PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
A slow moving flood wouldn't pick up much sediment to begin with, relatively speaking.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In fast rushing water that contained lots of material yes, but a slow moving flood would deposit its sediments rather quickly, and the bodies wouldn't sink until some time later and would rest on or near the surface, to decompose rather quickly.
And you have no idea when it isn't going to work.
Which is worse?
A slow moving flood wouldn't pick up much sediment to begin with, relatively speaking.
True. The heavier particles wouldn't move very far if at all and the finer silt would be so dilute in the massive water column that deposition of it would be insignificant. However there would be erosion and deposition in areas where the waters were narrowly channeled.
Not only to decompose, the fish would eat most of it, they wouldn't have known they were in a flood, for a fish there's always a flood, fish numbers would have doubled that year, which means God failed in his bid to wipe everything out,In fast rushing water that contained lots of material yes, but a slow moving flood would deposit its sediments rather quickly, and the bodies wouldn't sink until some time later and would rest on or near the surface, to decompose rather quickly.
In ask an astrophysicist thread, the guy just did exactly that. You think he is a closet creo?No, creationists do that in an attempt to falsify science, but scientists don't.
No. They assume present rates. Any looking they do also does the same..assume a present state first and always and only. No wiggling out of it, so called science is religion.No, they DON'T just assume the same rates. The look for evidence of DIFFERENT rates and don't find them. If they ever do find that evidence, the theory will change. But scientists don't simply ASSUME the rates are the same.
Right, they simply believe physics was the same! Thanks for that. I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares?They don't simply "believe" physics operated differently in the past, they design and conduct experiments that would show evidence of a "different state past". Guess what, they have NEVER found any.
Again, I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares? They either know, or any godless blather they spout must be treated like poison.Unlike you, scientists don't believe that the absence of evidence that physics operated differently in the past is evidence that physics DID operate differently in the past.
Unless the "godless blather they spout" helps you of course then it won't be treated like poison.Again, I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares? They either know, or any godless blather they spout must be treated like poison.
Playing in a sand box may tell us how the sand behaves when we wet it, or pile it, or toss it in the air, etc. Science can play with stuff in this world and use our present laws. In no way does that make the fables they bark out about the future or God's yesterdays valid in the least.Unless the "godless blather they spout" helps you of course then it won't be treated like poison.
TV evangelists love science, it brings them in millions.
Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.In no way does that make the fables they bark out about the future or God's yesterdays valid in the least.
Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.
Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.
Thank God for the victory. It is real. We can't lose for winning.Careful. You know dad has never been defeated right? Well, at least in the last 5 minutes he hasn't been.
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.
I see that people have requested several times that you provide a source for the assertion that the fossil record is out of order. All you've done so far is note that there are marine fossils interspersed with terrestrial fossils; you have failed to explain why this is inconsistent with conventional geology or the theory of evolution.
Conversely, the order of the fossil record is completely inconsistent with the Flood. As others have pointed out, there's some pretty strict zonation going on that can't be reconciled with the Flood, even when ecological zonation, differential escape and hydrologic sorting are invoked. Dinosaurs and modern mammals (to pick one obvious example out of an effectively limitless supply) live in the same geographic locations and in the same environments, yet they are never found together in the same strata.
So I await your evidence for the fossil record being "out of order" and your explanation of why it is so strictly zonated. And in regard to the Grand Canyon, I believe you vanished from a thread discussing that some time ago. Remember the meanders? And how such features can't be produced rapidly and catastrophically?
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.
You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:
1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).
2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..
3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.
4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.
I'm still waiting for:
1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air toxic
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing
Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.
I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.
It was never "in order" or "strictly" zonated.
I can vanish and re-appear as I want to. I do believe it was shown that the meanders in the canyon could have easily formed quickly. So nothing more to say there.
[.QUOTE=Atheos canadensis;65501296]
Poon Lim didn't have to contend with the toxic soup from the bloated and rotting dead bodies that would have polluted the surface of the water and the air. He also had provisions to keep him alive for a time while he assessed his situation. Not a good comparison.
If the flood occurred as is generally imagined there would be ample evidence. Since it didn't happen that way that evidence is absent.
I can vanish and re-appear as I want to.
You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:
1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).
2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..
3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.
4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.
I'm still waiting for:
1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air toxic
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing
Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.
I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.
My model is supported by the story and vice versa, that no one except the eight survived. I cannot address suppositions that contradict the story, only those that support it.
True, but it wouldn't be enough to explain most geographic formations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?