What happened to all the dead rotting carcasses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I think that the corpses floated off the edge of the earth. Every last boatfull.

​

---

hmmmm.... You are a flat-earth geocentrist too now eh?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yeah pretty much. lol I just think that we all take this much too serious.. You know you'd almost think it made a difference in the world if we could prove a point. I guess i can't speak for all but i think alot of attitudes here are much bigger than their case. I'm probably the worst. Thought if we joke around a bit it may make this a little more enjoyable. I've been informed by people that know me, and have read some of my posts that i need to use smily faces more so other people know i'm joking. I am but an infant in Christ i know not how to defend him somethimes, and i act like peter in the garden and i lash out with a sword. I am trying to be a little less cutting, and have some fun here.I thought Chara's question a good one. How many people are estimated to have been there according to science?------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I thought Chara's question a good one. How many people are estimated to have been there according to science?

---

I can't find anything directly relevant. I'd guess maybe 100 million globally. I would like to see some good data though.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I find this quite interesting. I thought there'd be a tailored answer to this question.

quote:

---

I am but an infant in Christ i know not how to defend him somethimes, and i act like peter in the garden and i lash out with a sword. I am trying to be a little less cutting, and have some fun here.

---

Then you won't mind taking a little advice from Saint Augustine?

quote:

---

If they [the infidel] find a Christian mistaken in a field
which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they
themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I thought Chara's question a good one. How many people are estimated to have been there according to science?

---

​

I can't find anything directly relevant. I'd guess maybe 100 million globally. I would like to see some good data though.

​

---

You can find estimates of world population atU.S. Census Bureau: Page not foundThey vary quit a bit and of course it depends on when the supposed worldwide flood is supposed to have occurred. AiG puts the flood at around 2500 BC, during the 4th Egyptian Dynasty and during the early dynastic period in Sumer which followed the Urik and Jedmat Nasr periods and about the time that civilization were developing in the Indus Valley and China so the population was probably about 15-30 million and it would seem that the vast majority of them somehow failed to notice the worldwide flood and kept on about their business as if it had never occurred.When you are talking about animals it is a different story. There are estimated to be about 800 billion fossils of animals in the Karoo formation in South Africa alone.Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd editionAll of them are Permian and early Triassic animals so when you put them with all the late Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous animals as well as whatever tertiary fossils are supposed to be flood deposits you find that the pre-flood earth must have had animals standing one atop the other or at least shoulder to shoulder over its entire surface.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:
You can find estimates of world population at

​

U.S. Census Bureau: Page not found

---

Thanks. I couldn't tell you how many times I have looked for a chart like that.Looks like my estimate was way off. According to the chart and when the flood occurred, we are looking at 5 to 25 million humans.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Thanks. I couldn't tell you how many times I have looked for a chart like that.

​

Looks like my estimate was way off. According to the chart and when the flood occurred, we are looking at 5 to 25 million humans.

---

You're welcome. I guess that if there were 10,000,000 people on earth at the time of the flood of Noah about 9,990,000 somehow failed to notice it. On the other hand for the YEC senario to be correct there must have been zillions of dinosaurs and therapsid reptiles and later beasties literally covering the surface of the earth so there should have been a LOT of rotting carcasses post flood. Even 5 million humans must have been a little crowed preflood especially since you also need vast forests covering the entire surface of the earth to account for all the coal that was supposedly produced by the flood. The YEC preflood earth would have been a pretty amazing place.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:

quote:

---

I am but an infant in Christ i know not how to defend him somethimes, and i act like peter in the garden and i lash out with a sword. I am trying to be a little less cutting, and have some fun here.

---

​

Then you won't mind taking a little advice from Saint Augustine?

​

quote:

---

If they [the infidel] find a Christian mistaken in a field
which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they
themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

---

​

---

Not a bad quote, though you must understand something though i appear to be quite the fool, it does not mean that this dumbass isn't doing alot of homework on things he has yet to open his mouth about. I do attemtpt to learn always, i think we can agree that nothing in science is proven. Not in my definition of the word. And that it may for now be shown to be incorrect but with more study may be shown to be correct. I do not take ANYONE on their word, in this area i think i am more the skeptic on here than anyone else. How many brilliant scientific minds have been discredited and called fools in their day by "higher criticism" only to proven correct long after their deaths. Let us be more careful at what we decide we should flush, to avoid future embarrasment. I think it was einstein though i could be very wrong but i thought it was him that said, creativity is the most important part of science. Not to say the rest doesn't matter. But look at a man like Da Vinci WOW. Incredible mind, and why? because he had the ability to bring his creativity into science, and his art was great because of his science in his creating.I'll try and keep the sword put away... ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

from the funkmaster: But look at a man like Da Vinci WOW. Incredible mind, and why? because he had the ability to bring his creativity into science, and his art was great because of his science in his creating.

---

Yes Leonardo was so advanced that he understood that there never was a worldwide flood and that fossils on mountain tops were evidence of mountain building and not a flood. You can read about it http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

quote:

---

In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

​

How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:

​

Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

---

[Fixed close quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 11-27-2002]

Thanks for that link, Randy - I've read Gould on this, but didn't have the reference to ol' Leo himself.

first of all it was an olive leaf and there is no mention of plucking off a fig or any tree for that matter.

Plucking off a fig?The Hebrew word is 'taraph' and it means 'plucked off.'Look it up at No webpage found at provided URL: www.bluuletterbible.org. Click the 'C' icon next to Gen 8:11 and it will give you the Hebrew and Greek witha translation reference and Strong's numbers.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I just have to get into this one too..First off the fossil record would be fair to explain what happened to the animals... a passage in the end of Ezekiel 26 I believe explains where the humans where put...
Second I believe that there were two biblical events that would explain fossils.. one the Great Flood
two the whole Babylon experience, I believe that Pangaea existed up till this time and it is here that it is broken apart and our current continental situation was brought forth.. this process would not have left as many fossils but certainly it could have...And I also have to wonder in lew of this thought how would we be able to seperate from the fossils which were laid out in the two different events...
We would have a third type of event(s) that would cause fossils of another type, which is where the uniformitarinists talk about localised events causing fossils...
As we know it does not take a huge amount of years to cause fossils, just the right circumstance.

Jesuslover153:
Second I believe that there were two biblical events that would explain fossils.. one the Great Flood two the whole Babylon experience, I believe that Pangaea existed up till this time and it is here that it is broken apart and our current continental situation was brought forth.. this process would not have left as many fossils but certainly it could have...Galloping continents. However, for some strange reason, the continents have slowed their drifting down to exactly the rate that one deduces with the help of radioisotope dating of rocks. Currently, the rate is typically around ~3 cm/yr, as can be deduced from earthquake effects, VLBI, and GPS measurements. Over 200 million years, this adds up to ~6000 km, which is about the distance from their Pangaea positions.Furthermore, there is an abundance of evidence for pre-Pangaea continental drift. There are some old mountain ranges, like the Appalachians and the Urals, which are results of the formation of Pangaea from earlier continents. And there are several orogens, mountain-range roots, that date back much further, some to over 2 billion years.So continents have been playing "bumper cars" for the last 2 billion years.As we know it does not take a huge amount of years to cause fossils, just the right circumstanceWhy drag in such irrelevancies?Fossils are NOT dated by estimates of how long they take to form.