, failed prophecies, and bad science that he has decided to believe the Bible regardless what it says.

Real life evidence means nothing to him.

Click to expand...

is there any Bible contradictions that I can help you with?

You apparently have this idea all packaged up like it's a done deal..

Maybe you should let out some of your frustrations?

florida2 said:

So you and Josh and Gradyll can't comment on Creationism, as that would be creationists trying to vindicate creationists?

Click to expand...

give him a break, I mean you guys rarely if every read any links I post.

I have to spell it out, summarize etc or it's right over the head.

lol

(I don't blame him, nor you, for not reading the propaganda of the oposing parties).

I just think it's funny because we all do it,


ALL OF US!

Subduction Zone said:

I would love to see creationists try to reproduce this landform rapidly:

Click to expand...

water can cut through steel, etc.

I find it hard to believe faster water can't cut through granite, limestone etc.

It is highly probable at least some of the gullies found in the world were the product of underwater slurry erosion "turbitity currents." While there was over 300 days of water.

Joshua0 said:

The Bible says there will be 144,000 pure and undefiled. 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. God has kept them pure onto Himself. Did you see the movie: "A Stranger Among Us"?

Click to expand...

Hi josh thank you for your posts they are very interesting. In one previous post you mention not believing in a Global flood, this is your perogative. I don't judge OEC followers, I have two sisters who are athiestic evolutionists. But I see things differently, for example... how do you reconcile the need for an ARK? Or hauling around animals which migrate very effectively on foot? Or all the Biblical scriptures mentioning it?

Please quote chapter and verse,

lets discuss this.

here is a link I found this morning, (saved to bookmarks)

it summarizes many of the arguments I have used in this forum in the last months. Note: I did not use the fossils on the mountains due to uplift canceling out the idea of it deposited during receeding waters versus simply being deposited in the ocean floor prior to uplift.

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/Articles/Evidences for the Flood/Evidence number 3.html

also a cute little pamphlet I am reading right now:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/am/v3/n3/flood_evidence_3.pdf


also on your ideas of genetic bottleneck, it would be refreshing to know that in the early days genetic code was more straight forward....I forget the wording but check the video....

"where did cain get his wife- ken ham"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_W1Qg-3g

gradyll said:

give him a break, I mean you guys rarely if every read any links I post.

Click to expand...

I was just, once again, showing the weakness and lack of any logic in AV's argument.

USincognito said:

No. And if it claims "Hebrew people" exist today, then it belongs in the fiction section.

Click to expand...

I do not care what you call them. There are actually a LOT of people that call Abraham their father and the DNA shows they are telling the truth. Not just the Jewish people, but the muslims also.

USincognito said:

Did those experiments use a small amount of water to cut deep, nearly vertical trenches in sandstone, limestone, granite and bedrock?

Click to expand...

I think you have flume experiments wrong. See all flume experiments usually do is show how large amounts of water cut very fast, not small amounts of water. I believe it was John Morris who stated something like "a lot of water a little time, or a little water a lot of time." However in flume experiments this is not the case, a little water does nothing in flume experiments. You see it's not the water cutting the canyons it's the aggregate/rocks/sand that are floating in the water. Water itself is relatively soft. Don't get me wrong, pure water under pressure (key word) can cut, but abrasive water is by far the prevailent erosional fluid. More info: Abrasive Waterjet Cutting | Abrasive Cutting for Hard Materials: Flow Waterjet

And the gully was cut through ash and mud, not limestone, sandstone, granite and bedrock.

Click to expand...

limestone, sandstone, granite, and bedrock are all soft with the exception of granite possibly.

There are lots of canyons through bedrock that happened fast. Same with sandstone. Even the coconin sandstones layers in the grand canyon has evidence of a huge body of water depositing these vast sheets quickly.

"Evidence of Rapid Deposition
The buff-colored Coconino Sandstone
is very distinctive in the walls of
Grand Canyon. It has an average thickness
of 315 feet (96 m) and covers an
area of at least 200,000 square miles
(518,000 km2) eastward across adjoining
states.4 So the volume of sand in
the Coconino Sandstone layer is at
least 10,000 cubic miles (41,682 km3).
This layer also contains physical
features called cross beds. While the
overall layer of sandstone is horizontal,
these cross beds are clearly visible as
sloped beds (Figure 6). These beds are
remnants of the sand waves produced
by the water currents that deposited
the sand (like sand dunes, but underwater)
(Figure 7). So it can be demonstrated
that water, flowing at 3–5 miles
per hour (4.8–8 km/h), deposited the
Coconino Sandstone as massive sheets
of sand, with sand waves up to 60 feet
(18 m) high.5 At this rate, the whole
Coconino Sandstone layer (all 10,000
cubic miles of sand) would have been
deposited in just a few days!
Ayers Rock (or Uluru) in central
Australia consists of coarse-grained
sandstone beds that are almost vertical,
tilted at about 80° (Figure 8). The total
thickness of these sandstone beds,
outcropping in Ayers Rock and found
under the surrounding desert sands, is
18,000–20,000 feet (5,500–6,100 m).6
The minerals in the sand grains are distinctive,
and the closest source of them
is at least 63 miles (101 km) away.
Under the microscope the sand
grains appear jagged and are of different
sizes (Figure 9). One of the
minerals is called feldspar, and it appears
to be still unusually fresh in the
sandstone. These features imply rapid
transport and deposition of all this
sand, before the feldspar grains could
disintegrate or the sand grains could
be worn down into round pebbles or
sorted by size.7
So soup-like slurries of sediment,
known as turbidity currents, which
travel at speeds of up to 70 miles per
hour (113 km/h), must have transported
all this sand, 18,000–20,000 feet
thick, a distance of at least 63 miles
and deposited it as the Uluru Sandstone
beds in a matter of hours! This
defies evolution ideology but fits with
the Creation/Flood history of Genesis."

from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/am/v3/n3/flood_evidence_3.pdf

They don't. Plugging Steve Austin and Grand Canyon into Google Scholar doesn't produce any hits. Writing an article consistent with the ICR's statement of faith and having it appear in one of their publications is not peer review.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

the peer review was done by the USGS early 80's, author steve austin- called "little grand canyon"

I am sure it's not popular enough to be rated high on googles pay per click advertising schemes. (I like DuckDuckGo, search...but it is still a little young and needs work, Google has been corrupted from the simplicity of it's early days).



I will look for it when I have time.

gradyll said:

for example... how do you reconcile the need for an ARK?

Click to expand...

All you needed to save was the Garden of Eden. The plants and the animals in Eden. In Chapter one God created the world. In Chapter two God planted a Garden in Eden and put Adam in the Garden. Along with the animals of course.

Joshua0 said:

All you needed to save was the Garden of Eden. The plants and the animals in Eden. In Chapter one God created the world. In Chapter two God planted a Garden in Eden and put Adam in the Garden. Along with the animals of course.

Click to expand...

one problem I see,

they were banished from the entire Garden way before the Flood! Never again to set foot in.
Genesis 3:23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

and to make sure, there was an angelic guard posted to make sure they didn't sneek in:
Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

in addition to the above links to parallel Bibles, here are three more conservative english translations proving Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden:

Genesis 3:23-24
New King James Version (NKJV)
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:23-24
English Standard Version (ESV)
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:23-24
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.


In Conclusion:

it is relatively impossible to be protected in a garden that they were kicked out of!

florida2 said:

I was just, once again, showing the weakness and lack of any logic in AV's argument.

Click to expand...

If you think you're going to intimidate me into reading the Roger's Commission Report, you're wrong.

Joshua0 said:

I think maybe you need to read the generations in the bible to see who we are talking about.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you have nothing then.

A population or genetic bottleneck is an observable, in the genetic variation of a group, event. Remember, when you do not understand a word or terminology Google is your friend.

Joshua0 said:

All you needed to save was the Garden of Eden. The plants and the animals in Eden. In Chapter one God created the world. In Chapter two God planted a Garden in Eden and put Adam in the Garden. Along with the animals of course.

Click to expand...

the flood was a different time than the age of eden, you know this right?

gradyll said:

if you count by eye you still are using the definitions provided by the circular argument. For example, if I told you that one ring ment 10 years on a tree, versus 1 year. The age would then be 10X older than it truly is simply because of a calibration of the dating mechanism.

You would have to prove the dating method, not simply state that you did it by "eye."

(no lies here, just sometimes very blunt honesty-lol)

Click to expand...

No, you do not understand the meaning of the term "circular reasoning".

Again, Google is your friend. We can observe annual snow layers forming today. With trees we can observe the formation of annual tree rings. That is not circular reasoning.

You are projecting your own faults, that of using circular reasoning to support the Bible onto others.