The order of fossils in the geological column

[Atheos canadensis]

I don't think there was anything slow and gentle about Noah's flood. Maybe at the very start.

The flood, wind and rain would have been a mega storm.

Indeed. But this discussion is taking place in the context of the slow, gentle Flood OWG envisions. He imagines the Flood that way because he is aware that there is no evidence for the Flood as traditionally described. Certainly not in the order of the fossil record. Feel free to argue that point; Lifepsyop gave it a shot, but he disappeared a week or more ago when things got too hard (though he may just have suddenly become too busy I suppose).

 

[EternalDragon]

Indeed. But this discussion is taking place in the context of the slow, gentle Flood OWG envisions. He imagines the Flood that way because he is aware that there is no evidence for the Flood as traditionally described. Certainly not in the order of the fossil record. Feel free to argue that point; Lifepsyop gave it a shot, but he disappeared a week or more ago when things got too hard (though he may just have suddenly become too busy I suppose).

Not even going to try.

I will stick with what we have in the bible as it was a one time, non-repeatable event in which we have only bits of information about.

Speculating on the details is just mere speculation when dealing with past events that can't be witnessed or reproduced again.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Not even going to try.

I will stick with what we have in the bible as it was a one time, non-repeatable event in which we have only bits of information about.

Speculating on the details is just mere speculation when dealing with past events that can't be witnessed or reproduced again.

You're not even going to attempt to support your position? How unlike you! Unfortunately for you, the only "speculation" required to debunk the Flood is the following assumption which I challenged Lifepsyop five times to critique only to be met with silence:

The assumption is that physical laws are the same now as in the past which leads to the logical conclusion that if a certain depositional environment has features A, B, C, D and E and we find strata with those same features, those strata were produced by the same physical set of forces and thus is most parsimoniously explained as having been created in that environment.

Using that uniformitarian assumption, all the sorting mechanisms he proposed to explain the fossil record fell apart. He couldn't offer a critique; can you?

 

[dad]

The assumption is that physical laws are the same now as in the past...

Ha. That is what it comes down to.

 

[dad]

This discussion is in the context of OWG's gentle, gradual Flood.

Right, but that is silly. Biblically, and to those who think about it also.

 

[EternalDragon]

You're not even going to attempt to support your position? How unlike you! Unfortunately for you, the only "speculation" required to debunk the Flood is the following assumption which I challenged Lifepsyop five times to critique only to be met with silence:

The assumption is that physical laws are the same now as in the past which leads to the logical conclusion that if a certain depositional environment has features A, B, C, D and E and we find strata with those same features, those strata were produced by the same physical set of forces and thus is most parsimoniously explained as having been created in that environment.

Using that uniformitarian assumption, all the sorting mechanisms he proposed to explain the fossil record fell apart. He couldn't offer a critique; can you?

I wasn't going to try to support a very slow, gradual flood because the biblical description indicates it was rather violent.

You do know that only 5% of fossils ever found appear in any sort of order? The fossil record is proof positive of a world wide flood. That and the chalk cliffs, the Grand Canyon, Etc.

 

[Dizredux]

You do know that only 5% of fossils ever found appear in any sort of order?

I would love to see the evidence for this. Can you supply some?

Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

I would love to see the evidence for this. Can you supply some?

Dizredux

I've asked numerous times for evidence that they are found in order and got nothing other than a few people saying that they are not found as depicted in some science books.

The above figure was from my son's 12th grade Biology book. From scientists that are actually out in the field. Perhaps you've been misled in some way?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think there was anything slow and gentle about Noah's flood. Maybe at the very start.

The flood, wind and rain would have been a mega storm.

If the 40 days and nights of rain drains the atmosphere of heat, or at the very least reduces heat and pressure differences, the winds would stop, and thus wave action would be reduced significantly . So, no wind, no waves. Fits my model.

Rain drains energy from the atmosphere - physicsworld.com

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK, what I saw there was a very gentle tide that did nothing at all except raise the water level a few inches. You need enough water to not only float a wooden vessl of at least 13,000 tons displacement, you need enough water to cover the "mountains of Ararat". What you posted here is NOT going to do it.

My tide videos are meant to show the speed of the approaching flood, not it's volume. It was like a tide that kept coming, until everything was flooded.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the 40 days and nights of rain drains the atmosphere of heat, or at the very least reduces heat and pressure differences, the winds would stop, and thus wave action would be reduced significantly . So, no wind, no waves. Fits my model.

Rain drains energy from the atmosphere - physicsworld.com

OWG, let's bottom-line this discussion.

In your opinion:

If a torpedo carrying a 100[sup]100[/sup] gigaton super mega atomic bomb would have made a direct hit on the Ark, do you think that, when they got off the Ark, that Shem would have asked his dad:

Did you hear a "pop" the other night?

In your opinion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not even going to try.

I will stick with what we have in the bible as it was a one time, non-repeatable event in which we have only bits of information about.

Speculating on the details is just mere speculation when dealing with past events that can't be witnessed or reproduced again.

My pastor used to joke that he attended Seminary, where he majored in Speculation. Speculation is like 'painting by the numbers'. The bible is the numbered canvas and we get to paint in the details.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OWG, let's bottom-line this discussion.

In your opinion:

If a torpedo carrying a 100[sup]100[/sup] gigaton super mega atomic bomb would have made a direct hit on the Ark, do you think that, when they got off the Ark, that Shem would have asked his dad:

Did you hear a "pop" the other night?

In your opinion.

Regarding divine protection, I think the ark was designed, by God, to successfully complete it's journey regardless of what happened to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

My pastor used to joke that he attended Seminary, where he majored in Speculation. Speculation is like 'painting by the numbers'. The bible is the numbered canvas and we get to paint in the details.

I'd rather paint by numbers than play connect-the-dots.

 

[AV1611VET]

We're on the same page. The ark was a massive structure, unprecedented then, as it would be now.

Okay, bro.

Just checking.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are grasping at straws. I would be interested in any evidence you have for the claim that the air would be poisoned by floating corpses. According to this paper, a 60kg human would have to ingest 10.8 g of pure putrecine every day for there to be a significant toxic effect. Is that your only way to explain away the fact that fishing and collecting rainwater are perfectly viable ways to survive for extended periods at sea? As far as I know, rotting meat doesn't make rain water unpotable. I await your evidence to the contrary. And if toxic corpse air were a real problem, it would have been just as fatal for Noah. Unless the Ark was airtight, which would be equally fatal eventually. And if anything such a bounty of flesh in the water would attract even more fish for survivors (Poon Lim caught sharks with a nail).

Poon Lim had "several tins of biscuits, a forty litre jug of water, some chocolate, a bag of sugar lumps". Not exactly an enormous supply. Are you really suggesting that nowhere in the world was there a ship with at least that much food loaded? Absurd. And again, he survived on a mere eight foot raft; people would be much better off with access to proper boats with supplies and proper fishing gear. Plus in a real ship you could sail away from corpse-clotted areas if that were really an issue. And if you wish to suggest that the entire surface of the water was clogged with corpses, you are in trouble because there is no more evidence for than than there is for the catastrophic Flood commonly imagined.




Correct. But that's why you're having so much trouble with this. You know there's no evidence for the Flood as traditionally envisioned, but the gradual Flood you describe makes near total annihilation of the global population absurdly unlikely. As Sarah says, why not just state that God made sure everyone drowned?

My model has,

No wind. The forty days of rain had drained the heat needed for winds from the atmosphere.

Therefore no one could 'sail' anywhere but would be carried along on the flood water along with the corpses as well as the putrid smell.

The rains stopped after forty days, therefore no more fresh water for the duration of the flood.

The ark was in different location, far from the main flood debris and therefore wasn't bothered by it.

 

[[serious]]

OWG, let's bottom-line this discussion.

In your opinion:

If a torpedo carrying a 100[sup]100[/sup] gigaton super mega atomic bomb would have made a direct hit on the Ark, do you think that, when they got off the Ark, that Shem would have asked his dad:

Did you hear a "pop" the other night?

In your opinion.

I don't know, where would the ark have landed?

 

[Queller]

I don't think there was anything slow and gentle about Noah's flood. Maybe at the very start.

The flood, wind and rain would have been a mega storm.

The post you responded to was in the context of OWG's slow and gentle Flood.

 

[Queller]

Ha. That is what it comes down to.

Because after decades of study, exploration, and experimentation, there is no rational reason NOT to presume that.

 

[Queller]

My tide videos are meant to show the speed of the approaching flood, not it's volume. It was like a tide that kept coming, until everything was flooded.

Except that it wasn't fast at all and everything WASN'T flooded. Even the low lying sandbars weren't submerged.