Noah and the Flood. Fact or Fantasy?

[sulphur]

Hector there are many insects that only live for a short time. where did they reproduce.As for atmospheric humidity there must have been a considerable amount for the garden of eden to exist in the first place.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by JohnR7
For the evolutionist it is always that it happened all by itself, there is no cause, it just happened. There is no reason, it just happened. Man is not going to be held accountable for his actions, it just happened. I can kill, rob, plunder, do whatever I want to do, because there is no one to hold me accountable.

You're title of 'evolutionist' seems to be a religiously biased one. I'm a Christian, yet I accept what evolutionary science can explain. I may not agree with other assumptions the theory makes... but I accept that which has been proven..

So, you're 'insenuating' those who are educated enough to understand the scientific facts of our world, would actually kill, rob, plunder..do whatever they want? I disagree...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I am nearly speechless. Does John actually pay attention to what he says sometimes?

Pete, I don't think so. And when you refute him time and time again.. he doesn't respond...

/me breaks out his DSM book.... what personality disorder do these symptoms fall under?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by LightBearer
No, I described variation within a "kind" not evolving from one kind to onother.  The latter is evolution and impossible, has never happened, or been evidenced to have happened, it's a myth.

Again I ask you to define 'kind'... and I request you define it scientifically so we may proceed with our discussion. I also request that once you do define it, you stick with your original definiton... so take all the time you need.


p.s. Variation within species is addressed within the TOE, so you're either misinformed or confused on what the TOE actually discusses. You're contradicting yourself without even realizing it.

p.s.s. I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to help you along.

p.s.s.s BTW.... I am a Christian as well

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
There is theory to support the Great Deluge.
Honest!

Theories require scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is not religously biased. Can you present scientific findings (other than the AIG 'junk' you usually cite) which support the Great Deluge? If you can convince me, I will believe you. You have my word on that.

Originally posted by Hector Medina

However the theory to support all of evolution(except micro which does happen)is full of *lies* and so ridiculous with far too many holes!!

The TOE is full of lies? Granted, I don't personally agree with the whole theory either, but I won't call it lies. I simply wait for answers is all. Okay, so you accept microevolution. I guess you consider hybrids, hybrid speciation, adaptation (to name just a few) as lies then? Am I right or wrong?

I wonder,,,, do you have any landscaping in your yard? (i.e. bushes, hollies, certain decorative trees...???) Are they lies?
Do you buy vegetables (such as yellow and white corn) and fruits (such as red, yellow, & green apples) Are they lies?

You rant a lot about TOE, but clearly only believe what you've been taught based upon religious bias.

Respectfully,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Noek
 

???  Your answering the question with the story itself.  It proves nothing.  Its a nice story but totally unbelievable. 

Hang on... how many view the story may be totally unbelieveable, but don't discount the fact that it may be based upon actual events...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by sulphur
How many graptolites around today. For that matter the trilobites must be hiding

No the trilobites aren't hiding... my two sons have found one of their lurking places... and have a WHOLE SHELFFULL of them in our basement... (at home in their rocks)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by LightBearer
Whether others missrepresent the revealed truth is up to them, it doesn't change the revealed truth one bit. 

I first stated 'probably', now I'll state that the early Church ACTUALLY used this same verse to support their flat earth, center of the universe stance. If you dig into history, you'll discover this. You've shown it to state otherwise. Something to think about.. huh? Why was the early Church so convinced that this verse 'revealed the truth' to them as well?

Now... if there is such a thing as 'revealed truth'... who possesses it, where can I find it.. (heck where can we all find it... LET'S SHARE). If that notion is true, we can all obtain it, stop our disputes, disagreements, bickering, shut down this forum, all others like it. Atheists & other non-believers would convert, peace will reign on Earth, and we can all just get along.

Realistically, I doubt there is such a thing as 'revealed truth',,, but I am open-minded. If you can convince me, I will believe you.

Respectfully,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
Here goes some info again even know ya'll are gonna trash it w/ more of your junk.

Your religious-based sources would also be termed 'junk' by any self-respecting scientist/engineer/school teacher. I guess that computer terminal your sitting at is junk as well... and the electricity that powers it? Where are your religious explanations for these things?

Originally posted by Hector Medina

Where did the flood water come from and go to ?

According to the Bible (Genesis 7:11), most of the water came from under the surface of the earth and “the windows of heaven” rained down to add to the deluge. Toward the end of the flood the unstable plates, over the now empty fountains, collapsed, causing today’s ocean basins to form (Psalms 104:8) and the waters to flow into these basins (Genesis 8:2-3). For a global flood theory that answers dozens of questions which evolutionists can’t viably explain, please view video Seminar 4.

Okay, nice theory. Now, do you have geological data to back it up? Have your friends at Creation Ministries doen any ACTUAL scientific research on the geology/geography/dynamic movements of the ocean floor to back up this hypothesis? I'm ready to be convinced, but simply quoting scriptures isn't going to do it. If God REALLY flooded the Earth in this manner, there would be tell-tale signs left behind. We do not worship (at least I don't) a God of lies and deceit.

Originally posted by Hector Medina


Did it rain before the flood?

My understanding, or interpretation, is that the pre-flood world had a great underground watering system (Genesis 2:6) and rain was not needed until after the flood (Genesis 2:5). But the Bible doesn’t specifically say. For scientifically based theories on the pre-flood world and the flood, please view video Seminar 4.

This information is feom:

www.creationministries.org


In Christ,

Hector

Again, nice theory. One that I was taught as a child as well, (that it didn't actually rain during the first days of the Earth's existance). Again, do your friends have actual scientific studies/data to back this up? Do they have a working model of the planet's weather patterns at this time? (I've seen one from other sources from a much earlier time period that explains the Sahara Desert). I'm interested if you or your sources have actually taken the time to construct a scientific dynamic model we can all review?

Respectfully,
Smilin

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by Smilin
I first stated 'probably', now I'll state that the early Church ACTUALLY used this same verse to support their flat earth, center of the universe stance. If you dig into history, you'll discover this. You've shown it to state otherwise. Something to think about.. huh? Why was the early Church so convinced that this verse 'revealed the truth' to them as well?

Can you show me the reference from which you got this information that Job 26:7 and Isa 40:22 were used by Christendom to support their Flat Earth Centre of the Universe stance.

Thanks. 

 

[sulphur]

What has that got to do with the flood?

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Smilin
I first stated 'probably', now I'll state that the early Church ACTUALLY used this same verse to support their flat earth, center of the universe stance.

Sounds like your an expert on all there is to know about the Bible and christianity. I sure do have some questions for you. Experts are hard to find now a days. Perhaps we can start with just what church group was it that thought the earth was flat. After all there are a lot of different christian groups.

Was this the Catholic Church who made a offical position that the earth was flat, or was it a protestant group?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LightBearer
No, I described variation within a "kind" not evolving from one kind to onother.  The latter is evolution and impossible, has never happened, or been evidenced to have happened, it's a myth.

Sorry, Ligthbearer, but we have the formation of a new genus now by hybridization:
Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979.

In the fossil record, there are examples of transitional individuals that can be followed even across class lines. A class is a large taxonomic category: birds and mammals are classes. Thus, by any possible objective definition of "kinds", this is evolution.

Below are some papers where these are detailed. I realize that some are hard to obtain, but they are out there.

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.  Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.  (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.  HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"  and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406 

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2.  http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Reptiles to mammals
1.  http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Speciation in the fossil record
1.  McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
The Flood is pure fact.
It happened in aprox. 2450 B.C.
There is scientific evidence to back it up like the formation of canyons ,mountains,faultlines,rock layers,mixed and scattered fossils,etc.........

What matters is the evidence that falsifies a theory, and there is plenty of evidence that falsifies a world-wide flood.  Just a couple of those below.  Notice that all your sites advocate a Flood that totally changes the surface landscape.  This contradicts the Bible.  Also note the religious beliefs of Young in the quote below:

I went on to criticize the flood geology of Whitcomb and Morris, introducing some still valid geological arguments that had not previously appeared in discussions of the deluge.
1. I argued that known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears. Indeed, many other much larger igneous rock bodies would have re-quired thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to lose their heat in order to crystallize. Flood geologists have made little attempt to refute this line of evidence.
2.  Radiometric dating of igneous formations of the sort men-tioned above - formations that according to the Whitcomb-Morris theory must have been produced within the space of a single year -suggest that they are in fact millions of years old. These figures are consistent with ages predicted on the basis of stratigraphical relation-ships with the intruded rocks. Similar examples can be multiplied many times over
3. The phenomena of metamorphism also pose problems for flood geology. In some localities, fossils are found in rocks that also bear evidence of having undergone significant changes (metamorphism) as a result of having been exposed to very high temperatures and pressures. The problem for flood geologists is to show how a sedimen-tary rock, which they contend was formed at the surface of the earth during the course of the flood, could have been buried and heated fast enough to metamorphose. Both heat flow theory and known rates of chemical reactions indicate that such rocks could not possibly have undergone the observed metamorphism within a single year
4. A wealth of evidence associated with modern discoveries about continental drift and sea floor spreading indicate that various kinds of rocks - including varieties that the flood geologists maintain were formed during the course of the flood - must have been formed both before and after the separation of continents. If the flood geologists are right, this would imply that the continents must have been drifting apart substantially during the course of the flood. But thousands of miles of continental drift within the space of a few months is completely inconsistent with any known rates of drift.
I concluded the book with a look at Scripture, arguing that the biblical data (Gen. 2 in particular) suggest that pre-flood geography was fundamentally the same as post-flood geography which precludes the possibility of a global deluge involving a wholesale reorganization of terrestrial surface features. I also affirmed my belief that the biblical flood was in fact a historical event and not merely myth or legend. It was my intent to show how Christians could endorse the idea of a historical flood without having to commit themselves to a flood geology theory that is thoroughly in conflict with the data of creation." Davis A Young, The Biblical Flood, Pp 273-274.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Notto, 
In some cases, there are fossils of an animals giving birth to their young. They must have been rapidly covered in mud. That would be expected if there was a world wide flood.

It would also be expected if there were a local flood, too, wouldn't it? So, you have two hypotheses to explain the same datum: a world-wide flood and a local flood.  How do you distinguish?  You can look at the surrounding strata at different places. Floods leave marks in the rock.  If you go to the same strata several hundred yards or a couple of miles away and don't find evidence of flood, then you conclude it was a local flood.

The other way is to falsify a world-wide flood.  There is a lot of data to do that.  Therefore the fossils can't have been caused by a world-wide flood because there was none.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Hector Medina

Where did the flood water come from and go to ?

According to the Bible (Genesis 7:11), most of the water came from under the surface of the earth and “the windows of heaven” rained down to add to the deluge. Toward the end of the flood the unstable plates, over the now empty fountains, collapsed, causing today’s ocean basins to form (Psalms 104:8) and the waters to flow into these basins (Genesis 8:2-3). For a global flood theory that answers dozens of questions which evolutionists can’t viably explain, please view video Seminar 4.

First of all, you are ignoring plate tectonics and assuming that the continents and ocean basins are in the same place. The oceanic plates are made (primarily) of basalt/gabbro. We would not expect basaltic plates to form unless they were forming directly above the upper mantle. Secondly, what evidence do you have that liquid water could exist under a 5-10 km thick oceanic plate and that the plates are in their current positions because they somehow collapsed? How does that provide a volume of water sufficient for a global flood when really, that volume of water would be approximately the same volume of water present in modern ocean basins?

What explanations does this flood model, which is not grounded in any geologic evidence, explain that modern geology "can't viably explain"? After all, this is about geology, not evolution.

Did it rain before the flood?

My understanding, or interpretation, is that the pre-flood world had a great underground watering system (Genesis 2:6) and rain was not needed until after the flood (Genesis 2:5). But the Bible doesn’t specifically say. For scientifically based theories on the pre-flood world and the flood, please view video Seminar 4.

What evidence exists that shows that the modern hydrologic cycle did not exist? That certainly seems to imply that water must have had different physical/chemical properties at that time. Would water simply not evaporate? Would it evaporate and somehow simply not precipitate? Would groundwater systems not run into open rivers? Would there be sufficient water to sustain life if the hydrologic cycle did not operate the way it does now?

Again, you have presented zero evidence and rely on mere speculation that completely contradicts basic concepts in geochemistry/biogeochemistry, hydrogeology, and physics relating to the inherent properties of water as a chemical substance and how it is distributed and cycled in the earth. How do you expect anyone to be swayed by that?

This information is feom:

www.creationministries.org 

Indeed it is. I wonder if you really understand these "theories" and their geological implications in reality and the complete lack of evidence supporting them. That would seem reasonable if all you are going to do is copy and paste an article whose sole references are to the Bible and cite no geologic evidence to support their proposed geologic phenomenon.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Other descriptions on fossil formations I've heard include fish dying, falling to the bottom of the sea or river bed, and slowly being covered by sediment. Any comments on this one. I understand the problem here is that many fossils do not show the decay you would expect from this process. The fossils appear to have been buried quickly.

In these cases, especially one in the deep sea, is that the environment at the bottom is without oxygen and essentially sterile.  No predators, no bacteria, therefore no decay.

The same happens in stagnant bogs.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
We know that the flood had to have wiped out the Garden of Eden, because it is not there anymore. The Garden was said to be where four rivers came together. The Euphrates, Tigris were two of those four rivers.

If the Garden ever existed.  Note though that, if you are a Biblical literalist, you cannot believe in a global flood that changed any surface features.  Because the location of the Garden is given using post-Flood geography. For Genesis to know that the Garden existed there before the Flood, the rivers must not have changed.

Lightbearer, the global flood that carved the Grand Canyon and deposited miles of sedimentary rock is impossible according to the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LightBearer
The "kinds" of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding "according to their kinds." It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family "kinds"-the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to "kind" established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today.

The problems with your defintion of "kind" are 1) that it is circular, 2) it is arbitrary, and 3) it is contradicted by your own post.

It is arbitrary because you don't know what the original "kinds" were.  So saying that they are "clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator" but you can't find those boundaries does you no good.

For instance, you say "The breeding boundaries according to "kind" established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today."  But species are populations that can't breed with other species.  That is, a "breeding boundary" that can't be crossed.  So what you are saying is that kinds evolved to other kinds.  But that contradicts your assertion that kinds can't do this.

You name the "cat" kind but mention only domesticated cats.  What about lions, tigers, cougars, lynxs, etc.? Part of the "cat" kind or different kinds? If part of the "cat" kind and coming from a common ancestor on the Ark, then now you have different kinds because domestic cats can't breed with lions or tigers.  Thus a reproductive boundary.

If each is a separate "kind", then you have defined "kind" as species ('species' Latin for "kind"). But if that is the case, then we have seen the formation of new species in real time in the present, with no zapping by God around at all.  And that falsifies your assertion that "kinds" are uncrossable boudaries.

Heads you lose, tails you lose. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Oops, I see it now, you think these varves were formed by a constant process over the past 40,000 years and this would wipe out the notion of the earth being created 6000 years ago. I guess this would also impact on the story of the flood. I'm trying to fill in the blanks here.

Well you've got me for the moment. If the layers were formed at a rate of one every year and there are forty thousand layers, then Christians have got a problem.

Let me reinforce Jerry here.  Not Christians but only young earth creationists. It was Christian geologists like Rev. Buckland, Rev. Whewell, Rev. Sedgwick, etc. that falsified a world-wide flood to begin with. Back in the period 1700-1830.