quote:Have you tried looking at the bottom of the oceans, that's where the rivers tend to flow.
Meaning what? You do realize that as rivers flow they deposit silt and sediment? In a global flood, we should see all type of rock and silt mixed into one layer as all it would have deposited within a very short time. Nothing like this exists anywhere on the planet.
quote:I would expect that the sediment would contain fossils in the order they were washed away.
Except that Genesis states that the flood was very turbulent and chaotic, which would have mixed up organisms and then deposited by fluid mechanics.
quote:Stone and metal tools would be found where they were dropped.
Silly. So you're saying if we take billions of gallons of water, add huge amounts of energy to them, that stone and metal tools won't move?
quote:Your assuming that this is a single homogeneous layer.
Why wouldn't there be? What change in physics are you proposing? Furthermore, what EVIDENCE do you have for such a radical change in physics?
quote:Without doing any maths I would guess that this level would be insignificantly low. And there's salt everywhere.
But it should be detectable. The variations within the large oceans that are freely connected (read not meditarrian) should have extremely low deviations of salinity.
[quote]The first animals to leave the ark could have been half way around the world within a few months without leaving any trace.
quote:There's plenty of water, I thought that been established.
No there is not. This has already been established. Furthermore, any mantle sources of water would be superheated. Try see how long your pets last in a world that has just got up 212 Fahrenheit.
I mean think about it; billions of years. Growth is exponential, if life has been around for billions of years we'd be knee deep in bones.
Uh.....Lucy? My part of West Texas isn't knee deep - it's a couple of miles deep in exoskeletons of sponges and corals and all sorts of sea critters that had calcium carbonate parts. That didn't get there in 150 days. It didn't all get there in 150 millenia. It takes a long time to grow a single reef 120 miles long and 600 feet or more thick - and there's one like that a mile below my house.
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
Have you tried looking at the bottom of the oceans, that's where the rivers tend to flow.
Beg pardon? Can you name a river that flows "at the bottom of the oceans?" Have you ever heard of a river delta, or, say, looked at a map? Rivers flow to oceans, and typically build up big piles of sediment on the ocean's edge. A junior-high science book will explain it pretty clearly.
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
Genetics. It's in its infancy.??? You can't be serious.
quote:Genetics. It's in its infancy.
The scientists who mapped the human genome would be surprised to hear that genetics in in its infancy. So would Gregor Mendal, who worked out the basic mechanisms of genetic inheritance around 1860. By the 1940s plant breeders had worked out the details enough to allow commercial production of hybrid corn seed - not exactly the product of a scientific field "in its infancy". The basic structure of DNA was described in 1953. The human genome was mostly mapped by 2003 - a massive undertaking involving over 25,000 loci. This type of project was not for amateurs as your "infancy" comment would imply. These were scientists who were at the peak of their professional careers. And one does not need to have entire genomes mapped in order to do relationship studies - those were being done even before genetic fingerprinting techniques were perfected in 1984. Genetic fingerprinting can distinguish between INDIVIDUALS in a population. How much easier do you think it is to distinguish among species and genera using DNA? Recombinant DNA techniques (genetic engineering) were perfected in 1973. Genetics in its infancy? Compared to what, I would like to know? You really need to stop commenting on stuff you don't know jack shit about. Of course, if you aren't concerned about appearing to be an ignoramus - by all means, carry on.
Meaning what? You do realize that as rivers flow they deposit silt and sediment? In a global flood, we should see all type of rock and silt mixed into one layer as all it would have deposited within a very short time. Nothing like this exists anywhere on the planet.
We'd expect things to be dragged along based on their physics.
A hammer, which is relatively dense, but small, should stay where it was dropped.
A rock which is big (large surface area) would be dragged away.
Except that Genesis states that the flood was very turbulent and chaotic, which would have mixed up organisms and then deposited by fluid mechanics.
Why do you use the bible as a reference?
Remember resistance has a squared effect.
Why wouldn't there be? What change in physics are you proposing? Furthermore, what EVIDENCE do you have for such a radical change in physics?
Re: Genetics. It's in its infancy.??? You can't be serious.
Evolutionary genetics is in its infancy.
Do you disagree?
...
YES.
The field of genetics, even as it pertains to evolution, can in no way be described as a field "in its infancy." We can use genetic information to determine ancient bottlenecks in populations, detect genetic damage from ancient retroviral infections to help determine common ancestry, contrast and compare the DNA of different species, we understand exactly how mutations through DNA replication errors contribute to the evolutionary process...
We aren't exactly taking our first few steps here, Lucy. We've been around the block a few times. Sure, there's plenty more to learn, but that's the best part of this Universe: there's always more to learn.
A hammer, which is relatively dense, but small, should stay where it was dropped.
Don't be silly.
Do you really think that an event like that is incapable of moving a bloody hammer!?. Have you suffered a blunt head trauma in the recent past? You seem to be forgetting that in a flood lots of objects are all being swept up together. They are all going to jostle each other, with buoyant objects dragging along less buoyant objects and vice-versa. To suggest that a tiny thing like a hammer is going to somehow be immune to this chaos is, frankly, bonkers.
quote:We'd expect things to be dragged along based on their physics.
Hence why a global flood should uniformally deposit silt in a consistent fashion all over the world according to mass. Explain to me why we have nothing like this anywhere. Furthermore, explain to me why iridium which is heavier then many other elements is found on top of lighter elements if a global flood occurred.
quote:A hammer, which is relatively dense, but small, should stay where it was dropped.
A rock which is big (large surface area) would be dragged away.
Therefore you think that nothing heavy with small area got moved during the massive floods several years ago.
Stop being absurd.
quote:Why do you use the bible as a reference?
Remember resistance has a squared effect.
So you're saying that billions of cubic miles with huge amounts of energy was peaceful?
Again, stop being absurd.
quote:I'm not proposing any change in physics!
You are proposing an entirely new set of physical laws, where energy doesn't matter.
Re: Genetics. It's in its infancy.??? You can't be serious.
quote:Evolutionary Genetics is in its infancy.
Do you disagree?
Absolutely I disagree. And I cited examples of how DNA is being and has been used for over 20 years for determing evolutionary relationships. It is a powerful tool but it does not for the most part contradict systematics that have been worked out using morphological data - it adds to it and extends it beyond the wildest dreams of the traditional evolutionary biologist - but it is not contradictory. And it certainly does not give any comfort to YECs trying to make Flood biology work. You are wasting your time (and ours) here by pretending you respect science and throwing around terms you don't understand and have no intention of trying to understand. It is one thing to not know. It is quite another to deliberately ignore the efforts of people trying to give thoughtful answers to your not very thoughtful questions.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic - Content hidden. Message kind of cranky also.
We'd expect things to be dragged along based on their physics.
Obvious Child writes:
Hence why a global flood should uniformally deposit silt in a consistent fashion all over the world according to mass.
I don't like your logic here OC.
Just say the earth split open at some point at its mantle. This vaporised the ocean for 40 days or so which melted the ice and was also responsible for the rain.
If something is sitting on a slope it might well be washed away with the rain. If something is sitting on a plane and it's heavy enough, the water might just cover it with silt without it being dragged anywhere. If something is sitting in a valley it might be dragged to the lowest point in the valley, say the bottom of a lake. A lot of stuff would be dragged to the bottom of the oceans.
So a homogenous layer of silt, in my opinion is unlikely.
OC writes:
Therefore you think that nothing heavy with small area got moved during the massive floods several years ago.
I never said anything of the sort, nor did I think it.
OC writes:
So you're saying that billions of cubic miles with huge amounts of energy was peaceful?
Again, I never said that. There may have been places on the earth where it was peaceful, but not everywhere.
OC writes:
You are proposing an entirely new set of physical laws, where energy doesn't matter.
No I'm not, I'm using the laws we already have, rationally.
Re: Genetics. It's in its infancy.??? You can't be serious.
Rahvin writes:
We aren't exactly taking our first few steps here, Lucy. We've been around the block a few times. Sure, there's plenty more to learn, but that's the best part of this Universe: there's always more to learn.
Ok, Its not in its infancy even though it was only a couple of years or so ago that the human genome was sequenced. My point is that genetics has a lot to learn.
...a lot of stuff would be dragged to the bottom of the oceans. So a homogenous layer of silt, in my opinion is unlikely.
But if there was a global flood the entire planet would be at the bottom of the ocean! Any material suspended in the water would have the potential to be deposited anywhere across the surface of the globe, hence a homogenous layer of silt.
™ Version 4.2
