Snowpiercer (Film): Does Man HAVE to become Violent When Forced to Survive?

[Jane_the_Bane]

Declaring the global flood an unsettled controversy is just as scientifically illiterate as calling the flat earth hypothesis a valid model: both rely on a googolplex of assumptions that have already been safely dismissed as factually wrong based on mountains of evidence.

Reality has an anti-literalist bias, it seems.

 

[Abraxos]

Declaring the global flood an unsettled controversy is just as scientifically illiterate as calling the flat earth hypothesis a valid model: both rely on a googolplex of assumptions that have already been safely dismissed as factually wrong based on mountains of evidence.

Reality has an anti-literalist bias, it seems.

Evidence 1:
Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized closed shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/

Evidence 2:
Rapid burial of plants and animals.

We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

Evidence 3:
Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/sand-transported-cross-country/

Evidence 4:
Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/sand-transported-cross-country/

Evidence 5:
Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/no-slow-and-gradual-erosion/

Evidence 6:
Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/

Want to show me the mountains of evidence that you looked at?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You are only digging an even deeper hole of scientific illiteracy for yourself.

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. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

• In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
• Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.

Specimen Creek and the surrounding area show evidence of some trees transported and others buried in place. The rock layers include conglomerates from meandering and braided streams, conglomerates from mud flows, and tuffaceous sandstones composed mostly of water-transported volcanic ash. In the Eocene, the area would have been between two volcanic chains. Occasional mud flows from the slopes of the mountains would have uprooted and transported trees from the slopes and buried lowland trees in place (Fritz 1980; 1984).

Evidence that some of the trees, especially those on Specimen Ridge, were buried in place, includes the following (Retallack 1981; Yuretich 1984a; 1984b):

There are tree stumps that are rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone but buried in conglomerates.

• Upper parts of some stumps and logs, surrounded by conglomerates, were severely abraded, but the lower parts in sandstone have good root systems.
• Flow structures in some conglomerates show they buried in-place trees.
• Thin sections show evidence of soil around the roots.
• There are clear soil horizons around some root systems.

Most of the horizontal logs and some stumps (up to 15 percent of the upright stumps, according to Fritz 1984) were transported, but most of the upright Specimen Ridge fossil trees were buried in place.

Upright stumps and trees on Specimen Ridge cannot be explained as floating stumps settling out of standing water, as proposed by Coffin (1983) based on observations of trees washed into Spirit Lake.

Most tree fossils in Yellowstone occur in sediments from high-energy flows, not a low-energy lake environment (Fritz 1983).

• The percentage of erect trees in Yellowstone is more than 50 percent on Specimen Ridge, but only about ten to twenty percent of trees stay upright in flows such as in Spirit Lake (Fritz 1983).
• Many of the Specimen Ridge trees are rooted in soils, as noted above.

Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not produced in just one event.

There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporite deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others. For example:

The Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).

The Loess Plateau includes paleosols within it. These are buried fossil soils, some of which would require tens of thousands of years to form (Kukla and An 1989; Liu et al. 1985).

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Let's break it down further:

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Magical bilge pumps?

Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

• Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
• Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
• Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
• Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

Ventilation. The ark would need to be well ventilated to disperse the heat, humidity, and waste products (including methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia) from the many thousands of animals which were crowded aboard. Woodmorappe (pp. 37-42) interprets Genesis 6:16 to mean there was an 18-inch opening all around the top, and says that this, with slight breezes, would have been enough to provide adequate ventilation. However, the ark was divided into separate rooms and decks (Gen. 6:14,16). How was fresh air circulated throughout the structure?

Sanitation. The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]

How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]

How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil--appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires. [Ferguson, 1988. For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990; Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.

Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

• Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
• Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
• Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
• Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.

5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 1027 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.

Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.

As shown in section 5, all the mechanisms proposed for causing the Flood already provide more than enough energy to vaporize it as well. These additional factors only make the heat problem worse.

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.

How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt? Such layers are sometimes meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
(2) the salt is a later intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils. [Jackson et al, 1990]

How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the short time since the Flood? The stretched pebble conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15 mi. south of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their original length. Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs [Jackson et al, 1990].

How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they were laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible.

How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.

• Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
• Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization.
• Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
• Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.

How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?

How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. [Rosenberg & Runcorn, 1975; Scrutton, 1965; Wells, 1963]

 

[gord44]

pwned

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Declaring the global flood an unsettled controversy is just as scientifically illiterate as calling the flat earth hypothesis a valid model: both rely on a googolplex of assumptions that have already been safely dismissed as factually wrong based on mountains of evidence.

Reality has an anti-literalist bias, it seems.

How did this come into the discussion on Snowpiercer?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How did this come into the discussion on Snowpiercer?

By mistake, obviously. Sorry about that.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

double

 

[Abraxos]

You are only digging an even deeper hole of scientific illiteracy for yourself.

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. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

• In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
• Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.

Specimen Creek and the surrounding area show evidence of some trees transported and others buried in place. The rock layers include conglomerates from meandering and braided streams, conglomerates from mud flows, and tuffaceous sandstones composed mostly of water-transported volcanic ash. In the Eocene, the area would have been between two volcanic chains. Occasional mud flows from the slopes of the mountains would have uprooted and transported trees from the slopes and buried lowland trees in place (Fritz 1980; 1984).

Evidence that some of the trees, especially those on Specimen Ridge, were buried in place, includes the following (Retallack 1981; Yuretich 1984a; 1984b):

There are tree stumps that are rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone but buried in conglomerates.

• Upper parts of some stumps and logs, surrounded by conglomerates, were severely abraded, but the lower parts in sandstone have good root systems.
• Flow structures in some conglomerates show they buried in-place trees.
• Thin sections show evidence of soil around the roots.
• There are clear soil horizons around some root systems.

Most of the horizontal logs and some stumps (up to 15 percent of the upright stumps, according to Fritz 1984) were transported, but most of the upright Specimen Ridge fossil trees were buried in place.

Upright stumps and trees on Specimen Ridge cannot be explained as floating stumps settling out of standing water, as proposed by Coffin (1983) based on observations of trees washed into Spirit Lake.

Most tree fossils in Yellowstone occur in sediments from high-energy flows, not a low-energy lake environment (Fritz 1983).

• The percentage of erect trees in Yellowstone is more than 50 percent on Specimen Ridge, but only about ten to twenty percent of trees stay upright in flows such as in Spirit Lake (Fritz 1983).
• Many of the Specimen Ridge trees are rooted in soils, as noted above.

Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not produced in just one event.

There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporite deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others. For example:

The Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).

The Loess Plateau includes paleosols within it. These are buried fossil soils, some of which would require tens of thousands of years to form (Kukla and An 1989; Liu et al. 1985).

The person you copy and pasted quite clearly hasn't demonstrated any real thought into these claims he is making, and rather is based off more on emotional biases than scientific accuracy, or as you like to say, scientific illliteracy.
Since I travel alot is would be quite rare for me to take the time to debunk his claims in depth but I'll probably address all his claims in due time.
For starters, though I'd like to begin from what you posted first and work my way down, out of time and interest I'll address the claims I can answer from the top of my head.

Personally I'd question whether you actually blindly believe the article he wrote because when you really look into his assumptions and claiming they're scientifically accurate, is really disingenuous to the scientific method and to yourself. I'd say your deceiving yourself into believing this because of your own biases towards Christianity.

Seashells on the Mountaintops
The problem with your reasoning here is that you failed to look at the evidence of these seashells in what state they are in. These clams are closed. This means they were fossilized while still alive. Clams shells open when they die. While I agree that the mountains were not there, (Psalms 104:8) the Himalayas for example were formed quickly, not slowly.
This claim is backed-up by Biblical verses and from the evidences I had provided earlier.

Interestingly, the evidence you provide that a flood happened and that the geographical layout in numerous areas show a rapid formation, not a slow processes over long periods of time. Fitting scientific evidences into a broader claim as isn't science. It is scientific illiteracy.

Magical bilge pumps?
Anyone interested in the topic of Noah’s Ark sooner or later will encounter the term “moonpool.” Although the concept has been around a long time, it wasn’t used much until recently with the arrival of drill ships designed for oil exploration.
What is a moonpool? Well, picture a ship with a hole in the bottom of the hull and a wall surrounding the hole all the way up through the top deck—in the Ark’s case, the roof. Water won’t enter the ship because it’s contained inside the moon pool’s walls, moving up and down like a piston as the ship rides the waves.

Why may Noah have put a hole in his ship on purpose? There are several sound engineering reasons.
First, a hole in the bottom of a long ship, as was the Ark, would help relieve hull stress as the vessel crested a wave.
Second, the rising and falling water within the moonpool could be used to draw in fresh air and also extract stale air, like a piston.
Third, recent research has shown that moonpools induce resistance to movement. For Noah’s ship, this may have dampened wave motion, making the voyage more tolerable for man and beast.

Animals could fit on the Ark?

What were your thoughts on the 6th evidence I had provided?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The person you copy and pasted quite clearly hasn't demonstrated any real thought into these claims he is making, and rather is based off more on emotional biases than scientific accuracy, or as you like to say, scientific illliteracy.
Since I travel alot is would be quite rare for me to take the time to debunk his claims in depth but I'll probably address all his claims in due time.
For starters, though I'd like to begin from what you posted first and work my way down, out of time and interest I'll address the claims I can answer from the top of my head.

Personally I'd question whether you actually blindly believe the article he wrote because when you really look into his assumptions and claiming they're scientifically accurate, is really disingenuous to the scientific method and to yourself. I'd say your deceiving yourself into believing this because of your own biases towards Christianity.

Seashells on the Mountaintops
The problem with your reasoning here is that you failed to look at the evidence of these seashells in what state they are in. These clams are closed. This means they were fossilized while still alive. Clams shells open when they die. While I agree that the mountains were not there, (Psalms 104:8) the Himalayas for example were formed quickly, not slowly.
This claim is backed-up by Biblical verses and from the evidences I had provided earlier.

Interestingly, the evidence you provide that a flood happened and that the geographical layout in numerous areas show a rapid formation, not a slow processes over long periods of time. Fitting scientific evidences into a broader claim as isn't science. It is scientific illiteracy.

Magical bilge pumps?
Anyone interested in the topic of Noah’s Ark sooner or later will encounter the term “moonpool.” Although the concept has been around a long time, it wasn’t used much until recently with the arrival of drill ships designed for oil exploration.
What is a moonpool? Well, picture a ship with a hole in the bottom of the hull and a wall surrounding the hole all the way up through the top deck—in the Ark’s case, the roof. Water won’t enter the ship because it’s contained inside the moon pool’s walls, moving up and down like a piston as the ship rides the waves.

Why may Noah have put a hole in his ship on purpose? There are several sound engineering reasons.
First, a hole in the bottom of a long ship, as was the Ark, would help relieve hull stress as the vessel crested a wave.
Second, the rising and falling water within the moonpool could be used to draw in fresh air and also extract stale air, like a piston.
Third, recent research has shown that moonpools induce resistance to movement. For Noah’s ship, this may have dampened wave motion, making the voyage more tolerable for man and beast.

Animals could fit on the Ark?

What were your thoughts on the 6th evidence I had provided?

Why is this being discussed in this thread?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

To bring the discussion back on track, here's what I wrote at the very end of the last page, right before my mistaken post that belonged in another thread entirely:

Interestingly enough, conservatives tend to think that man is a tightly leashed beast in need of a firm hand, believing that everything would dissolve into bloodshed and mayhem if the threat of state-imposed violence was removed, while liberals are much more likely to see mankind as essentially good.
This also corresponds to the dichotomy "everything was better in the past, and things degenerate all the time" (conservatives) vs. "we experience progress in all areas of life" (liberals).

Sometimes, these conceptions turn into self-fulfilling prophecies; i.e. our perceptions shape the world we live in, influencing our behaviour, colouring our perception of others, and also determining the way we relate to them. A person who believes that people will turn into savage monsters in times of peril is much more likely to become a savage monster himself, as he will be less likely to cooperate with others and/or more likely to perceive everybody else as a threat to his well-being and resources.

Treat people like beasts, and they will act like beasts. That's also why the US penal system is such a collossal failure. The impulse to enact revenge upon those who've overstepped the law is very tempting to our species, since our instinctual grasp of social behaviour relies so strongly upon reciprocity ("help me, and I help you in return; harm me, and I'll harm you in return"). But if a study of prisons around the world teaches us anything, it's that US penal facilities only breed even more vicious criminals, who often have little chance of (re-)establishing a normal life once their sentence is over.

In short: I don't believe that we are Hobbesian gladiators out for blood. "Progress" can also be a harmful illusion that blocks our view of the harm we inflict, but the problem's a different one there.