Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Now you wait one moment... the ark was a Containment Vessel, not a ship (I learned that from you). You are just goofing with this "Nautilus" talk.
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.
Just this one ...
Don't need a link.
The Ark was made of what the Bible calls 'gopher wood' -- which, of course, is nothing more than copper, mixed with trace elements, called "pitch" -- (probably carbon for hardness).
Keep in mind that Noah's predecessors were top-notch metallurgists.
Thus the Ark was a giant state-of-the Ark submarine, complete with periscope
Now you wait one moment... the ark was a Containment Vessel, not a ship (I learned that from you). You are just goofing with this "Nautilus" talk.
You mean you did. I don't agree with that. I believe the term you're referring to is called retrospective falsification; and I don't subscribe to it, as far as the Bible is concerned.
Yes.
Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Notice the giants in the land, well after the Flood?
If that's what you believe, I won't dispute it. Perhaps Goliath was still just a "small boy" at the time.
That question was directed toward the OP or someone who has been a participant in the discussion initiated by the OP. It was not directed to flood opponents or proponents, simply to whoever can give me a reasonable answer.
Can you?
That question was directed toward the OP or someone who has been a participant in the discussion initiated by the OP. It was not directed to flood opponents or proponents, simply to whoever can give me a reasonable answer.
Can you?
The key here is "flood model," isn't it?Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model.
The key here is "flood model," isn't it?
If creationists cannot explain it with a flood model, then it must be some other model ... right?
And what is that other model?
GOD DID IT
Since I've been pestered recently to say GOD DID IT, over making suppositions; I'm planning on doing just that, so the lurkers can see how you guys respond to it.
Since I've been pestered recently to say GOD DID IT, over making suppositions; I'm planning on doing just that, so the lurkers can see how you guys respond to it.
The fact is, you don't like suppositions, and you don't like "GOD DID IT" ... it's a catch-22.
But I want to see if my hypothesis ... that you guys will mock us either way ... holds true.
Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model.
The problem is that you have to put "god did it" into the answer thousands and thousands of times. You still don't realize what an enormous problem the lack of genetic bottlenecks is for the Ark. They show that life has not been interrupted like that for over 100,000 years. To account for that your god would have had to add diversity to the genome thousands of times since the flood for millions of animals. That would be billions of miracles.
Diversity is a known factor in genetic analysis. It as also stated that environmental pressure increases the rate of species diversification. So the higher the population pressure, the faster the rate of diversification.
You are a crowd pleaser, AV. I used to be one of those lurkers.Since I've been pestered recently to say GOD DID IT, over making suppositions; I'm planning on doing just that, so the lurkers can see how you guys respond to it.
It's not that I don't like it, it's that is it gibberish. It explains nothing.The fact is, you don't like suppositions, and you don't like "GOD DID IT" ... it's a catch-22.
For whom do you speak when you say "us"?But I want to see if my hypothesis ... that you guys will mock us either way ... holds true.
This isn't entirely true. While we often think of evaporites as forming in a sabkha-like environment that undergoes wet-dry cyclicity, many evaporite accumulations are thought to have formed in isolated basins with long lasting, stratified water columns. In these instances, periodic inundation of saline water accompanied by arid to hyperarid conditions results in the development of hypersalinity at the top of the water column (isolation of the basin by some topographic high during relative sea level lowstands prevents circulation, which sets up water column stratificaiton). This leads to precipitation of evaporite crystals in the top of the water column, which then sink to the basin floor. This process accounts for the widespread uniformity present in some evaporitic formations, and could conceivably be operative during a global flood similar to that proposed by some christians.Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model. How do they explain evaporite layers mixed in with regular sedimentary deposits. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term evaporites are deposits of salt and gypsum that are the result of drying sea water.
Verily. But my question hasn't been addressed. I may not have asked it as clearly as I meant to. Let me try again: If we remove the rock record from consideration, are there other physical features of the Earth that refute the biblical flood hypothesis? Can we use the characteristics of, say, unlithified sediments to address the hypothesis? What about geomorphology? Or the location and characteristics of modern depositional environments?The problem with "Flood deposits" is that studies in sedimentology shows that the vast majority of sediments cannot be deposited in a world wide flood.
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?