Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 10:56 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PsychMJC (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,617 Year: 6,654/19,786 Month: 1,195/1,581 Week: 17/393 Day: 17/30 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 6 of 372 (411090)
07-18-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Repzion
07-18-2007 2:59 PM


here we go again ...
Evidence among Different cultures.
Various versions of the Flood account exist among many cultures some of the most detailed being Sumerian and Babylonian. The oldest flood account, dating before 2,000 B.C., has been found in Sumerian tablets near the Euphrates River. Another amazing flood account, found in the 11th book of the Gilgamesh Epic among Babylonian cuneiform writings, provides one of the strongest evidences, apart from the bible, for the Flood. Here are other amazing accounts.

1. China: Fah-he escaped a great flood with his wife as well as his three songs and three daughters.
2. New Guinea: The Lizard man sent a great flood that killed everyone except two brothers, who escaped on a raft.
3. American Athapaskan Indians: Nagaitche survived a flood by riding on a mythological figure called Earth.
4. Peru: A great flood destroyed all humans except six, who escaped on a raft.
5. Alaska: A man, his family, and talking animals survived a flood on a raft. After the flood, the animals, who complained about the long trip on the raft, lost their ability to speak.

The older ones -- from which the biblical flood was likely derived -- were the Sumerian and Babylonian myths, thus their similarity.

Of course my favorite that exactly matches the biblical flood story is the Norse myth:

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html

quote:
The death of Ymir
Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir.

When Ymir fell, there issued from his wounds such a flood of blood, that all the frost ogres were drowned, except for the giant Bergelmir who escaped with his wife by climbing onto a lur [a hollowed-out tree trunk that could serve either as a boat or a coffin]. From them spring the families of frost ogres.


It amazes me that anyone could think this and the biblical flood could be different stories. :rolleyes:

The other ones are coincidentally similar but specifically different in character: a raft is not a boat built to the task and filled with animals. Different cast of characters on board. And I suspect that if one looked at the rest of the myths and not JUST the superficial similarities that there would be SUBSTANTIAL differences.

The logical conclusion is that all these people experienced floods because -- gasp -- they lived on flood plains.

What we have here is a failure of logic and critical thinking.

Naturally, the only true flood account is recorded in the Bible.

Naturally this is a complete leap of faith and not supported by any of the evidence, and is just another example of a breakdown in logic and critical thinking.

Gosh all those myths talked about people walking around too: what an amazing coincidence!!!!

Spare me.

Was there a worldwide Flood?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: at no time in the natural history of the earth is there any evidence consistent with a single world wide flood.

Hey, i'm new here ...

Obviously, as this is a favorite creationist PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Of course you did not reference your source material (a big no-no for several reasons, one of which is to allow people to check your references for accuracy, a thing creationist sites are not well known for).

I expect you are also likely young or at least inexperienced in facing real facts about the world we live in -- you certainly have a lot to learn.

Keep an open mind an you will learn something.

Enjoy.

ps welcome to the fray.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Repzion, posted 07-18-2007 2:59 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by EighteenDelta, posted 08-17-2007 4:17 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 42 of 372 (411224)
07-19-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Repzion
07-19-2007 1:31 PM


Some more pieces ...
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy

type [quote]quote boxes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

This information is also freely given under dBCodes (help) in the left side bar of the reply window.

Further on the issue of other flood myths: many cultures have creation myths where land is separated from water -- not unlike genesis, but these cultures have no other flood myth. Based on the logic of your thinking this means there has been no flood since creation ....

Japanese Creation Myth
Mojave-Apache flood myth
Apache Creation Myth
Tuskegee Creation Myth
Iroqois Creation Myth

Also
Australian Legend of the Great Flood is not a world wide flood ...
Flood Myth of the Incas is not a world wide flood and no boat was necessary ...

Finally there are cultures with no flood myths for creation or after, such as:

Makah Creation Myth

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 1:31 PM Repzion has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 58 of 372 (411432)
07-20-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
When I see a sudden change in the earth's features, I like to ask why. Why did a lazy, meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles?

Without knowing anything about the area I'd say this feature is either a tectonic fold or a fault line -- ie a ridge formed by the underlying rock buckling under stress. It seems the area has had a lot of tectonic activity in the past:

http://www.whitman.edu/geology/LocalGeo.html

quote:
The north-south oriented compressional stress regime of south-central Washington has existed from the Miocene to present. Some anticlines in the Yakima fold belt have developed as much as 1000 m of structural relief in the past 10 m.y. (Reidel et al., 1992).

(that's uplift to you) and further

quote:
The major tectonic element in southeastern Washington is the northwest-trending Olympic-Wallowa lineament (OWL). It is in part a strike-slip fault, and is aligned with many of the anticlines of the Yakima fold belt (Tolan and Reidel, 1989). ...
The Hite fault intersects the Olympic-Wallowa lineament at approximately a right angle 35 km southeast of Walla Walla. This northeasterly-striking fault disappears near Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River (Tolan and Reidel, 1989).

These major fault lines bracket the area of Palouse Falls and there would likely be other smaller fault lines in the area.

And what made that river suddenly fall 185 feet, then again meander calmly down to the Snake River?

Easy: this is due to erosion of the volcanic basalt progressively further upstream over time. The basalt cap is hard compared to rock below thus the erosion makes a falls instead of a valley -- similar to Niagara Falls.

See Earth Science World Image Bank for a picture of the falls.

Looking for more information on this formation I find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palouse_Falls_State_Park

quote:
The ancesteral Palouse river flowed through the currently dry Washtucna Coulee to the Columbia River The Palouse Falls and surrounding canyons were created when the Missoula Floods overtopped the south valley wall of the ancesteral Palouse River, diverting it to the current course to the Snake River by erosion of a new channel.[1][4]

Looking at GOOGLE MAPS (Palouse Falls, WA) you can see the "currently dry Washtucna Coulee" in direct line with the river before the diversion.

With folds in the underlying rock caused by the above tectonic stress, and these fold valleys being filled with debris from glaciers or other deposition until the "Missoula Floods overtopped the south valley wall" the erosion would quickly remove the overlying material until it came to the rock below, following the fold line until it reached the next discontinuity.

This took me about 5 minutes to look up. We also have some actual geologists around that can probably give you a better explanation, but suffice it to say there is nothing here that is not ordinary to geology. Another alternative for you is to contact your local college geology department and see what they have to say: that is how you learn things.

The real questions though, are how do YOU explain it with "flood geology"? How do you explain the OLD river bed that is now dry? How do you explain the erosion of the basalt by water in a short period of time if it was laid down by volcanic activity - whether it was formed before, during or after the flood (this is hardened magma ... rock, not soil)?

Enjoy.

ps -- type "[qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs]" and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy

It's not rocket science.

Edited by RAZD, : english


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 63 of 372 (411450)
07-20-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by bluegenes
07-20-2007 4:44 PM


Re: Credit the source
He did provide that link, and the kid has yet to figure out (or learn) the way to use quotes.

I'd give him a pass on that for now. BUT he needs to learn to quote ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 07-20-2007 4:44 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 72 of 372 (411483)
07-20-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iceage
07-20-2007 6:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
I would also like to know how creationist "flood geology" explains Bryce Canyon ... how water could make the "hoodoos" and other formations ... mile after mile.

It's a matter of explaining ALL the evidence of geology, not just cherry picked examples.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iceage, posted 07-20-2007 6:20 PM iceage has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 78 of 372 (411547)
07-21-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
07-21-2007 7:50 AM


Basalts
Flow-tops? Not in my glossary, not at Wikipedia, okay, I give up. Water bubbling up from underground?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt down to Subaerial eruptions:

quote:
Basalt which erupts under open air (that is, subaerially) forms three distinct types of lava or volcanic deposits: scoria, ash or cinder; breccia and lava flows.

Basalt in the tops of subaerial lava flows and cinder cones will often be highly vesiculated, imparting a lightweight "frothy" texture to the rock. Basaltic cinders are often red, coloured by oxidised iron from weathered iron-rich minerals such as pyroxene.


As for the vertical sides of the basalt sections:

quote:
During the cooling of a thick lava flow, contractional joints or fractures form. If a flow cools relatively rapidly, significant contraction forces build up. While a flow can shrink in the vertical dimension without fracturing, it cannot easily accommodate shrinking in the horizontal direction unless cracks form. The extensive fracture network that develops results in the formation of columns.

There are several pictures of this in the article, and you can see vertical striations in your picture, evidence of this kind of formation. This would mean that the basalt sections would tend to fracture off in vertical bits as the support ledges immediately below them eroded from underneath.

What I'm trying to figure out is the sequence of events that gave rise to successive ledges. Here's the picture again:

So as the river cuts deeper the soft soils\breccia sections between the basalt layers are exposed to erosion and will erode out, the basalt column formations over those eroded soils\breccia sections will fail and you get the stepped formation of ledges and cliffs getting wider over time.

This does not explain the single straight section, and I would like to know if there is a fold or fault that this section of the river follows. Looking at the GOOGLE MAPS (Palouse Falls, WA) you can see the straight section (close the flyout menu) as well as several other straight line features in the area.

Edited by RAZD, : last link


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 07-21-2007 7:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 07-21-2007 10:43 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 86 of 372 (411653)
07-21-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
07-21-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Basalts
Hi Percy,

The portion from Wikipedia doesn't help much, because it doesn't explain why Edge would say, "...they may be simply porous flow-tops. The added feature they would have is that water would reach daylight along these porous horizons ...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I read the wiki article to say that the basalt in the tops (ie flow-tops) would be porous and mixed:

quote:
Basalt in the tops of subaerial lava flows and cinder cones will often be highly vesiculated, imparting a lightweight "frothy" texture to the rock.

vesicle - n
3. A small cavity formed in volcanic rock by entrapment of a gas bubble during solidification.

If these sections are porous (frothy bubbles) compared to the lower basalt layers then aquifers could flow along them, but I would think the vertical fissures of the basalt would work against this. It could be that the groundwater is flowing down inside AND horizontally along the interface between the different layers.

Except that this:
Doesn't resemble the upper left cliff face, the one I've been focusing on, at all:

I look at the upper left and see clear vertical lines, I look at the second level left and see vertical lines. I agree that they are less distinct than the wiki example, but part of this is due to scale: the wiki shot is up close and personal while the Palouse River is panoramic and from a much greater distance.

I don't know if you can blow sections of the picture up in your browser to see the ledge cliffs in closer detail, but when I use 200% in foxfire print preview I see the top two cliffs on the left showing very definite vertical fissures and columns, and similar elements in the third down layer.

Hope that helps.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 07-21-2007 10:43 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by edge, posted 07-21-2007 9:06 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 105 of 372 (411749)
07-22-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
Hello Repzion, glad your still working on this.

Several people have pointed out the issue of using websites as whole arguments. The reasons that we don't debate websites are (1) that it is hard to get them to respond, (2) the person who posts such as arguments rarely knows enough to respond to refutations as well, and (3) they can just keep posting more links and more links without having to answer anything (this is similar to what is known as the Gish Gallop).

Some other people have also pointed out some of the more blatant errors in your latest links. While the issue of lies is sensitive (it is hard to prove intent to deceive) there is no question that many of the things listed are falsehoods and that the publishers of such lists are relying on the gullibility and ignorance of the common audience to accept such evidence without question.

This gets us to the issue of critical thinking in education and learning to think for yourself as well as how to evaluate information you are being presented. As an example I'd like to focus on the "logic" arguments from your second link:

(1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized area is currently close to impossible.

There are several logical fallacies built into this one argument: assumption of the conclusion (assumes the 40 days flood story is true, therefore the flood story is true) and it is conflating "close to impossible" with "impossible" rather than just improbable BUT possible. Check the rainfall periods for rainforests during the rainy ("monsoon") season. This also assumes that the climate we know today prevailed in the past, when in fact we know that it went from ice-age to warm and wet and then to dryer based on analysis of plants and pollen and such.

(2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a cataclysmic event.

This again assumes the story is true to show that the story is true. There is no evidence that rainbows did not occur millions of years ago. There are also no observations from other cultures (including all those other myths about floods) for any such change (remember when I said the details would be contradictory?).

Note, there was a physical change in the atmosphere, but this was due to the first life releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and making aerobic life possible (you and me). This was not "cataclysmic" but occurred over many millions of years and it happened before multicellular life evolved, hardly in time to be observed by any flood survivor. Since then the atmosphere has been similar to what we know today. Before that change light would still be refracted by droplets in the manner that rainbows are created: this is a physical property of light, not of the atmosphere.

(3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a local flood.

Assertion of the conclusion without supporting argument. We saw with the Missoula Flood that there could be reasons for a flood to occur over extended periods of time.

(4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have been local.
(5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could not have been local.

This assumes the highest mountains were actually covered (ie - once again that the story was true). Not everyone can see the peak of Everest where they live. Note that these two are really the same argument.

(6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This could only refer to a worldwide flood.

Assumes the story is true to show the story is true. Also missing logical steps and asserts the conclusion (it only needed to flood where the people were eh?)

(7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would have escaped.

Assumes they didn't escape (ie - once again that the story is true), when their is no evidence that other people did not escape (what about all those other flood myths eh?).

(8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500 railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of animals.

Not only does this assume that the ark could hold ALL species (ie - once again that the story is true), but this is an argument from incredulity. Let me word it another way: the extremely small size of the ark (equivalent to less than 0.001% of the capacity of the surface of the earth) would keep it from holding all but a small (highly localized) fraction of the species on the face of the earth. As you can see both of these statements can't be true, but both of them use the same kind of argument.

(9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.

Another argument from incredulity, plus lack of imagination AND and argument from ignorance. Why could not the same god that created life re-create it? What about all the species in the fossil record that are not alive upon the face of the earth -- many hundreds times the number of current living species? Doesn't this also contradict #6 (you can only have one "the purpose" ...)?

(10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend 120 years building an ark.
(11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.

Sigh (assumes the story is true to show that the story is true again). Again these are the same argument rather than different points.

(12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from our sins.

This is known as the argument from consequences, another logical fallacy that does not prevent it from being false.One can easily believe that this story is allegory rather than verbatim truth. This is one of the big falsehoods of fundamentalism: that only their interpretation can be true.

Not one of these arguments is actually based on logic, in spite of the claim. This too is a falsehood. Not one of them show that the conclusion cannot be false, which is what an argument based on logic does. The normal structure is:

Premise 1: IF {A}
Premise 2: IF {B}
Conclusion: THEN {C}
where IF {A} and {B} are true then {C} must be true. One of the unstated premises (another logical fallacy) is that the story is true, and this is begging the conclusion (another logical fallacy) that the story is true.

If you want to learn more about logic, I suggest reading some books on it. You can also look through
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php

I'm sure you will recognize most of the methods used by advertisements to pusuade? deceive? people into buying the product advertised. And in politics.

One can certainly conclude that any person or website that lists a bunch of statements like this and that calls them logical is either (a) stupid (doesn't understand logic), (b) ignorant (has not learned about logic), (c) deluded (think they know what logic is) or (d) malicious (intentionally misrepresenting logic to deceive the gullibles), and that it cannot be trusted to tell you the truth.

Using logic correctly is one of the basic elements of critical thinking. Learn this and you will go far.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 107 of 372 (411771)
07-22-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
* "The massive worldwide coal deposits also lend further proof to sudden destruction of immense primordial forests."

* "The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for evolution ... Example of random mixing of fossils. In excess of 3,000,000 fossils, representing more than 565 different species have been discovered in the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California."

I'm not sure whether this is ignorance or flat-out lying, but the fact is that the La Brea Tar Pits only contain fairly recent animals, as anyone could find out with fifteen seconds with Google; there are, for example, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no mammal-like reptiles, no pterosaurs, no Small Shelly Fauna of the Tomotian ... just lots of Pleistocene animals. In short, the tar pits show the exact opposite of what the creationist apologist claims.

Why he thinks a flood would cause thousands of animals to get trapped in a tar pit is beyond me.

Especially if the tar is formed by the action of the flood (coal oil etc formation) FROM organic material (like the animals caught in the tar pits ...).

There is also evidence of different seasons in the tar pits in several alternating layers: how do you get spring\fall\spring\fall etc samples from a single catastrophe?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2007 1:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 116 of 372 (411859)
07-22-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Repzion
07-22-2007 5:58 PM


Albatross, Auks, Storm-Petrals, etc.
Hope you had fun at camp (I assume you read this after your return).

The ark had to transport only land animals, so thate mammals birds, and reptiles were essentially all that would have needed accommodations. ... A lot of the other insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well.

Note that there are several species of birds that are so well adapted to living on the ocean that they only come to shore to breed, dealing with storms (including hurricanes?) as a normal matter of course, and thus they would easily be able to survive a year long flood with no problems at all.

Yet they needed to be protected inside the ark while land insects and other invertebrates don't need such protection when they are not so well adapted? (ever see worms on the sidewalk after a rain? they drowned).

What we see here is the beginning of the realization of the scope of the ark problem and looking for some ad hoc explanations to reduce the problem. This results in logical conflict problems like the above.

If any non-aquatic critter did not need to be in the ark, then why did any of these birds need to be there?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 5:58 PM Repzion has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 118 of 372 (411867)
07-22-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
07-22-2007 9:25 PM


And nobody has mentioned the problem of termites yet: both as food for certain animals AND as a problem for a wooden vessel.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 07-22-2007 9:25 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bdfoster, posted 07-22-2007 11:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 190 of 372 (420004)
09-05-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
09-05-2007 9:01 PM


Your Reply to Anglagard
This is in reply to Message 46 yes?

(re #54) You destroyed the African Eve theory, the theory of evolution and the theory that all life came from one cell with one statement!

Nope, because the "common ancestor" concept does not mean there was a single individual, rather that there was a population of breeding organisms that shared the same basic genetics. It is more proper to refer to "common ancestor populations" to avoid this problem.

And single cell life does not breed with others, but divides, so it is not restricted by inbreeding problems.

I implore anyone who is debating against the validity of a global flood: don't make this assertion or be prepared to explain it in light of abiogenesis and evolution.

Why? You haven't answered the question at all. You do realize that proving (X) wrong does not make (Y) correct don't you?

Dodging the question like this does not answer it in any way.

I don't trust the results of radiometric dating. Carbon Dating results depends on factors like a constant rate of decay and no changes in the atmosphere that would affect the C14/C12 ratios. See The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods

No link to your source. I'd be happy to discuss this on a dedicated thread.

I'll let others deal with the other "responses" (mostly ad hoc excuses than real responses).

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Repzion, posted 09-07-2007 8:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 204 of 372 (421065)
09-10-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Repzion
09-10-2007 9:29 PM


tree rings
"Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing extra ring growth tied to short drought periods."
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381

So now show that periods of drought like what were simulated in the lab actually occurred at the tree locations. That is called completing the thought process.

Note that the carbon-14 data makes this extra tree ring scenario impossible:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html

quote:
There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.

That is a creationist site article. Now we don't need to use the carbon-14 age calculations, as we can use the actual amounts of carbon-14 in the samples: two samples with different carbon-14 levels cannot be the same age. This gets around any qualms you may have about the accuracy of carbon-14 dating.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Repzion, posted 09-10-2007 9:29 PM Repzion has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 209 of 372 (421627)
09-13-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by EighteenDelta
09-13-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Where the water came from and went.
I've suggested this "solution" on other threads:

Given that this god is capable of making water divide to make a path across the red sea (if you take the bible as fact), then he is capable of making gravity operate in a direction other than usual.

Apply this to the whole world (ie - let gravity be perpendicular to the surface at every point, topologically it becomes a perfect sphere).

To end the flood restore gravity.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by EighteenDelta, posted 09-13-2007 12:13 PM EighteenDelta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by EighteenDelta, posted 09-13-2007 1:01 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 221 by The Matt, posted 09-13-2007 6:13 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 212 of 372 (421636)
09-13-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by EighteenDelta
09-13-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Where the water came from and went.
Would you be so kind as to link to said 'solution'?

um ... most recently on Message 209? That's it in a nutshell. With the earth rendered a sphere topologically regardless of actual geography, the water would flow to (relatively) equal depth on all surfaces and perpendicular to the surface would be "down" ... you also have the water flowing out of "the deep" too.

Perhaps when Vash and Rob return they can address this, ...

Of course this pre-supposes a supernatural flood, not that it should be a problem for the literalists.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : sp


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by EighteenDelta, posted 09-13-2007 1:01 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019