Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 22 of 96 (463231)
04-13-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
04-12-2008 8:34 PM


Buzsaw writes:
2. The unproven but also unrefuted terrarium hypothesis implies a non-uniformitarian chemical makeup of land and atmosphere, thus rendering all dating methods as debatable/questionable/non-imperical.
I have yet to see any YEC-ist consider the physical implications of this "non-uniformitarian chemical makeup". If the rate of radioactive decay in a dozen different elements, whose current behaviors show consistent correlations with one another and with other, independent forms of physical evidence, had all been drastically different before a specific year in the 5th millenium BCE, it becomes necessary to provide not only predictive models to account for those other forms of physical evidence, but also an account of how physics itself would have to be different -- e.g. since one of the by-products of radioactive decay is heat, the pre-flood world would have been a lot hotter. The various differences would have had an effect on how (or whether) life would survive. And this in turn raises concerns about how different pre-flood life must have been relative to post-flood life. In other words, can any YEC-ist present a clear case that life forms existing in the "hypothesized" pre-flood environment could also survive in the post-flood environment, given the changes in physical constants asserted during the year of the flood?
I think the reason this non-uniformitarian idea has not been "refuted" is that it has not yet come up with any sort of account that merits serious investigation. It's a case of someone making stuff up in order to assert an event that could not have happened in reality.
4. The terrarium hypothesis may account for the formation of the ice caps of the poles, given sudden cooling due to the loss of the terrarium H2O in the new atmosphere leaving the cold poles unprotected.
...
7. Both Biblical floods would have most likely effected extensive volcanic activity which seemingly could account for just about anything one might cite relative to lava layering etc.
Which is it? Extraordinary cooling (to account for the ice-caps), or extraordinary heat (because of all the volcanoes -- not to mention all the preceding excess heat from elevated rates of radioactive decay)? Is it both at the same time? Well, sure, if you have no interest at all in paying any attention to physical evidence, it might as well be all of the above and "anything you might cite..." -- why bother with evidence at all?
But seriously, can anyone make a coherent assertion about volcanic activity during (or immediately adjacent to) a one-year flood event occurring within arhaeologically recorded time, based on what we have observed with our own eyes about the behavior of volcanoes? Similarly for ice-cap formation, sedimentation, continental drift, ocean-floor plate expansion and subduction, and (my new favorite, thanks to Coyote) definitive proof that the "chosen people" were not the only ones who clearly survived the alleged event (oh of course... that depends on aging measures that you question, but cannot refute, let alone provide any plausible alternative theory).
Hmm... perhaps you could assert that the Garden of Eden was actually on the North American Continent, since anything is possible when God is pulling all the strings to suit His whim, using tricks that he has scrupulously avoided since the onset of recorded history.
I think it's easier to hypothesize that God induced a mass hallucination among the people who "survived" the "flood" -- it involves a lot less monkey business with impossibly complicated distortions of physics. Either that, or else look for a different kind of meaning (not physical history) in this part of Genesis.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2008 8:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 31 of 96 (463267)
04-14-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
04-13-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw writes:
Here is a faily good explanation of why the Biblical record implies a pre-flood canopy atmosphere as depicted in the Genesis account.
Okay now, we're talking about the writings of a Dr. Jobe Martin, who teaches Bible study to his dentistry students at Baylor College (date uncertain). I must struggle to resist "argument from incredulity", despite being puzzled why this person's chosen profession qualifies him to make stuff up about geology, biology and climatology, and pass it off as proof of anything. So, let's move on to something of substance in his assertions...
He claims, on the basis of clear evidence in the text of Genesis, that none of the dinosaurs were predators. This is despite the wide differences in dentition and oral cavity configuration that these creatures display in the fossil record. Of all people, a teacher of dentistry (even as a subject on the side, next to bible study) ought to understand that different tooth shapes and jaw structures give clear indications (indeed, positive correlations) as to differences in diet.
Have you ever seen a dog or cat try to eat leafy greens or fruit? They do in fact try to eat greens from time to time -- I don't know why, but I assume there's some explanation for it -- but my point is that they are not at all good at it, because their teeth and mouths weren't designed for don't work at all well with that sort of input. The same would apply to t-rex and similar species whose jaws are well-tuned to ripping and tearing flesh from other animals.
We would also have to wonder, given Dr. Martin's notions the biblical evidence pinpointed by Dr. Martin, why we have found clear cases of scarring and fragments from t-rex teeth in the skeletal remains of other dinosaurs. Well, I suppose that if Cain can slay Abel and get away with it, what's the big deal if a bunch of triceratops get eaten by t-rexes, in clear contradiction of what God tells us?
Update: oh wait, I get it now -- one of the reasons God opted for the flood action was because the t-rexes were eating the triceratops. Let's face it, there really wasn't very much detail about His overall rationale. He just didn't feel compelled to mention this detail in the book, maybe because everyone at the time already knew from personal experience... there surely would have been a lot of gossip going around about all the trouble those t-rexes had been causing, and good riddance! Small wonder that Noah didn't make room for them on the ark: they were way past "unclean". Your position remains irrefutable, Buz. Good show.
Still, given how omniscient He is, how could he choose to give t-rex those teeth, and not expect trouble? I think He just wanted to play around with lots of water (it is fascinating stuff), and here was a way to factor that into the overall plan. Everything is planned, of course -- even the mistakes!
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (as indicated in last paragraph)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added two final paragraphs, as noted -- which means that the first revision is no longer in the "last paragraph"
Edited by Otto Tellick, : repaired the unintended and inappropriate use of "design" terminology

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2008 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:44 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 47 of 96 (463299)
04-15-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 11:44 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Hi back atcha, Buz. I'm glad were all having such a good time... you making stuff up -- what an imagination! -- and the rest of us avidly exploring the breadth and depth of all the holes in your various improvisations.
Okay, I'll keep playing with this one about the teeth, because you missed my big point when you said:
Buzsaw writes:
For now, methinks those dino teeth of the larger varieties were for consuming larger tougher vegetation which the smaller animals would not be interested in. Certainly just about any carnivorous animal is capable of eating vegetation, fruits and vegies. Likely that was their food then and they have microevolved into being carnivorous.
Well, sadly, the dinos did not get that chance to evolve into carnivores, what with there being no room for them on the ark and all. But you failed to address the fact that the particular ones with carnivore-like teeth actually did go around biting other dinos (and digesting parts of them as well, based on stuff found encased within their rib cages). I couldn't find the specific example of the t-rex biting a triceratops (I recall reading that and seeing the photos in a Discover magazine issue some years ago), but I did find this case involving things biting (and presumably digesting chunks of) pterasaurs -- my thanks to National Geographic for not charging a fee to access this information. God says they didn't do that before the flood! Dr. Martin made that clear! So go ahead and admit it: the flood wasn't about human transgressions against God. It was about the sins of the carnivorous dinosaurs! I don't understand why this hasn't become central to the Judeo-Christian canon for all denominations. The evidence is so blatant.
I'm starting to wonder if there might have been something really strange about those dinosaurs... why has God suppressed all mention and evidence of them? Maybe they were onto something. Well of course! It was a dino that spoke to Eve about that whole apple thing. I think the dinos must have been pretty smart, over all (though not all of them were smart enough to obey the will of God, obviously -- of course, the same is true of people), and perhaps it's not inappropriate that some of our current depictions of these extinct creatures show them talking.
Ah, it's just too much fun. Thanks, Buz.
Oh, and you do keep talking about lots of volcanoes, and higher atmospheric pressure, and rapid radioactive decay, all of which make for hot times in the old ecosphere (not to mention other toxic and life-threatening side-effects), and then the sudden cooling and the freezing of the ice caps. Here's an idea: as soon as the flood was over, the earth's orbital radius suddenly increased by... whatever it takes to settle the books for thermal balance. Has anyone proposed that yet? I suppose shrinking the sun (with concomitant reduction in its output) would work as well -- what the heck, why not both?
We're on a tour of God's Circus and Amusement Park, where anything is possible. What more could we ask by way of enlightenment?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024