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

[freezerman2000]

Thus far, but research is continuing into this.



Science deals with observing and explaining the universe. It looks at repeatable and testable phenomena in its explanations. How is it limited? If you start including supernatural explanations the whole discipline would be worthless and pointless.



When you've stopped your self-righteous laughter I'll explain. Science looks at the repeatable and the testable in order to come to explanations of how the universe works. God does not behave in this way so cannot be part of the explanations.



If they found repeatable, testable and solid evidence for any such phenomena then it would be examined by the scientific community, leading to further research by others and eventually lead to peer reviewed literature. That's how it works. Not one such investigator has found any sort of scientific evidence, hence why such ideas have so far been rejected.



I know, it's quite a conundrum.



People like me? Have you not noticed I'm a Christian?



We can measure the speed at which the plates move and how they interact. It's out explanation for earthquakes and volcanoes. It's a central pillar of modern geology.



Au contraire, ice cores can give us a good look at past atmospheric conditions. It also depends when you postulate the flood happened. If you believe it was sometime in the last 6000 years we will have a much more accurate idea than if it supposedly happened a lot longer ago.



Where do you get the 92% claim from? Are you saying that light and water behaved differently before the flood, meaning that rainbows weren't possible? Could it not just be a nice story and an explanation in ancient times for what rainbows were?



There are experts in geology on this board who can give you a better answer than I could. Needless to say that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood of the kind that you are supposing. More likely there was a local flood which greatly damaged a culture which experienced it. The lack of knowledge of the size of the world could lead to it being interpreted as a worldwide event.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now as to your question, those of us who have the cpacity for reasoning might indeed ask why there are fossils on mountain peaks, and more importanly, why evidence of fossils at high altitudes would NOT be evidence that those peaks were indeed under water.

Since we find hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone this represents long time periods of being under water, not a year. That's the first hurdle. As to how they get there, the answer is plate tectonics. That is how the Himilayas are being formed right now, and we can actually measure the rate of uplift. A flood does not produce hundreds of feet of limestone in a single year.

As to the presence of fossils on mountain peaks, you can post your theory and another can posit their theory. That doesn't mean that either is going to believe the other's sources or take their opinions as anything other than opinions.

You have already shown that you are immune to both reason and logic. The seashells are not ON the moutains. They are IN the mountains. How does a flood put fossils into the middle of a mountain?

If thre was no flood, there should be no fossils.

So non-flooding aquatic environments are not capable of producing fossils? Really? So the limestone we see forming at a few mm per year in tropical areas is just an illusion?

Almost every culture records the same story;

No, they don't. The stories from culture to culture differ greatly. It is quite obvious that they have different origins.

The Great Flood was not a scientific phenomenon, it was a supernatural happening.

So now a year long global flood will not leave evidence? Really?

Science cannot account for origination,

Yes it can, and it does. Science can tell you the origin of a storm system, the origin of salt in a salt deposit, and much, much more.

Science convinces the foolish that the natural world is all that exists, despite an entire world of evidence to the contrary that you can't see because you're blind.

What evidence? Please show us this evidence. Where is this evidence of a recent global flood?

 

[KWCrazy]

Thus far, but research is continuing into this.

You can research into anything you want to, but the wishfulness of a theory deosn't make it any more accurate. The first law of thermodynamics renders origination impossible and Louis Pasteur proved that abiogenesis does not happen. Until you can invalidate the first law you have no explanation for the origination of the universe, and until you can replicate abiogenesis you cannot claim that it's scientific. You are basing your "scientific" beliefs in things that are the antithesis of science.

Science deals with observing and explaining the universe. It looks at repeatable and testable phenomena in its explanations. How is it limited?

Science is limited to what can be seen, observed and tested. It cannot account for the supernatural and can ONLY BE accurate with things that have a natural causation. It can recognize spontaneous combustion if oily rags are kept in an enclosed container, but it cannot account for fire raining out of the sky. It cannot measure the age of a world that was created intact by God. It cannot use lights from a star as a method of dating if that light was visible from earth the instant that star was created. It can't use radiometric dating if that isotope was NEVER in 100% integrity. It can't explain the origin of a man God created by breathing onto a mound of dirt. And can't prove or disprove anything in the Bible. Archeologists use the Bible to find lost cities and find it to be incredibly accurate, but the supernatural actions of God fly in the face of natural law. Science can't explain how a single miracle happened. Science can't explain how the Holy Spirit functions, but millions have experience His presence. Millions have seen angels. Millions have seen demons. Millions have witnessed miracles. An honest assessment of science admits that there are things it cannot confirm or falsify. It only relates to the study of the physical world.

If you start including supernatural explanations the whole discipline would be worthless and pointless.

If causation is supernatural in nature, then science cannot possibly ever discover the truth.

Science looks at the repeatable and the testable in order to come to explanations of how the universe works.

Exactly! How it works. Science can only speculate about origination because origination violates all physical laws. Science can tell you that a star is a thousand light years away, but it can't explain why man saw the light from it the first night after he was created.

If they found repeatable, testable and solid evidence for any such phenomena then it would be examined by the scientific community, leading to further research by others and eventually lead to peer reviewed literature.

Hiow do you find repeatable, testable evidence of something supernatural? You CAN test it. You can reach out to evil spirits and if they want to respond they will, but there's no promise that they will, or once they come there is no promise they will ever leave. If you proclaim that there has never been a haunting then most will consider you a fool. If you say there has never been a demonic possession then how would you explain Jesus and the disciples casting out unclean spirits? It has been said that the greatest trick the devil ever performed was to convince the world he didn't exist. Why, then, would he prove it to you?

Not one such investigator has found any sort of scientific evidence, hence why such ideas have so far been rejected.

Absolutely false. Evidence has been gathered, but it's usually inconclusive. Voices are heard on tapes but they blend in with white noise. Orbs of light or light figures which occur on film are dismissed as either hoaxes or anomalies of the development process. Eyewitnesses tosupernatural phenomenon are called delusional. It is human nature to resist admitting there are things we cannot control and things that we cannot explain through the science of the physical world.

People like me? Have you not noticed I'm a Christian?

No. How would I know that? By your rejection of the Scriptures? By your rejection of the teachings of Christ? I look at the argument you post, not the icon you choose. Your belief or disbelief is between you and God. I'm defending the Scriptures against all it's enemies, foreign or domestic. Christ proclaimed that the Scriptures were accurate. He mentioned Noah by name and spoke about Adam and Eve. He taught that the words of Moses were inspired by God. He could have corrected ANYTHING in the Old Testament, but He did not. He came to fulfill the Scriptures, not to destroy them. Christ never once said that man evolved from simple life forms, or that the Great Flood was local, yet He corrected the high priests on their mistranslations and taught from the Scriptures as one with authority.

We can measure the speed at which the plates move and how they interact. It's out explanation for earthquakes and volcanoes. It's a central pillar of modern geology.

However, we don't know what the original condition was, how the flood may have changed the earth's geography or whether that speed is constant.

Au contraire, ice cores can give us a good look at past atmospheric conditions. It also depends when you postulate the flood happened. If you believe it was sometime in the last 6000 years we will have a much more accurate idea than if it supposedly happened a lot longer ago.

If we use current freeze/thaw cycles, sure. We have no idea if they reflect a static cycle or if things were dramatically different earlier. Also, since the earth was created in its mature state, we don't know the original condition. We use inductive reasoning to extrapolate what we know into what we think we know, but that's the most inaccurate form of reasoning.

Where do you get the 92% claim from?

From science.

Look it up. Actually, the souces I've found more recently are saying 95%.

Are you saying that light and water behaved differently before the flood, meaning that rainbows weren't possible?

You're a Christian, do you think God lied when He showed Noah the first rainbow as his promise that He would never again destroy the world by flood?

If there were no rainbows before, the atmospheric condition changed, didn't it?

Could it not just be a nice story and an explanation in ancient times for what rainbows were?

Golly, Gee. Let's all color a peace pony and worship our God of lies who made up a story about the fiorst rainbow. NO! It can't just be a nice story, because God DOES NOT LIE!

Needless to say that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood of the kind that you are supposing.

So you're saying that Jesus, who was there to witness it, also lied about the Great Flood so that over two thousand years after His death people would finally discover the truth? Naaaw. I'll leave that to people who have no faith in the Scriptures and who teach others that it's only a book of mythology.

More likely there was a local flood which greatly damaged a culture which experienced it.

Will at least one of you local flood believers show me ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where a local flood could cover a mountain peak and take a year to subside?

The lack of knowledge of the size of the world could lead to it being interpreted as a worldwide event.

You mean Jesus didn't know either? He believed that all living things that breathed air and were not on the ark perished as well.

 

[Lethe]

The first law of thermodynamics renders origination impossible....

Please elaborate on that.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If there were no rainbows before, the atmospheric condition changed, didn't it?

Was just curious about one point in your highly entertaining post. Rainbows appear when light is reflected into our eyes from water droplets in the atmosphere (which is why the sun is always behind you when you look at a rainbow). So, just to clarify, which atmospheric conditions are you changing?

 

[Lethe]

On second thought, don't respond to my question KWCrazy. I want to see how much you know on the topic of internal reflections. Explain rainbows.

 

[KWCrazy]

Rainbows appear when light is reflected into our eyes from water droplets in the atmosphere (which is why the sun is always behind you when you look at a rainbow).

I know this, which is why rainbows happen most frequently when the sun is low in the sky, like early morhing or late afternoon.

So, just to clarify, which atmospheric conditions are you changing?

Not being God, I didn't change anything. However, something had to change so either because there were no rainbows previous to the flood.

 

[Lethe]

Not being God, I didn't change anything. However, something had to change so either because there were no rainbows previous to the flood.

Wow. That's specific. Do you know under what conditions total internal reflection occurs?

 

[KWCrazy]

Since we find hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone this represents long time periods of being under water, not a year.

...(E)arth’s limestone holds a thousand times more calcium and carbon than today’s atmosphere, oceans, coal, oil, and living matter combined. A simple, visual examination of limestone grains shows that few are ground-up seashells or corals, as some believe....


Today, when limestone forms at the earth’s surface, the released CO2 enters the biosphere—the atmosphere, soil, and surface waters of the earth. Before the flood, vast amounts of limestone steadily precipitated onto the subterranean chamber floor, but the released CO2 was confined to the chamber, unable to escape into the biosphere. That CO2 again dissolved in subterranean water and was used to dissolve more minerals in the chamber’s ceiling and floor. Therefore, earth’s preflood limestone was produced without the obvious life-extinguishing problem...
source


The shells of many animals, those that live either in the sea or in freshwater, consist of calcium carbonate (calcite and aragonite). When the animals die, their shells are left on the ocean floor, lake bottom or river bed where they may accumulate into thick deposits....

Calcium carbonate is more soluble in water that contains carbon dioxide than in pure water. When the carbon dioxide is removed for any reason, (Plants remove carbon dioxide by using it in their food. When water is heated, evaporated or merely stirred, carbon dioxide is decreased) the calcium carbonate falls out of the solution and settles to the bottom.
source

Different researchers, different conclusions, differing opinions regarding origins. Different truths, or different interpretations of data?

Personally I'll take the word of the Creator over any scientist, regardless of their credentials. It takes "millions of years" to make a diamond, but we can do it in much less time by applying greater pressure. Imagine how much pressure 10,000 feet of water could exert.

As to how they get there, the answer is plate tectonics. That is how the Himilayas are being formed right now, and we can actually measure the rate of uplift.

Plate tectonics doesn't solve the issue that there WERE mountains at the time, including the mountains of arart and that they were covered by water.

A flood does not produce hundreds of feet of limestone in a single year.

How many 10,000 foot deep floods have you studied?

You have already shown that you are immune to both reason and logic.

Nice flame, but I won't respond in kind.

The seashells are not ON the moutains.

Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains.
source

They are IN the mountains. How does a flood put fossils into the middle of a mountain?

They aren't found in the middle of mountains. They are found in rocks throughout the mountain including at the summit.

So non-flooding aquatic environments are not capable of producing fossils?

We aren't discussing fossils found in aquatic areas where one could expect them to be found, we are speaking on fossils throughout the world including and especially on mountain peaks.

Regardless, let's say that the mountains described in the Bible are only 500 feet high, and that's the tallest mountain on earth. The fact is, to cover it would still require a global flood because gravity will pull the water to a uniform depth (sea level) in relation to the center of the earth.

No, they don't. The stories from culture to culture differ greatly. It is quite obvious that they have different origins.

Or they were re-told incorrectly, as others have already pointed out.

So now a year long global flood will not leave evidence? Really?

Evidence? Sure. Proof? No. Any evidence posted will immediately be attacked and theories will be offered about how it "could have" happened. Offering alternative explanations only constitutes a refutation in the mind of an evolutionist.

Yes it can, and it does. Science can tell you the origin of a storm system, the origin of salt in a salt deposit, and much, much more. [/QUOTE]

Good way to duck the statement. It can't tell the origin of the earth, of the universe, of life etc.

What evidence? Please show us this evidence. Where is this evidence of a recent global flood?

You don't want evidence, you want proof. You can't handle the proof.

 

[freezerman2000]

 

[Lethe]

Alright, since KWCrazy is ignoring the issue, I'll explain it.

The index of refraction of air is nearly one (1.00029 or something). Only metals and plasmas (can) have index of refractions less than 1. The index of refraction of water is 1.33.

Why does this matter? ANY material with an index of refraction greater than one would create a reflecting ring of light. The only materials that would NOT exhibit a rainbow effect in air are those with an index of refraction very close to one. And any material with an index of refraction close to one is transparent in air. That is, you wouldn't be able to see the boundary between the air and the material.

I don't seem to remember the bible remarking that water/air boundaries were indistinguishable prior to Noah, and I think that's something of a big detail to overlook.

 

[freezerman2000]

Alright, since KWCrazy is ignoring the issue, I'll explain it.

The index of refraction of air is nearly one (1.00029 or something). Only metals and plasmas (can) have index of refractions less than 1. The index of refraction of water is 1.33.

Why does this matter? ANY material with an index of refraction greater than one would create a reflecting ring of light. The only materials that would NOT exhibit a rainbow effect in air are those with an index of refraction very close to one. And any material with an index of refraction close to one is transparent in air. That is, you wouldn't be able to see the boundary between the air and the material.

I don't seem to remember the bible remarking that water/air boundaries were indistinguishable prior to Noah, and I think that's something of a big detail to overlook.

The Bible overlooked quite a few things..like the PROCESSES involved in Creation and the beginnings of life-all the way through to how we came to look like we do--PROCESSES,people,not three or four words!

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible overlooked quite a few things..like the PROCESSES involved in Creation...

Really?

Here's the process: God spoke and it happened.

What more do you need?

I wouldn't even call it a process ... it is more like obedience.

 

[freezerman2000]

AV,that is NOT a process..That's like the three or four words I was alluding to.
I'm talking about the chemical and biological processes involved..not a magical "poof and there it was".

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't even call it a process ...

AV,that is NOT a process..

How astute of you.

 

[freezerman2000]

So, mine my post to make it look like something I did not post..how droll of you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, mine my post to make it look like something I did not post..how droll of you.

... Huh?

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm talking about the chemical and biological processes involved..not a magical "poof and there it was".

There were no chemical or bilogical processes involved. If you want to be technical, you can call it a change from energy into matter since from God's will (energy) the universe came into being. There was no process involved. Everything that was created was created in its mature form. God created trees bearing fruit, not seeds that would become saplings and then trees. Adam was a mature man who could walk, talk and take care of himself seconds after being created. Flowers were created before the sun. No process, just God's will.

 

[freezerman2000]

There were no chemical or bilogical processes involved. If you want to be technical, you can call it a change from energy into matter since from God's will (energy) the universe came into being. There was no process involved. Everything that was created was created in its mature form. God created trees bearing fruit, not seeds that would become saplings and then trees. Adam was a mature man who could walk, talk and take care of himself seconds after being created. Flowers were created before the sun. No process, just God's will.

For every act of Creation, there had to be processes involved-the geological and fossil records show that to be true..Neolithic man just couldn't understand what was involved..Genesis is a simplified account..so that those who it was written for could relate to it.

 

[freezerman2000]

... Huh?

When someone chops up a post like you did..puts it in quotes and attributes it to another poster, that ain't cool.It no longer is that other poster's words.
If you want to quote me,quote all of the sentence!That way, it won't look like I said something entirely different.