Scientific proof of flood.

[John16:2]

Your threads are generally closed because you don't discuss anything in a meaningful way. I'm proposing you start a thread in which you do that for a change.

No, I won't read the book. I'll be happy to discuss any example you bring up in a serious way, in a thread of your own and if you do discuss the topic you pick in a meaningful way and they close the thread anyway I'll help you to fight that censoring. But first show that you can discuss something in a meaningful way to me, you haven't done so yet.

Do you represent CF in saying why threads you never read are erased? I thought it was because I exposed the history and connections of Freemasonry to the church of Satan, Aliester Crowley, the mafia, KKK, "Skull & Bones Order of Death" to which Bush & Kerry belong, and Bohemian Grove Baalist/Moloch murder rituals of VIPs (infowars.com).

 

[Tomk80]

Do you represent CF in saying why threads you never read are erased?

No, but I am a regular visitor and think I can make a relatively good estimate on why they close down threads.

I thought it was because I exposed the history and connections of Freemasonry to the church of Satan, Aliester Crowley, the mafia, KKK, "Skull & Bones Order of Death" to which Bush & Kerry belong, and Bohemian Grove Baalist/Moloch murder rituals of VIPs (infowars.com).

You most probably thought wrong. And this is shown in your own answer. You assert a lot, then come up with a general site that we presumably should spend our complete time in reading. You don't present a coherent, detailed argument. I, at least, have not seen you do that yet. You posts generally follow the struture of the alinea above. Assert a lot, throw in a general link and that's it. If you want people to take you seriously, you should put in a lot more effort than that. Again, I'm proposing that you make a thread were we do just that. Take a specific argument and put in a fair amount of effort to investigate it. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. But don't expect people to take you too serious in that case.

 

[John16:2]

And again you are not going into the actual arguments being made, but resort to conspiracy theories and an appeal to authority. It's not his name versus the other's name, it's his arguments against the other's and which one makes sense. You did not read the site provided 100%. If you didn't, how can you say the arguments made on it are not correct? That's what I mean. You don't go into any useful discussion. You assert something, present a general site and when presented with contrary evidence you ignore it, evade it or say we have to take it up with person blablabla. We've seen you do it time after time now. That's why your threads get closed, that's why nobody takes you serious. Because the way you discuss things leads nowhere.

You failed to tell the name of your alleged Phd, that I never noticed on that site, though I looked for it.

 

[Tomk80]

You failed to tell the name of your alleged Phd, that I never noticed on that site, though I looked for it.

So what? Again, the arguments is what I'm interested in, not the names. You might be going for the appeal to authority fallacy, but don't expect me to follow you in it.

 

[John16:2]

No, but I am a regular visitor and think I can make a relatively good estimate on why they close down threads.


You most probably thought wrong. And this is shown in your own answer. You assert a lot, then come up with a general site that we presumably should spend our complete time in reading. You don't present a coherent, detailed argument. I, at least, have not seen you do that yet. You posts generally follow the struture of the alinea above. Assert a lot, throw in a general link and that's it. If you want people to take you seriously, you should put in a lot more effort than that. Again, I'm proposing that you make a thread were we do just that. Take a specific argument and put in a fair amount of effort to investigate it. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. But don't expect people to take you too serious in that case.

Now you expect me to get into a detailed expose' on freemasons on someone elses' thread. truthquestonline.info, infowars.com, ralphepperson.com, & williamcooper.com.

 

[John16:2]

So what? Again, the arguments is what I'm interested in, not the names. You might be going for the appeal to authority fallacy, but don't expect me to follow you in it.

AS I SAID; I NEVER SAW ANY NAME OR DEGREE ON THAT SITE, and you expect me to take your word for it, without checking the credentials of your expert before judging one word against another Phd, the old and famous Sitchin.

 

[leccy]

I only spoke of the "fossil fuel" theory because there was denial of any flood ever to lay down sediment, on multiple threads.

Please post a link to a post in any one of these threads where you claim that there is a denial of any flood to lay down sediment.

 

[Tomk80]

Now you expect me to get into a detailed expose' on freemasons on someone elses' thread. truthquestonline.info, infowars.com, ralphepperson.com, & williamcooper.com.

I propose to you that you pick any one topic, any one you like, and start a new thread on it and go into detail on that specific one topic. In this new thread you treat the arguments for the specific conclusion you draw in depth and refer specific sources, not general sites. That is all that I am proposing. If you would have read my answer carefully, I did not propose or expect you to delve deeply into freemasons etc. I just noted that your general posting style resembled the posting style you used in that specific thread, namely to make a lot of assertions and then give a general link to a general site, which you expect us to wade through to get to the presumed evidence of the specific assertion you make.

I have also posited that the reason your threads got closed is because your OP's probably resembled your general posting style, of which your previous post was an excellent example. I argued that if you leave this style of posting and exchange it for a way of discussing that is more substantial than you do now, your threads might not be closed.

I proposed that you start a thread where you stop using your current style of posting and leave it for a different style of posting, where you make one specific argument, give one or more specific sources for this argument and discuss this specific argument more in depth. All other things are irrelevant. This is my proposal, do with it what you like.

 

[Tomk80]

AS I SAID; I NEVER SAW ANY NAME OR DEGREE ON THAT SITE, and you expect me to take your word for it, without checking the credentials of your expert before judging one word against another Phd, the old and famous Sitchin.

And again, your going for an appeal to authority, which is a debating fallacy. I already stated again and again that, as soon as you leave your debating fallacies behind, I will begin taking your arguments seriously.

But if you want to know, IIRC his name was Michael S Heiser. His academic degrees:

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ph.D., Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages: dissertation title – "The Divine Council in Second Temple Jewish Literature"

University of Wisconsin-Madison, M.A., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, 1998​

University of Pennsylvania, M.A., Ancient History (Israel, Egypt), 1992​

​

​

The only thing on degrees that I could gather from Sitchin is a major in economics from the univsersity of London. As far as I can see, the 'famous Sitchin' does not have a degree on the relevant subjects.​

​

But again, I really don't care about the degrees. I would like you to go in depth on the real arguments themselves. It is apparant that you did not do so when presented with a link of someone doubting Sitchin's work, as you yourself readily admit that you did not read it 100%.​

​

 

[John16:2]

And again, your going for an appeal to authority, which is a debating fallacy. I already stated again and again that, as soon as you leave your debating fallacies behind, I will begin taking your arguments seriously.

But if you want to know, IIRC his name was Michael S Heiser. His academic degrees:


The only thing on degrees that I could gather from Sitchin is a major in economics from the univsersity of London. As far as I can see, the 'famous Sitchin' does not have a degree on the relevant subjects.

But again, I really don't care about the degrees. I would like you to go in depth on the real arguments themselves. It is apparant that you did not do so when presented with a link of someone doubting Sitchin's work, as you yourself readily admit that you did not read it 100%.
[/left]

Iread that site all the way until he called the inscription of the sun & planets a mere "decoration", when I see his word against Sitchins is no good. I'll not accuse his agenda as B'nai B'rith without proof, but he's jewish.

 

[Tomk80]

Iread that site all the way until he called the inscription of the sun & planets a mere "decoration", when I see his word against Sitchins is no good. I'll not accuse his agenda as B'nai B'rith without proof, but he's jewish.

That seems like a good argument for discussion. Now, make a new thread detailing why the sun & planets are more than mere 'decoration' and we can discuss that more in depth.

edited to add some words for clarity

 

[John16:2]

I propose to you that you pick any one topic, any one you like, and start a new thread on it and go into detail on that specific one topic. In this new thread you treat the arguments for the specific conclusion you draw in depth and refer specific sources, not general sites. That is all that I am proposing. If you would have read my answer carefully, I did not propose or expect you to delve deeply into freemasons etc. I just noted that your general posting style resembled the posting style you used in that specific thread, namely to make a lot of assertions and then give a general link to a general site, which you expect us to wade through to get to the presumed evidence of the specific assertion you make.

I have also posited that the reason your threads got closed is because your OP's probably resembled your general posting style, of which your previous post was an excellent example. I argued that if you leave this style of posting and exchange it for a way of discussing that is more substantial than you do now, your threads might not be closed.

I proposed that you start a thread where you stop using your current style of posting and leave it for a different style of posting, where you make one specific argument, give one or more specific sources for this argument and discuss this specific argument more in depth. All other things are irrelevant. This is my proposal, do with it what you like.

I don't want to give the pirhanas another thread to keep me busy with, only to be censored when I checkmate the harrassers, like my thread "Bible Validated by Advanced Science", or "Oracles phenomena documented in history", or "Staging of Armageddon by Freemasonry". I can replace the YEC strawman with extra possibilities on many threads instead.

 

[Valkhorn]

I don't want to give the pirhanas another thread to keep me busy with, only to be censored when I checkmate the harrassers, like my thread "Bible Validated by Advanced Science", or "Oracles phenomena documented in history", or "Staging of Armageddon by Freemasonry". I can replace the YEC strawman with extra possibilities on many threads instead.

Piranhas?

Gen 49:12 His eyes [shall be] red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

Deu 32:24 [They shall be] burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.

Job 41:14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth [are] terrible round about.

But we can do this with just about anything, can't we?

Gen 45:18 And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.

Exd 29:22 Also thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul [above] the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that [is] upon them, and the right shoulder; for it [is] a ram of consecration:

1Sa 6:7 Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them:

1Ch 13:7 And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart.

1Sa 6:8 And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him [for] a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go.

 

[John16:2]

Piranhas?

But we can do this with just about anything, can't we?

The only Bible quote there that might be ABSTRACT enough to seem silly is Job 41:5 (you posted wrong verse #), meaning; Who can see his face, and his bad set of teeth?.

 

[John16:2]

That seems like a good argument for discussion. Now, make a new thread detailing why the sun & planets are more than mere 'decoration' and we can discuss that more in depth.

edited to add some words for clarity

The Sumerian inscription of sun and planets is something ancient man would need to be informed of, or have a telescope to differentiate between planets and stars in the sky. The planets aren't blazing like the sun is, but are round, as planets.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm not going to discuss your comments further on this thread, since that will derail the thread too much. I have made a thread for discussing this issue here.

 

[duordi]

There is no confusion on my part but creationist accounts of the supposed flood vary wildly. They can't ever say which layers are preflood, flood and post flood because there has never been a worldwide flood.

It is true that there are as many ideas about creation theory as there are about evolution.

I am not critical of the evolutionist for having many different ideas and I will not restrict the creationist either.

Except that no one really knows how to build a 450 boat with a door in the side that would survive a global flood that rearranged all the world's geology because it is not possible, especially with technology that would have been available to Noah.

The insinuation is of course that if we don’t know how no one does.

That is very arrogant of you considering you know almost nothing about the culture.

We still don't know all the "kinds" of animals that existed in the past as new fossils are always being discovered.

I agree.

The fossil record is totally inconsistent with flood deposition as anyone who actually studied any paleontology and thought rationally about the subject can easily see.

I disagree with this statement. I would need specific evidence to change my thinking on the subject.

Your site reference has an obvious agenda and I am not sure that they may falsify information (for my own good) or due to self deceit so I will not accept it from this source.

I in turn never refer someone to a YEC site as they also have an agenda.

I will of course accept the sites reference from your anti-creationism site if they do not have an obvious agenda.

It was and Pangea was not even the first super continent but very few of the species alive when pangea broke up are with us today.

How did they get "back" to their current locations after the flood without other often more mobile animals for company.

They were delivered by Noah’s decendents.

Biogeography proves that the flood of Noah was a local event. There are about 180 species of marsupials from 13 different families and well as some large nasty flightless birds such as the Casowary found in an area that is nearly devoid of placental mammals. Do you really that the presence of kangaroos, tree kangaroos, playtypus, bush tailed possums, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos and bettongs and others of the 180 species of Australian marsupials and the Australian flightless birds without company from aardvarks, elephant shrews, tenrecs, hyraxes, elephants, dugongs, manatee, sloths, armadillos, anteaters, tree shrews, lemurs, bushbarbies, baboons, monkeys, apes, rabbits, pikas, beavers, squirrels, molerats, hamsters, mice, porcupines, guinea pigs, pangolins, lemurs, apes, moles, hedgehogs, dogs, cats, leopards, lions, tigers, cheeta, mongooses, otters, badgers, weasels, skunks, raccons, bears, muscrats, wolverines, genets, horses, donkeys, camels, rhinos, pigs, hippos, giraffes, deer, antelope, elk, wildebeest, bison, caribou, cape buffalo, peccaries, tapirs or any the other 4000 species of placental mammals except bats and 2 species of rat can be explained by a supercontinent and a little human intervention. You must have checked your capacity for rational thought at the door when you entered YEC.

I am actually not a YEC.

I am a YBC Young Biological Creationinst.

That was a very interesting list of species however I do not understand why you insist that delivery by man can not account for the present locations of life forms and fossil records.

Really. How about all those Permain animals that are long extinct? How about all the 1053 different known Genera, not species of dinosaurs that are long extinct? How about the all Eocene, Oligocene and Miocene mammals that are now extinct? How about the Pleistocene Megafauna that are mostly now extinct?

So you are basing your beliefs on the dating systems presently in place?

I though you were basing it on the fossil record?

You are trying to use one myth to validate another yet again.

There is nothing in science that fits with the global "flood scenario", certainly not the pattern of extinction seen in the fossil record.

Lets start from the big picture.

1. The evidence of large water flows as in the grand canyon.
In the case of the grand canyon a giant lake is assumed to have released and caused the washout.

Notice how the slow steady process have to be propped up with catastrophic events to explain the condition.

2. The geoligical layers during a flood would have the heaver trilobites
on the bottom of a body of water already would be at the bottom of the geological record.

Birds are lighter and have the ability to move to higher ground quickly also in a flood condition would tend to float better causing them (on average) to be at the top of the geological record which is where they are found.

3. Recently several underwater cities have been found with pyramids at several places around the globe indicating that the original water level on earth was at the continental self level which indicates that not only was there a flood but that the water line has not returned to the original level yet.

4. A slow gradual condition does not explain how the continental shelf was created with river deltas at the continental shelf elevation. This is of course expected if the condition before the flood had a ocean level at the elevation of the continental shelf.

5. The Earths north pole area is know to have fossil remains of tropical plants and animals. The extent of this condition is may clear by the large oil reserves which are know to exist in northern climates such as Alaska.

This suggests a much different climate condition then exists now. Such a vastly different climate which must exist before the first ice age dated at 100,000 years even by dating methods which assume a non catastrophic history. Such a change in the Earth climate at so recent a time disproves the idea that things have remained the same for millions of years.

I am just getting started and the most obvious geological traits on Earth support a catastrophic event.

Oh, and I didn't mention the meteor crater survey which would surely indicate something similar to a "nuclear winter" or ice age should occur.

The only geological record of such an event is the ice ages placing the event in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years even based non-catastrophic dating methods.

So I guess you could say that the current dating methods prove that their base assumption of a non-catastrophic conditions are incorrect, as there is not millions of years for the slow gradual accumulation of the geological record to occur.

Your comments seem open and honest.

When one first considers a catastrophic history from a scientific perspective it is somewhat surprising at how well it fits to the geological record.

This theory is by no means without flaws.

Not even majority of "known" mammal genera. The list I gave from Morton was at the genus not the species level.

My point was you were comparing current information of species numbers with information which has a lot missing from the fossil record so the counts you are giving are most probably incorrect.

I still do not see why the species count indicates that the life forms could not have been delivered by mankind.

I suggest you actually study some biology and paleontology before making such sweeping claims.

It’s a theory and it is a lot less sweeping then this your statement.

"The fossil record is totally inconsistent with flood deposition as anyone who actually studied any paleontology and thought rationally about the subject can easily see."

Did you study all the theories before you made this statement?

I don’t mind you venting but please don’t expect me to accept rules that you are not willing to follow yourself.

As I said the counts I gave were for genera not species. Horses and zebras would not be counted as different by the classification.

This was intended as an example as were dogs.

The designation of species is not owned by people with your beliefs only.

The horse and zebra are an example of animals which can interbreed but have sterile offspring which can be considered as an indication of a new species if one wishes.

As at this non-YEC site http://www.ratbehavior.org/Hybridization.htm

"Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and roof rats (Rattus rattus, also called black rats, ship rats) are A species, according to the biological species concept, is a group of related individuals or populations that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Members of different species cannot produce fertile offspring together."

At the bottom of the reference site it also states that horses and zebras have sterile offspring.

The dog example indicates that the size of the fossil remains may be accepted as an indication that the life form is a different species.

Selective breeding by humans as used on dogs and by "survival of the fittest" differs only in the efficiency of the process, both cause change in size.

These two examples indicated how the "species count" could vary one way or the other.

By misinterpretation of differing fossils bone structure size as an indication of a different species and the misinterpretation of similar bone structures as a common species when it may not be the case.

There is far too much diversity of life on earth for the global flood myth to be true. Thanks for bringing up yet another falsification of your myth.

How would this impact anything?

Dogs have been selectively breed for many thousands of years in case you didn't know but this is irrelevant since they would never be judged to be in separate genera.

Yes, now that is true but some time in the future would their skeletons be considered the same species? The size difference alone may cause the determination that they are separate species.

If this can happen with dogs how to we know that it hasn’t happened with dinosaurs.

The tyrannosaurs rex has the same bone structure as an ostrich.

The blood residue recently removed form a broken "rex" bone was found to most closely match an ostrich.

The short upper hands normally duplicated in front could very easily be the wings which protrude backward on an ostrich.

So if an ostrich and a tyrannosaurs rex are the same species what else has been confused?

The flood is not the answer for anything and flood geology leaves a myriad of questions unanswered.

I of course must ignore unsubstantiated and vague comments such as this because they are impossible to prove one way or the other and therefore serve no useful purpose.

There are many specific falsifications of the global flood myth. Of course YECs need to try to take them one at a time. This is in part because they often give attempted refutations for one falsification that directly contradict their attempted refutations for another and want to avoid those obvious problems. But maybe you could try to explain the pattern of mammalian extinction described in Glenn post with more than vague handwaving.

I am still not sure how Glenn’s findings prove the flood did not occur even if they are accurate.

Please enlighten me.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Yes, you're right, the effect is different.

Have you ever seen a cliff at the edge of the ocean? That is what ocean water erosion looks like. The formations in the Grand Canyon have the characteristics of erosion done by a constant stream of water flowing through a restricted channel -- that is to say, a river.

Now, if you want to show that the higher formations demonstrate erosion consistent with conditions on an ocean's shore, which is what we'd expect if your hypotheses are correct, you'll need to provide such data, because every observation by reputable scientists shows the opposite.

Do you have data? No. You're making things up, and as many people have tried to tell you and other creationists time and time again, YOU CANNOT JUST INVENT THEORIES OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. If the data does not support your ideas, then you are WRONG. Not, "Well, maybe you guys could possible be wrong, which means I'd have to be right!" No data, no validity. PERIOD.

Proof and data is exactly what is given in the first post, along with all assumptions which were made to allow them to be inspected.

I do not know what more you would need.

Duane

 

[Split Rock]

Hi. Hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

I disagree with this statement. I would need specific evidence to change my thinking on the subject.

Your site reference has an obvious agenda and I am not sure that they may falsify information (for my own good) or due to self deceit so I will not accept it from this source.

I in turn never refer someone to a YEC site as they also have an agenda.

Did you check Morton's references? Do they also have an agenda? Every YEC site of course has an agenda. This doesn't leave you with much to choose from.

I will of course accept the sites reference from your anti-creationism site if they do not have an obvious agenda.

I suppose every "anti-creationism" site has an agenda. Would you include scientific or university websites in this category?

They were delivered by Noah’s decendents.

This is a bold assertion without any proof provided whatsoever. Do you have any evidence or scripture to back this up?

I am a YBC Young Biological Creationinst.

This term is new to me. What does it mean?

That was a very interesting list of species however I do not understand why you insist that delivery by man can not account for the present locations of life forms and fossil records.

I think his point is that there are just too many species for Noah's descendents to handle, especially if they needed to travel all over the globe to remote islands, desert wastes and artic tundra to deliver them all. Evolution provides a far simpler and rational explanation for the distribution of life on earth today.

So you are basing your beliefs on the dating systems presently in place?

I though you were basing it on the fossil record?

I'm sure he is using both, plus many others.

1. The evidence of large water flows as in the grand canyon.
In the case of the grand canyon a giant lake is assumed to have released and caused the washout.

Unfortunately for flood geology, the Grand canyon is way too complicated to have been formed in this way. You can build a sand structure and allow ocean waves to form a "canyon" in the center of it, but this is not what the Grand Canyon looks like. You can assume there was a lake, but you have no evidence to back it up. In any case, how did the different layers of the canyon form in the first place?

Notice how the slow steady process have to be propped up with catastrophic events to explain the condition.

You seem to be assuming that modern geology ignores the effects of catastrophic events, such as local floods, hurricanes, etc. It does not. How does acknowledging that such events that occur today occurred in the past contitute "propping up?" This is the whole point of "uniformitarianism," in the first place.

2. The geoligical layers during a flood would have the heaver trilobites on the bottom of a body of water already would be at the bottom of the geological record.

How are trilobites heavier than whales, squid, tuna, mackeral, coral reefs, etc., etc.? Why aren't flounders and catfish found with them, since they all inhabit the bottom of the ocean?

Birds are lighter and have the ability to move to higher ground quickly also in a flood condition would tend to float better causing them (on average) to be at the top of the geological record which is where they are found.

Are they lighter than pterosaurs? Why aren't modern birds and bats found with pterosaurs in the Jurassic sediments?

3. Recently several underwater cities have been found with pyramids at several places around the globe indicating that the original water level on earth was at the continental self level which indicates that not only was there a flood but that the water line has not returned to the original level yet.

Local floods do not a global flood make.

4. A slow gradual condition does not explain how the continental shelf was created with river deltas at the continental shelf elevation. This is of course expected if the condition before the flood had a ocean level at the elevation of the continental shelf.

Sediment from upstream is carried down to the river deltas. You can measure the process today.

5. The Earths north pole area is know to have fossil remains of tropical plants and animals. The extent of this condition is may clear by the large oil reserves which are know to exist in northern climates such as Alaska.

Two words: Plate Tectonics. The movement of the plates can be measured today.

This suggests a much different climate condition then exists now. Such a vastly different climate which must exist before the first ice age dated at 100,000 years even by dating methods which assume a non catastrophic history. Such a change in the Earth climate at so recent a time disproves the idea that things have remained the same for millions of years.

Who assumes everthing remains the same for millions of years? The only assumption is that processes which take place today, also took place in the past and are responsible for shaping the earth.

I am just getting started and the most obvious geological traits on Earth support a catastrophic event.

Some traits support local catastrophic events (such as floods, mudslides, volcanic activity, meteor impacts) while others support gradual processes (such as sedimentation, erosion, and mountain building).

So if an ostrich and a tyrannosaurs rex are the same species what else has been confused?

they are not the same species, they are related.

 

[duordi]

Hi. Hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

No, not at all. Free exchange of ideas is what I come here for.

Did you check Morton's references? Do they also have an agenda? Every YEC site of course has an agenda. This doesn't leave you with much to choose from.

I did check the references and I do not have a problem with a site that disagrees with my point of view.

I only question sites who’s sole purpose in existing is to prove a point of view is right or wrong.

Most of the sites I give as references do not agree with my point of view.

I of course don’t give YEC sites as a rule for the same reason.

My problem with Morton’s reference beyond the fact that they have a strong agenda is that I could not assemble a logical reasoning as to why anything was proven about the flood.

In other words, no assumptions were given with a logical progression to a conclusion.

It would be necessary for my consideration as I would need to overlay the assumptions made on my own opnion of how Earths history progressed to find out if indeed my thinking was proven wrong.

Without this sequence Morton’s reference is useless to me.

I suppose every "anti-creationism" site has an agenda. Would you include scientific or university websites in this category?

Here is a post in this thread I have referenced to prove a point. The sites indicated do not agree with my point of view.

Scientific data gathered has no opnion, it is only data and may be used by several points of view.

Here is a post I made above "duordi Here is the site. 2nd August 2005, 07:38 PM"

branched under the post "duordi For Notto 1st August 2005, 09:53 AM."

Which contained the link http://www.newscientist.com/channel...inosaurs/dn7195



The posts discusses blood found in a dinosaur bone.

The site states that the bone was 68 million years old which is an interpretation I would disagree with.

There is nothing wrong with the data presented as it was scientifically gathered and I felt free to use it as a reference myself.

This is a bold assertion without any proof provided whatsoever. Do you have any evidence or scripture to back this up?

Of course I do.

In this site the Ten Commandments were found on a rock in New Mexico.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_home.html

This is a site quote...

"The above inscription cannot be a fake for the following reasons. The actual time of discovery of the inscription is not known but was known by the locals as far back as the 1850's. At that time, the script of the text was unknown and therefore undecipherable. It was not until this last century that the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) script was discovered in the Near East. Once this ancient script was discovered the Los Lunas inscription could be deciphered and was found to be a copy of the "Ten Commandments".

So there was travel between the Americas and Egypt about the time of Moses 900 years after the flood.

The script was the original most early language placing it close to the creation of the text and can be no earlier then the ten commandments were given.

Would you care to make a bold assertion that they didn’t take animals with them now that we know they made the trip?

The Jews were not the most technically advanced people of the day.

This term is new to me. What does it mean? ( YBC )

In the Bible Geneses 1:2 the Earth exists, " and the Earth was void and without form" however light is not created until verse3. "And God said let there be light and there was light." eventually light and dark is separated and the first day is recorded in verse 5.

Without the existence of days to measure time there is no indication how long the Earth water and mass existed before the first day.

If you want to say one second, I can not argue with you.

If you want to say a billion years I can not argue with that either as the information is not given.

So I am a Young Biological Creationist (YBC).

I believe that life was created during the creation week but water and rocks,
are not given specific dates by the Bible.

I think his point is that there are just too many species for Noah's descendents to handle, especially if they needed to travel all over the globe to remote islands, desert wastes and artic tundra to deliver them all.

Noah was a savior not a delivery boy.

His children would only have to be astute ship builders to handle the rest.

Evolution provides a far simpler and rational explanation for the distribution of life on earth today.

Yes, the continents have to be slid up next to each other, and people were not suppose to exist yet so a land bridge had to be added for them later.

Of course the land bridge rose out of the water at the time of Moses and then disappeared again shortly afterward.

(Oops, I am being sarcastic. Its bad habit I have that I am working on, pelase bear with me.)

Unfortunately for flood geology, the Grand canyon is way too complicated to have been formed in this way. You can build a sand structure and allow ocean waves to form a "canyon" in the center of it, but this is not what the Grand Canyon looks like. You can assume there was a lake, but you have no evidence to back it up. In any case, how did the different layers of the canyon form in the first place?

Sand structure under a mile of water for a year is called rock.

The lake is an evolutionary theory to explain where the water come from.

I do not need a lake in a world flood theory.

You seem to be assuming that modern geology ignores the effects of catastrophic events, such as local floods, hurricanes, etc. It does not. How does acknowledging that such events that occur today occurred in the past contitute "propping up?" This is the whole point of "uniformitarianism," in the first place.

Current local flood conditions do not explain Grand Canyons, that is why the lake washout theory was invented by people who believe as you do.

How are trilobites heavier than whales, squid, tuna, mackeral, coral reefs, etc., etc.? Why aren't flounders and catfish found with them, since they all inhabit the bottom of the ocean?

Are they lighter than pterosaurs? Why aren't modern birds and bats found with pterosaurs in the Jurassic sediments?

Different elevations and climate conditions, contain different animals.

Some types should be expected to be together others should not.

Some types would live in an area which would be affected first others later.

You have defined layers by what is in them according to the theory you are using.

If you are suggesting the sedimentary layers are consistent you are mistaken.

Some consistancy should be expected in a flood condition also.

Local floods do not a global flood make.

Sediment from upstream is carried down to the river deltas. You can measure the process today.

Two words: Plate Tectonics. The movement of the plates can be measured today.

Who assumes everthing remains the same for millions of years? The only assumption is that processes which take place today, also took place in the past and are responsible for shaping the earth.

Some traits support local catastrophic events (such as floods, mudslides, volcanic activity, meteor impacts) while others support gradual processes (such as sedimentation, erosion, and mountain building).

The continental shelf proves more then a local flood and common events took place.

The meteor impacts prove a catastrophic event happened 10,000 to 100,000 years ago so there is not time for your continental drift to have covered the distance required at the rate it is moving.

How do you know an ostrich and a tyrannosaurs rex are not the same species?
There is no scientific evidence unless of course the recent blood discovered in the bone is intact enough to determine the number of chromosomes.

Duane