The Flood = many coincidences

Hi, Cat.And, Hi, Peg. Or, that at some point in the past, the mountains were in the ocean. It's going to take a thorough refutation of plate tectonics theory to make this claim fly, which means you pretty much have to prove that earthquakes and tidal waves don't happen.Good luck. Dessert regions!? That sounds like a nice place to live. Certainly better than living in desert regions, anyway.Utah is a very dry place. But, during the Pleistocene, it was covered by a giant lake called Lake Bonneville. You can still see the "bathtub" rings where the lake reached its highest point. The fact that those rings exists pretty much proves that Lake Bonneville had defined boundaries, which shows that parts of the world can be covered in water without the entire Earth having been covered in water at one time.Also, as I'm sure Coyote is going to point out sooner or later {AbE: looks like he beat me to it, actually }, there's this pesky thing called "radiometric dating" that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later. Like most creationists and IDists, you have simply assumed that you can just dismiss radiometric dating as “iffy” and “inaccurate” without having to actually resort to using evidence.----- Yet, curiously, radiometric dating and fossil discoveries show that there was no massive Flood that coincided with the Ice Age. Remember, Lake Bonneville was roughly contemporary with the Ice Age, and it had distinct maximum boundaries. Also note that the "bathtub" rings dilineating Lake Bonneville were not found in other places of the same age, so, clearly, the Flood was either restricted to Lake Bonneville, or didn't happen at that time. Besides, it’s unlikely that you’ll to find enough water to simultaneously flood the entire planet and freeze the poles over.Furthermore, if you're attributing the Pleistocene extinction to the Flood, to what are you attributing the Devonian, Permian, Cretaceous and other extinction events?----- Now, this is an interesting statement.First, there was only ever one Jurassic Period.Second, your link leads to an article about a mammoth estimated to be 50,000 years old. By comparison, the Cretaceous Period was 65 to 145 million years ago, and the Jurassic was directly before that. I’m not sure why there is a mammoth article here at all.Third, I’m calling your (or your source’s) bluff: nobody has found Jurassic creatures in the Cretaceous Period. I will gladly retract this statement if you show me the fossils in question.Fourth, you don’t think it’s even remotely possible that perhaps the writers of the Bible just might have their intepretations wrong on some things, so why are you using the argument the somebody else might be relying too much on somebody’s words?Please pay attention to the scientific literature and note that science is essentially nothing but arguing (we say “debating,” but , sometimes, that term is used far too generously). We attack, flame and slander each other as much as we attack, flame and slander creationists, so you’re not going to get very far with the argument that we just happily agree with everything that our colleagues say in a grand, united conspiracy bent on destroying Christianity.----- So, is it your opinion that the seafloor should be completely flat in the absence of a flood? What is the seafloor but a piece of land covered by water? Do you know of any completely flat stretch of land anywhere on the earth? Even Nebraska has a couple of hills, Peg.Edited by Bluejay, : Addition (marked in text)Edited by Bluejay, : typo/spelling error

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. You're right: there are still things wrong with radiometric dating.There are also things wrong with cars and airplanes. And computers. I am currently suffering through an ear infection, which clearly proves that there is something wrong with my ears, and that I therefore shouldn’t trust a thing I hear with them.And, nevermind the invention of stainless steel and teflon, either: the fact that people made pots out of lead in the 1800’s is all the evidence I need that cookware is entirely “iffy” when it comes to my health.[/sarcasm]Problems with a technology or system only show that the system needs to be improved upon, not that it needs to be scrapped. You can pick any classic example you want---the light bulb, the airplane, horse-riding, etc.---and you’ll find that, in every case, the system only succeeded after numerous set-backs and bugs were resolved.And, as JonF briefly explained in Message 17, such improvements have already been done on radiometric dating, such that it is now much more reliable than it used to be. With more sensitive equipment, better understanding of geology, and about 100 years of experience and accumulated knowledge, science has learned how to rectify many of the inconsistencies in its dating system and generate a much more accurate construction of past chronology.----- Why, yes, it does. My apologies to you for missing that. It also says that it was a woolly rhinoceros, not a mammoth. Again, my apologies for my brain fart.Further, you are reading what is commonly understood as secondary literature, meaning that it was written by somebody who was told what had happened, not by somebody who actually knows what happened.----- Right.And you suggested this based on the observation that there are mountains underwater, the only interpretation of which is that you think mountains do not natural occur underwater, but must only come from terrestrial mountains that were flooded by God.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.