Fossils on mountains and the hydroplate theory

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2015

SkyWriting said:
But nothing in scripture suggests a young earth.
As long as we're trusting in suggestions.
That was some buddy of the Pope who published that stuff.

I don't rely on scripture. The flood story is clearly a tall tale no matter what direction you look at it from. There is no sign of a worldwide flood. A local flood would not have killed all humans, much less all animal life, the Ark would have been superfluous.

PeterDona · Jul 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
The flood story is clearly a tall tale no matter what direction you look at it from. There is no sign of a worldwide flood.

Let us rearrange your argument: After you have explained away all the evidence by your own theories, there is to your memory nothing that needs an explanation in terms of a worldwide flood.

All the evidence is there. You just blankly refuse any interpretation that points to a flood. That's it.

I will take a break. I feel more and more convinced that I have an upper hand. Tragically, that came about after watching that "evidence" on tumbling asteroids. Internal friction? Not possible. Yah, maybe in the first 5 minutes of the existence of those asteroids, but not going through 1000s or even millions or worse yet billions of years. Get real.

Internet on standby until sunday.

SkyWriting · Jul 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
I don't rely on scripture. The flood story is clearly a tall tale no matter what direction you look at it from. There is no sign of a worldwide flood. A local flood would not have killed all humans, much less all animal life, the Ark would have been superfluous.

As I've mentioned, Jesus walked on water, and water gushed from rocks.
The flood may not have been normal water leaving "natural" results.
Going by what scripture already says about God being able to control it,
It seem likely He had full control over this water and it's effect on the planet.
If you are read up on your local flood theory, then you know that the flood did
affect all humans alive at that time. And you already know that the animals on
the Ark only included the listed classes of animals.

The Cadet · Jul 21, 2015

PeterDona said:
Let us rearrange your argument: After you have explained away all the evidence by your own theories, there is to your memory nothing that needs an explanation in terms of a worldwide flood.

All the evidence is there. You just blankly refuse any interpretation that points to a flood. That's it.

No, PeterDona, the evidence is not there. Flooding leaves tell-tale signs in the geologic record. Generally, a flooded area becomes covered in silt and mud, and you can see this in the geologic column. The very first thing any claim to a global flood must account for is why we don't find a global layer of silt and mud within the geologic column. But even beyond that...

...Ah, screw it, let's just break out the list again:

Boatbuilding: the largest ever wooden ship was built, The Wyoming, was built using iron rivets and still essentially wobbled itself to death, sinking due to structural instability. Wood is not well-suited for building giant boats, and the Ark is considerably larger than the Wyoming was, and built using considerably less advanced shipbuilding techniques, without the use of iron. It doesn't matter what wood you take; the boat simply cannot hold itself together, especially not for an entire year at sea, where issues such as weathering become a concern as well.
Altitude: "highest mountaintops"? That puts it in the so-called "dead zone", where there simply isn't enough oxygen, and the temperatures are far too low to be survivable. Unless you want to claim that the highest mountaintops were somehow considerably lower before the flood, which not only would require a rate of sediment deposition that is completely unheard of, but also presents problems in terms of mechanisms, i.e. "how did this happen".
Food: after being underwater for a year, all land plants on earth would be completely dead. While some might recover from seedlings, the fact is that anything left on earth at that point would starve to death.
Feeding: what did the lions eat? How did Noah keep literally tons of meat from spoiling? What of the animals with specialized diets?
Transportation: how did the 3-toed sloth get from Mount Ararat to South America? Why don't we find any sloth corpses or fossils in the intervening sections of land? How about the Koala, which had to cross all of Asia and the ocean between mainland asia and Australia, and only feeds on a plant that only exists in Australia (which wouldn't have survived being under miles of water either)? And why can't we find any remnants of these animals making this trip?
Spatial Geometry: how the heck do you fit so many species onto such a small boat? It's understandable that the authors of genesis knew nothing about the variations found on earth, but the fact is that there are upwards of a million known extant species of animals; estimates place the total number as high as 50 million. And never mind the food storage, and the fact that many of them have very specific diets, and the waste removal.
Parasites: what about all the various pathogens and parasites? Did Noah and his family share all of them between them?
Genetics: two of any given species is the kind of incredible genetic bottleneck that we should be able to detect in the genome. In fact, we can find bottlenecks going back considerably farther than Noah's flood (which really shouldn't be visible if the entire population was then later reduced to two). Why is the genetic diversity of the dog so much greater than that of the Cheetah?
Anthropology: how did we go from a global flood to countless massive civilizations, in a handful of generations of 8 people interbreeding? In fact, we have evidence of human civilization during the alleged timeframe of the flood, and they didn't seem particularly bothered by it.
Marine life: how exactly did fish survive the global flood? Was the flood salt- or fresh-water? Either way, we're looking at the extinction of all fish who rely on a saltwater/freshwater environment, and the Salmon are just totally screwed either way. Same with most kinds of marine plant life.
Physics: where did the water come from? Where did it go? How did it lift the Ark without destroying it?

And that's just off the top of my head, as a complete layman. I'm sure there are other sources that can go into far more detail and far more points. And I'm sure that you and other creationists can come up with bad ad-hoc explanations for these - explanations which, like the hydroplate theory, are completely untenable and cause more problems than they solve. They're never well-thought-out, almost never provide any real evidence for their claims. It's always "here's what we know, find evidence to support it", never "here's the evidence, what does it support?".

And remember, the moment you invoke a "miracle" or "divine providence", you've lost. You've given up. You've made it clear that the scientific evidence we have does not point to a flood. If you can invoke magic to explain away an unfortunate part of your theory, there is literally not a single hypothesis in existence that you could not validate in that way. And if you have to invoke magic, it's clear that your hypothesis is nonsense.

What I really want to impart here the most is how frustrating this is. It is the 21st century. We understand more about the universe around us than we ever have before. The fact that you can post on this forum means that you have access to as much knowledge as you care to find. And yet, we still have intelligent, thoughtful people who think that 4,000 years ago, a man built a boat, put two of every animal on earth on it, and then a supernatural entity flooded the entire world. It's ridiculous. This is not the kind of thing we still need to be debating! Not when it was settled and laid to rest more than 200 years ago!

SkyWriting · Jul 21, 2015

The Cadet said:
a man built a boat, put two of every animal on earth on it, and then a supernatural entity flooded the entire world.

He had help.
Only certain classes of animals.
Supernaturally flooded it with supernatural water.

You got it.

RickG · Jul 21, 2015

When Brown describes the geologic column I wonder if it is out of complete ignorance or is he just making stuff up. My guess both.

AV1611VET · Jul 21, 2015

RickG said:
When Brown describes the geologic column I wonder if it is out of complete ignorance or is he just making stuff up. My guess both.

How about how the geologic column describes Brown?

RickG · Jul 21, 2015

AV1611VET said:
How about how the geologic column describes Brown?

Like I said, from his description of it, he gives me the impression that he not only doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, some of it is just plain made up.

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2015

SkyWriting said:
As I've mentioned, Jesus walked on water, and water gushed from rocks.
The flood may not have been normal water leaving "natural" results.
Going by what scripture already says about God being able to control it,
It seem likely He had full control over this water and it's effect on the planet.
If you are read up on your local flood theory, then you know that the flood did
affect all humans alive at that time. And you already know that the animals on
the Ark only included the listed classes of animals.

There is no flood "theory". Someone is misusing that word. And yes, if you are going to wave your hands and shout "magic" every time that you get into trouble you can excuse anything. You can't explain anything all you can do is to make excuses.

To illustrate that there is no such theory, what reasonable observable evidence would it take to show that the flood never happened?

The Cadet · Jul 21, 2015

SkyWriting said:
He had help.
Only certain classes of animals.
Supernaturally flooded it with supernatural water.

You got it.

Not sure how you know that. Not sure how you know what you did yesterday, either.

AV1611VET · Jul 21, 2015

RickG said:
Like I said, from his description of it, he gives me the impression that he not only doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, some of it is just plain made up.

Kent Hovind says the geologic column doesn't exist.

I suppose he's just making that up too?

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2015

The Cadet said:
Altitude: "highest mountaintops"? That puts it in the so-called "dead zone", where there simply isn't enough oxygen, and the temperatures are far too low to be survivable. Unless you want to claim that the highest mountaintops were somehow considerably lower before the flood, which not only would require a rate of sediment deposition that is completely unheard of, but also presents problems in terms of mechanisms, i.e. "how did this happen".

Your arguments are all very good except for this one. The flood also raised "sea level". It is the altitude of mountains above sea level that is the problem, not the height itself. If you raised sea level 30,000 feet the "dead zone" would not appear until almost 30,000 feet above the old one. It would be a little less because this magically flooded Earth would have a slightly larger surface area.

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Kent Hovind says the geologic column doesn't exist.

I suppose he's just making that up too?

Thanks for supporting RickG. As we all know when Kent makes a Hovindism he is always wrong.

AV1611VET · Jul 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
As we all know when Kent makes a Hovindism he is always wrong.

Yes ... I realize some have their own set of Boolean standards.

It's ... ironic ... that they criticize mine, isn't it?

RickG · Jul 21, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Kent Hovind says the geologic column doesn't exist.

I suppose he's just making that up too?

No, actually he is just lying as he does in all of his videos you see on youtube. There is a reason the man went to jail for 10 years. The sad thing is the lies he propagates in those videos are not punishable by incarceration, though I believe they should be as his intentions are to mislead the public into believing things about the earth sciences that are not true.

Places where the ENTIRE geologic column is seen:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Subduction Zone · Jul 21, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Yes ... I realize some have their own set of Boolean standards.

It's ... ironic ... that they criticize mine, isn't it?

That is because yours can be shown to be false. Meanwhile it is hard to find an instance when Kent is right when he makes his statements about science in general.

SkyWriting · Jul 21, 2015

The Cadet said:
Flooding leaves tell-tale signs in the geologic record.

Boatbuilding: the boat simply cannot hold itself together, especially not for an entire year at sea, where issues such as weathering become a concern as well.

Supernatural flood, supernatural water.
Altitude: "highest mountaintops"? That puts it in the so-called "dead zone", where there simply isn't enough oxygen, and the temperatures are far too low to be survivable. Unless you want to claim that the highest mountaintops were somehow considerably lower before the flood, which not only would require a rate of sediment deposition that is completely unheard of, but also presents problems in terms of mechanisms, i.e. "how did this happen".

The "Dead Zone" concept has been abandoned. No such thing.
Food: after being underwater for a year, all land plants on earth would be completely dead. While some might recover from seedlings, the fact is that anything left on earth at that point would starve to death.

Silt found after a flood is very fertile. Some farmers depend on it.
Feeding: what did the lions eat? How did Noah keep literally tons of meat from spoiling? What of the animals with specialized diets?

God put them on the Ark. Many would naturally hibernate. Likely they all naturally or supernaturally hibernated.

Transportation: how did the 3-toed sloth get from Mount Ararat to South America? Why don't we find any sloth corpses or fossils in the intervening sections of land? How about the Koala, which had to cross all of Asia and the ocean between mainland asia and Australia, and only feeds on a plant that only exists in Australia (which wouldn't have survived being under miles of water either)? And why can't we find any remnants of these animals making this trip?

A pumice raft is a floating raft of pumice occasionally created by ocean-based or near-ocean volcanic activity.
Biologists suggest that animals and plants have migrated from island to island on pumice rafts.[1][2] Astrobiologists have hypothetically linked pumice rafts to the origin of life.[3] A large pumice raft appeared near New Zealand in August of 2012. It was reported to be 300 miles (480 km) long, 30 miles (48 km) wide, and riding two feet above the surface.[4] On 10 August 2012 a raft with an estimated area of 10,000 sq miles was observed near Raoul Island, north-east of New Zealand by the Royal New Zealand Navy.[5][6][7]
Spatial Geometry: how the heck do you fit so many species onto such a small boat? It's understandable that the authors of genesis knew nothing about the variations found on earth, but the fact is that there are upwards of a million known extant species of animals; estimates place the total number as high as 50 million. And never mind the food storage, and the fact that many of them have very specific diets, and the waste removal.

Hibernating turtles don't even breath. Only certain classes of species are listed in scripture. Stick to the data.
Parasites: what about all the various pathogens and parasites? Did Noah and his family share all of them between them?

That would be a mean trick to play on Noah. Complaint excused.
Genetics: two of any given species is the kind of incredible genetic bottleneck that we should be able to detect in the genome. In fact, we can find bottlenecks going back considerably farther than Noah's flood (which really shouldn't be visible if the entire population was then later reduced to two). Why is the genetic diversity of the dog so much greater than that of the Cheetah?

Because people feed dogs.
Anthropology: how did we go from a global flood to countless massive civilizations, in a handful of generations of 8 people interbreeding? In fact, we have evidence of human civilization during the alleged timeframe of the flood, and they didn't seem particularly bothered by it.

I don't buy into anyone's aledged "timeframes."
Marine life: how exactly did fish survive the global flood? Was the flood salt- or fresh-water? Either way, we're looking at the extinction of all fish who rely on a saltwater/freshwater environment, and the Salmon are just totally screwed either way. Same with most kinds of marine plant life.

In the movies, The Flood is very dramatic! In scripture....there is no turbulence, wind or waves, of any kind except for "the fountains of the deep" which would be pretty spread out even if there were more than a handful.
Because of characteristic differences between salt and fresh water, however, the two don't always easily blend. Sometimes they don't mix at all, but instead stratify or form layers.
Physics: where did the water come from? Where did it go? How did it lift the Ark without destroying it?

If we think the mountains lower or the oceans shallower than today, then the amount of water on the earth now is perfect.

And that's just off the top of my head, as a complete layman. I'm sure there are other sources that can go into far more detail and far more points. And I'm sure that you and other creationists can come up with bad ad-hoc explanations for these - explanations which, like the hydroplate theory, are completely untenable and cause more problems than they solve. They're never well-thought-out, almost never provide any real evidence for their claims. It's always "here's what we know, find evidence to support it", never "here's the evidence, what does it support?".And remember, the moment you invoke a "miracle" or "divine providence", you've lost. You've given up.

Lol....you forgot....you are the one reading the Bible dude. What's the #1 rule of science?

Don't MESS with the data.

So. Here's the data, just on water, you have in your hand.

WATER TURNED TO BLOOD—Water everywhere became BLOOD. The fish died, and the river stank. (Exodus 7:14-25)
RED SEA DIVIDED (Ex. 14:21-31)
DRINKING WATER FIXED—(Ex. 15:23-25)
WATER from the rock at Rephidim (Ex. 17:5-7)
WATER PROVIDED IN DESERT—from the rock, after smitten twice by Moses (Num. 20:7-11)
HAILSTORM destroys the Amorite army in a battle with Joshua (Josh. 10:12-14)
WATER from a hollow place “that is in Lehi” (Judg. 15:19)
THUNDERSTORM causes a panic among the Philistines at Eben-ezer (1 Sam. 7:10-12)
THUNDER and RAIN in harvest at Gilgal (1 Sam. 12:18)
RAIN—in clear response to prophet Elijah’s prayers (1 Kings 18:41-45)
RIVER DIVIDED—Jordan divided by Elijah and Elisha near Jericho (2 Kings 2:7, 8, 14)
WATERS OF JERICHO HEALED by Elisha’s casting salt into them (2 Kings 2:21, 22)

WATER PROVIDED for Jehoshaphat and his allied army (2 Kings 3:16-20)—“Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts.”

JONAH SURVIVED IN THE FISH’S BELLY and safely landed (Jonah 2:1-10)
FISH—the miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:4-11)
WATER TURNED TO WINE (John 2:1-11)
FISH—draught of fishes instantly caught at Christ’s instruction (John 21:1-14)
SEA STORM STILLED ON COMMAND (Matt 8:23; Mark 4:37; Luke 8:22)
JESUS WALKS ON SEA (Matt 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:15)

So this is the data you have on water. Deal with the properties of water, the reality of the data you have.

You've made it clear that the scientific evidence we have does not point to a flood. If you can invoke magic to explain away an unfortunate part of your theory, there is literally not a single hypothesis in existence that you could not validate in that way. And if you have to invoke magic, it's clear that your hypothesis is nonsense.

What I really want to impart here the most is how frustrating this is. It is the 21st century. We understand more about the universe around us than we ever have before. The fact that you can post on this forum means that you have access to as much knowledge as you care to find. And yet, we still have intelligent, thoughtful people who think that 4,000 years ago, a man built a boat, put two of every animal on earth on it, and then a supernatural entity flooded the entire world. It's ridiculous. This is not the kind of thing we still need to be debating! Not when it was settled and laid to rest more than 200 years ago!

SkyWriting · Jul 21, 2015

The Cadet said:
Not sure how you know that. Not sure how you know what you did yesterday, either.

The bible you referenced covers what parts we do know.
I don't know what I did 5 minutes ago. But somebody left those
dirty dishes in the sink. Likely it was me. But my kids have
keys to the house. And they do mess with stuff. And they don't
knock. So it was me or the kids......likely.

SkyWriting · Jul 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
There is no flood "theory". Someone is misusing that word. And yes, if you are going to wave your hands and shout "magic" every time that you get into trouble you can excuse anything. You can't explain anything all you can do is to make excuses.

To illustrate that there is no such theory, what reasonable observable evidence would it take to show that the flood never happened?

No people who believe that it did.

Similar, no people believe in a flying spaghetti monster.
So none exists.

SkyWriting · Jul 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
There is no flood "theory". Someone is misusing that word. And yes, if you are going to wave your hands and shout "magic" every time that you get into trouble you can excuse anything. You can't explain anything all you can do is to make excuses.To illustrate that there is no such theory, what reasonable observable evidence would it take to show that the flood never happened?

You are the one reading the book. Stick to the book for guidance. Those are your facts.
If you want to know about the Flood, stick to the Bible.

WATER PROVIDED for Jehoshaphat and his allied army (2 Kings 3:16-20)—“Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts.”

Clearly the Bible writers are NOT trying to prove that everything
they wrote has a natural explanation. You loose.

Fossils on mountains and the hydroplate theory

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

SO COOL

The Librarian

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

SO COOL

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency