|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days)  Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark, have you brought your objections to Walt Brown's 'theory' to his attention? You may have valid objections. If you think you do then debate him on it. I have engaged in numerous such debates with evolutionist websites. Just a thought.
mark24:What is the Lords word worth? John Paul:More than man's (or woman's).
mark24:I have challenged YEC in this thread to bring forward unrefutable evidence of a flood of biblical proportions. This they have failed to do. John Paul:How do you know that there isn't any evidence for a Global Flood as depicted in the Bible? Really, what would use as a reference? mark24:It isn’t baseless, there is no evidence of tectonic activity moving continents at 45mph. John Paul:There is also no evidence to support that the very slow tectonic movements can cause the peaks of mountains to form. So I guess we are at an impasse. mark24:Scientists don’t perform research within scriptures framework, they make it FIT it. John Paul:I could just as easily say "Scientists don't perform research within the materialistic naturalism framework, they make it FIT it.' ------------------John Paul
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Once more into the breach. Why is there reason to believe the bibles word as word of God?
quote: Not sure what you mean by requiring a reference. But, for example, if someone is saying there has been block faulting that made the ocean plates rise up, I would expect to see block faulting around those plates. Saying there are mountains (for example) proves nothing, for creationist flood, or mainstream science. However, evidence that points to explanation via forming mechanisms, makes it better than a hypothesis without ANY evidence of the purported mechanisms. This is what I’m getting at in previous posts where I ask for evidence of flood MECHANISMS for: Mid-Oceanic RidgeContinental Shelves and Slopes Ocean Trenches Seamounts and Tablemounts Earthquakes Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Formations Major Mountain Ranges Overthrusts Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Metamorphic Rock Limestone Salt Domes You can find mainstream sciences explanations in any good book on Geology. I can’t find any consensus on creation sciences view. This is why I ask exactly what evidence there is, so we can take a look at what this evidence points to, & actually have a flood theory based on evidence & not baseless supposition. Then we can dispense with vapour canopy, lithospheric block faulting etc. & have something to argue instead of this may have happened, or If there was a vapour canopy then this would be true, etc.
quote: http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/arete.html Uplift has been measured to outstrip erosion, so mountain peaks can form in the manner outlined in the link. There is no impasse. There is no evidence that tectonic plate movement proceeds at a pace beyond cms/year, & this still allows mountain peaks to form. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark, have you read any of John Baumgardner's work on runaway subduction? If not you really should. You appear better versed in geology than I am (sorry but that's really not saying much
Here's a link: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics In Part III: We understand you've shown that as these floating blocks of rock push down into the material below, things get hotter, so the 'slipperyness' increases and there's a runaway effect. The faster they sink the hotter they get, so the faster they can sink. JB: Yes-rock that comprises the ocean floor is colder, and therefore denser than the rock below it, so it can sink into the earth's interior [see Figure 1--Click on thumbnail for details. Based on Tarbuck, p. 403] The properties of the rock inside the earth, especially at the high temperatures that exist there, make it possible for the colder rock from the earth's surface to peel away and sink in a runaway manner down through the mantle-very rapidly. So this 'happens' on your computer model all by itself, from the laws of science, over a short time-scale, not millions of years? JB: That's correct. Exactly how long is something I'm working to refine. But it seems that once this sinking of the pre-Flood ocean floor starts (in a conveyor-belt-like fashion down into the earth, pulling things apart behind it), it is not a slow process spanning millions of years. It's almost certain that it runs to completion and, recycles' all of the existing floor in a few weeks or months. ------------------John Paul
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days)  Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
keenanvin Inactive Member |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"First, Shall we start off with the supposed ark Noah built:"
--Sounds like fun! lets do that
"Wood rotting. Left out in the open, the partly-built Ark would be exposed to the elements, such as rain, wind, lightning (a large structure is likely to get struck quite often, and wood burns), fungus, termites and ravenous beavers (well, maybe not beavers). Maybe he first built a huge hangar in which he could construct it safely? That would have almost as great an enterprise as the Ark itself! Unfortunately, the Bible does not enlighten us as to the whereabouts of Noah's Shed. I guess it was washed away in the Flood..."--Noah could have simply covered up the ark, used a sort of tarp, not waterproof but enough to drain about 98% of the water that would have made contact, also he assumes that weather is drastic (lightning hard wind and rain (if any rain at all)), I don't think that if Noah made a shed that he would have made time to make it look too pretty either, and he sure would have had enough workers helping him. Fungus, moss, and mildew grow in moist conditions, higher humidity than in the middle east where its practically desert, though vegetation would have been plentifull before the flood, only rain is needed, not drastic hurricanes, or frantic lightning (even if there was little, he could have been smart enough to make a lightning rod of some sort. Though I sertanily doubt there was much lightning at all if any. Ravenous beavers....hehe thats pretty funny, there were no carniverous animals before the Flood either, violence but no meat eaters. "Theft and vandalism. The hordes of fiendish deviants living around Noah at the time would no doubt have had enjoyed enormous sinful fun by sabotaging the Ark, stealing the wood for themselves (why cut and prepare your own wood when Noah's done the job for you?) and harassing the few workers."--This makes a good point, though he forgets, Noah was a very profitable man in his day, he had his own buisness persay, he could have got anyone he wanted to guard the boat and cut his trees, and do whatever would have needed conditioning to the lumber, or architects for mechenisms from floodwaters, and the requirnments for animal survival. Say there was someone making a Giant boat today as big as the titanic saying that another world wide flood would come soon, and he actually was going to do it. I think that even the worst people in the world would probley want to watch him build that supid boat so that they could laugh the heck out of themselves when he is finished and there is no flood, im sure they were thinking the same thing mocking Noah back in his day. "Sag. Modern shipyards build large ships from metal, as wooden ships beyond a certain size simply cannot support their own weight out of water. Either Noah had access to some amazing technology unknown to us, or the size of the Ark is somewhat exaggerated."--An ark of that size, (I think that he forgot that wood floats also) would have been extreamly durable, the ark wasn't made for a voyage around the world, it was made for stubility, he wasn't going anywhere. With the volume of air in the boat (this is why we can get metal boats to float of course) it would have been easy to support masses of weight. Have you ever tried to sink a balloon under water? A little balloon takes like 30lbs of force to sink about a 2 cubic feet volume balloon (estimate). The bigger the better is pretty much the case in ability to float, it was made for stability. "Let us now examine the Idea of a Flood:"Lets! You first
"Over the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical. Millions of cubic miles. Where did it come from? Where did it go? The polar ice-caps are not big enough. The atmosphere does not contain millions of cubic miles of water."--I think I will have to emphesize as keenavin seems to like this very poor argument toward the Flood and Noah's Ark. I have never met anyone attempt to say that enough water was required to cover mount everest as it is today. According to Flood Theories, the mountainranges were created by the mechenism of plate tectonics which would have been going crazy during the Flood and many years afterwords. And Actually we really only need to use about the same amount of water as there is today. All the water in the world could cover the earth 2 miles deep if land were equalized. "Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest:"--Don't forget the imagination! "Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!"--We don't need that much water!
"Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 meters of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimeters in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain."--And we sure don't need that much rain! Talk.Origins applied the same elementary scientific method. "With the Rising of the ocean level, the air pressure would have increased to a level that would turn ordinary gasses like Nitrogen and Oxygen into deadly poisons. When rain falls it also causes heat, when it evaporates, it takes some of that heat away ( That's why it is cooler after it rains ) With all the rain falling, the earth's temperature woudl have risen to nearly 6000 degrees. Good luck trying to survive that!"--This sounds like Talk.Origins Material, 6000 degrees part reminds me of it atleast. And I thought I didn't need that much water!
"Let us now examine the animals:"--Sounds like fun "Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them."--This will be good. "How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?"--They do what all cangaroo's do, they hop there! "How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?"--Theres also some penguins that live near the equator! There werent any polar bears on the Ark, just bears. "How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?"--They trotted (or whatever they do) on dry land also, if you lower the sea level about 1000 feet all of the major continents are connected. "How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?"--They did what all the other land animals did, they walked. "How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?"--Insects would have been all over the place durring the flood, masses of them on giant lumps of vegetation, not enough to support weight of any animal but for insects. "As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialized) food supply?"--Not of each species, of each kind. Sure lots would have been eaten, some kinds probley even went extinct quickly after the flood. Animals were not as 'specialized' as they are today. As some rabbits eat one thing, and other rabbits eat another, panda bears have a very specialized vegetation diet while polar bears, black bears, and brown bears enjoy other verieties of meats and vegetations. "Of course, not all the animals were able to get away. According to Genesis 8:20 Noah immediately sacrificed at least one of each pair of clean animal! That could have potentially been a lot of animals. Seems a bit pointless, really. After all, God told him to build the Ark - it would appear to be rather unnecessary to thank God afterwards for looking after the Ark, and thanking God by slaughtering His creations and producing a huge pile of bloody corpses seems a little odd... So, that's the "clean" breeding pairs ruined (or reduced considerably if there were seven). Unless of course they were breeding/pregnant during the voyage. But then, how did the Ark cope with all the extra mouths to feed?"--He didn't immidiately sacrifice anything, he did it after they got off the boat, who knows how much time elapsed. These bloody corpses may seem like a bunch of waist of meat to anyone that doesn't understand why God has people do that. We know that in old testament times the people were required to give their first fruits (first born) of the cattle and sheep, some gave thousands, to be offered to the lord, simmilar today we give our money, it is the value that is being addressed and Noah's obedience to sacrifice and thank God for protecting him. There possibly were pregnancies and delivered babies during the time on the Ark, but that wouldn't be much to cope with, I can't see how many would wan't to breed or be able to during the time. Most would become lathargic during all the storming and raining of the time, just like your pet dog or cat will do during a storm, if he isn't already he'll just lye around. "Well then, What about the Dinosaurs?:"--Ok what about them? "This is an area that causes problems for Flood-theorists. They usually state that the dinosaur bones we find today are the remains of the dinosaurs that died during the Flood."--I have never encountered a problem on questions of dinosaurs on the ark, their just big lizards. And yes the dinosaur bones we find in strata today were deposited during the flood. "But why didn't Noah take any of these dinosaurs on the Ark? The Bible says he took two of EVERY LAND ANIMAL (and if dinosaurs were "clean", seven of each). Dinosaurs surely fit into this category, do they not?"--Who said he didn't take them on the ark? "Also, if the fossil record was indeed created during the flood, then why do we consistently find that the lower down you go, the smaller the fossils become?"--This is a huge question that we are currently debating, and no it is not without exception, I remember sources that say we find pollen grains in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian sediments, human skulls 212 million years old that even the smithsonain got bagged on. "If you take a large tank of water, and empty a big bucket of assorted stones (ranging in size from silt and sand up to large rocks) into it, you will notice that the BIG ONES SINK FIRST, with the fine silt and sand settling on top. If the fossil record was created during the flood, surely we should see large bones in the lower strata, and the smallest ones higher up."--Actually it will be the oppisite if you shake up the sediments and allow it more than a half a second to settle sediments would have been rustleing for minutes to hours during deposite. And not only does bonesize count, habitat play I would say a 15% role and intelligence a 50% role in where its going to get burried. "What we actually find is the exact opposite, which directly contradicts this part of the Flood hypothesis and supports the evolutionary view."--Overall we find this but it is not at all without exception. Infact the evolution view is in quite a bit of trouble with the fossil record and is getting worse with new discoveries over time. "If all the land animals died during the flood, we would expect the fossil record to be a hopelessly jumbled mess, with human bones being mixed up with dinosaur bones and Trilobites. What we actually find is a neatly layered set of strata that appear to be in chronological order, showing the evolutionary development from early, simple creatures up to modern, complex creatures. Also, creatures of approximately similar size, shape and weight should (according to the Creation theory) sink at about the same rate. Why aren't dog skeletons mixed in with Compsognathus? Why aren't elephants mixed in with Stegosaurus? Why isn't pollen mixed all the way through, instead of starting at the strata containing flowers? Could it be that they were not all alive at the same time?"--The Fossil record defanantly would not be in a jumbled mess at all, infact I am not surprized at all to how we find the fossil record, and nor am I surprized for how much disorder is in its order, supporting the Flood theory. But I am surprized that we find human fossils at all as low as they are. Humans are very smart and would be able to avoid drowning for a long period of time. pollen is a relation to the flowering plant which only produce flower in a part of the season, and also we find pollen grains in pre-cambrian or cambrian rock strata. They were all alive at the same time, but died at different times. "If anyone can explain how this could have happened, I'd be intrigued to find out."--Then be intrigued, though im sure bias will suffice. "Maybe the small animals all drowned and sank first, while the larger creatures were able to float about a bit before sinking? Can you imagine that?!? Noah looks over the side of the Ark to see ants, dogs, cows, T. Rex, Moas etc. all treading water, and disappearing in order of size..."--Defanantly not large to small, but according to other factors did they drawn, also location, habitat, intelligence while alive, and others. I can imagine something like that (takes quite an imagination!), but what kind of blow does this give to the Flood theory? "This seems an incredibly complex way to go about ridding the world of sinners, doesn't it?"--No, in what way is it complex? Small changes such as in bacteria can revolve around the life or death of a person, pewny change, emense effect. "Not only that, it doesn't seem to have actually worked. If God intended to re-breed the human race from the pure and virtuous Noah, why do we see so much "sin" in the world today? Surely God would have foreseen the outcome?"--God's plan was not to be rid of sin, it was to make people realise that he is the all powerful God and that he is the judger of sin. God has a plan for everything and yes he forsaw the outcome. "I suppose it could be argued that the troubles in the world today are as nothing compared with that in Noah's time."--Heck no, I think that today it is many times worse than it was in Noah's day, thats what it says would happen anyways in Revelation, and then the end shall come.
"but I don't think the people around Noah had problems with drugs, schoolchildren with assault rifles, and weapons of mass destruction (apart from God, of course)."--Lets not be rude now plz, an attack at the nature or existence of God will always fail, this is a discussion of validity and logic in Creation and Evolution - The Flood topic. "If the world today is at least as bad as Noah's world, why did God bother? Maybe he cannot see the future?"--To get it through our heads that he is God and he is there and he's the judge of the world. "God, who can create or destroy entire galaxies with no effort at all, has to get some poor slob to build an enormous ship, transport millions of animals from all over the planet to this ship, flood the entire planet, drain the water and then redistribute the animals again. What is the point? Why not just click his fingers and cause everything to be as he wishes it to be? Why go to the trouble of causing the terrible deaths by drowning of billions of animals, birds, insects and humans?"--Thats a good question, why didn't god just snap his fingers and have all the bad people die or something of that nature? Well, the simple answer to that is not just for it to be a reminder to the Good people of the day (just noah and his family) but to a reminder for all of us. A flood left evidence, a miracle would not. "This includes, of course, all those innocent babies and children who haven't had time to even start sinning yet."--I think that when you really look at it, and concider a real all powerful God, he was doing those little ones a favor. Rather than being brought up in a hostile violent, sinful world he brought them to heaven. We are born sinners, it doesn't develope. Ever notice something? You don't have to teach your child what is bad, you don't tell your child how to lie to you or steal or anything, they just already seem to know it! You have to teach them what is right, they already know the sinful things, we are all born with it. "Drowning babies... Quite odd behavior for an all-powerful, infinitely compassionate God, is it not? Heck, I suppose God knew they were going to grow up into sinners and decided to get rid of them early."--Quite an ignorant way of putting it but God didn't 'get rid of them' he brought them to him. "Of course, as they hadn't actually sinned yet, they couldn't go to Hell, so I suppose they must have gone to Heaven."--It isn't about weather they have sinned or not yet, Its about maturity, if they were children and were going to be taught that God is bad or he didn't exist. "But in that case, why did they deserve to have the life choked out of them by violent, muddy flood-waters? God does work in a mysterious way!"--I don't know how anyone died, but I do know its alot better than eternal flames! Which would you choose, think about it carefully now! "(See my Flood Story for one possible scenario)"--Oh my goodness I have got to see this one!
"I cannot imagine how anyone could give any credibility whatsoever to the story of Noah's Ark, it really does defy belief."--If the Flood's feasability is resting on whether you can prove it isn't then its in great shape! "But then, of course, God can do anything, we should not attempt to understand him, and what he does do, he does in ways beyond our comprehension."--I could agree, though I don't illude to saying 'goddidit' for anything, which is what I am sensing. "I don't think he could have come up with anything more mysteriously incomprehensible than the bizarre Ark story."--I could! Lets put keenanvin on the ark with them animals....bizarre. "That is the problem, really. In order to accept Noah's Ark as fact, you must believe in God first. Without belief in God, it is just laughable."--According to your view of it sure, but I think your staring at a brick wall. "You're not going to convince many people to follow your religion by sitting them down and saying "Well, let me tell you this fascinating and factual story about a man, some animals and a big boat a few thousand years ago.". With total, unquestioning belief in God, it works, no matter how strange it seems, as you can just tell yourself "God sorted it out". To me, though, that just seems to be a huge cop-out."--If I could just say 'God sorted it out' then I wouldn't make out this discussion would I? "-Special Thanks to Bryan Prim for the use of his fantastic articles!!"--Tell him I said think you for the chance to make a rebutal!
------------- 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And your evidence for this is?
quote: I am really curious as to what you do with the continental crust in this case. Where do the continents (geologically speaking) go?
quote: Oh yes you do! Answer my last question and then we shall see. By the way, I have asked creationists this before: why do we have ocean basins at all? None has given me an answer.
quote: Even Baumgardner thinks that this is a major detraction of the flood model. It has yet to be answered.
quote: Another substantial response... ...
quote: The Galapagos are islands, surrounded by deep ocean basin.
quote: Pretty amazing how they left footprints and fossils in the middle of a flood that also killed them! Yes, you've got a great theory!
quote: All proven hoaxes or undocumented cases. If you want to bring up a specific example we could discuss its merits.
quote: Interesting statement. Can you back this up with actual peer-reviewed literature? I am unaware of such discoveries.
quote: In the words of one of our favorite creationist debaters this argument is effectively refuted by one word: "trees." ... ...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"And your evidence for this is?"
--We know that plate tectonics is what causes uplift and caused the mountain ranges, its just a matter of whether you are going to give it a uniformitarian framework (things happening today is how they have always happend) on it or not. Things could have been moving 500 times faster as an after effect of the cause of the Flood. "I am really curious as to what you do with the continental crust in this case. Where do the continents (geologically speaking) go?"--Right were they are now.. mabye shifted a couple miles or so but they didn't make any voyages or anything, they arent lillypads floating on a pond ya know. "Oh yes you do! Answer my last question and then we shall see. By the way, I have asked creationists this before: why do we have ocean basins at all? None has given me an answer."--Your last question from the thread you mean? You might want to emphesize probably. We have ocean basins because of preasure, making uplift difficult. Emphesize on the problem? "Even Baumgardner thinks that this is a major detraction of the flood model. It has yet to be answered."--Disregarding the fact that it would be an argument from athority, whats the source, I'd like to see what he said. "Another substantial response..."--Emphesize on the problem, I don't see a problem with a kangaroo traveling to australia. "The Galapagos are islands, surrounded by deep ocean basin."--Actually after taking a good look at a oceanographic sea floor map you see a kind of mountain range underwater going toward the galopagose Islands. "Pretty amazing how they left footprints and fossils in the middle of a flood that also killed them! Yes, you've got a great theory!"--I don't see the problem with fossils, but the footprints have been interpereted to be from amphibians (ie they live in and out of water) such as salamanders. The Flood wasn't one huge catastrophy happening within a couple minutes burring everythign at once, if it did then we would find over all a partial 'jumbled mess' But it happend in rapid jumps of deposits of sediments. Hours, weeks, or months could have passed within each deposit. "All proven hoaxes or undocumented cases. If you want to bring up a specific example we could discuss its merits."
http://www.edconrad.comClick on the man as old as coal one, you should read all the pages, I found it interesting and we can discuss it if you like. "Interesting statement. Can you back this up with actual peer-reviewed literature? I am unaware of such discoveries."--In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. The Cambrian Explosion "In the words of one of our favorite creationist debaters this argument is effectively refuted by one word: "trees."--What about these 'trees'? Apparently I find the way we find trees in the fossil record, coming not as a surprize, but is expected. ---------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I believe you have been questioned numerous times about the validity of the bible. What makes you think that the Bible, Koran, Torah, Analects or the Vedas in hinduism were actually written by/ inspired by/dictated by a divine being? Is it not possible that a few people just came up with the idea of a GOD without any reasonable logic? What about all the biblical contradictions we find in the Bible. Surely you cannot believe that the bible is the true word of God/Allah...etc ( Can you?)"
--For one, the Torah is actually part of the bible. Also I am unaware of any contridiction in the bible. Post one, or two, or three. Just don't give me a link, thats all I've ever gotten. With how accurate the bible is, my only possible conclusion is that it was divinely inspired. ----------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Thanks, I guess I wasn't aware that it dealed with some of those topics, I don't go into the topical discussion forum as much as the Great debate area I guess.
--------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
