Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4870 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 241 of 293 (471024)
06-14-2008 1:18 AM


Your right dating methods are not the issue of this thread.The cambrian fossils are not what i consider victims of the flood,but geologic catastraphies after the flood.The bible says God will destroy all flesh from the face of the earth.So if i take the bible literally,as i shuold if i beleive any of it,I would'nt predict that any fossil evidence could be found of organisms of the flood itself.I will give you a scientific model that can be tested emperically,if you promise not to turn this into a "My dating methods are better than yours."Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 1:26 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 242 of 293 (471025)
06-14-2008 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Jason777
06-14-2008 1:18 AM


Your right dating methods are not the issue of this thread.The cambrian fossils are not what i consider victims of the flood,but geologic catastraphies after the flood.The bible says God will destroy all flesh from the face of the earth.So if i take the bible literally,as i shuold if i beleive any of it,I would'nt predict that any fossil evidence could be found of organisms of the flood itself.I will give you a scientific model that can be tested emperically,if you promise not to turn this into a "My dating methods are better than yours."Thanks.
There are other threads where we can discuss dating, so either post your claims to them or start a new thread if you have the material. We'll limit this thread to it's proper subject.
Please present your scientific model. It would be best if it is one that has been tested in some way, rather than a "just so" story.
This thread title is Does the evidence support the Flood? in the Science Forums, so I hope your response will be based on scientific evidence and not some religious belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 1:18 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4870 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 243 of 293 (471027)
06-14-2008 1:48 AM


All animals that breath the breath of life through thier nostrils went onto the ark.So it would have taken time for them to recolonize the earth.And if we look at the fossil record in the geolocic column we see it develop by the fastest breaders with only one problem for the model.That would be the therapsids,They seem a little too large and are found in huge numbers before we predict they should be found there.I havent quite worked out what they are for sure,but according to the model they must be fast breeders or many survided the flood by clinging onto floating debris.In a post flood environment we expect massive volcanism,which would produce less sunlight and cooler summers.In that environment we could expect fern like plants and pine like trees,Kind of like the rain forrest in oregon.And in the geologic column that is what we see,ferns showing up first.Im working on placing insects in the model as well.For a more detailed account see "The global flood" by Dr. Marc Surtees.

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:33 AM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 270 by ramoss, posted 06-15-2008 12:19 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 244 of 293 (471029)
06-14-2008 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by LucyTheApe
06-11-2008 11:23 AM


Re: end of story
It's not the end of the story. Demonstrate why there should be a
single homogeneous layer of sediment or concede that a flood was possible.
Because, if it was all underwater and there were things in the water, they would settle out. It's a process which has been happening continuously and is easily observable.
He is NOT suggesting that the same material be in the same proportions everyone at the same time.
However, if the ENTIRE WORLD were flooded, that would create A LOT of debris which would ALL settle out ALL across the world.
Since we KNOW the potential date range of the Flood, then we can look at the deposits and find this layer.
For example, in areas with seasonal deposits of wash off mountain ranges, we can see layers put down by the annual spring thaw followed by layers of different material during the rest of the year. In this way, like the rings of a tree, we can count backwards.
Since the Flood had to have happened in the last 6,000 years, and since through various deposits we can go back 10-12 thousand years, a sudden layer of extreme deposits SHOULD be easy to find.
If not in one particular location, then certainly in another. It should be in virtually every geographic formations everywhere.
However, no such layer exists.
And since no such layer exists, we're left with two possible conclusions.
a) No Flood.
b) It was a "Magic!" Flood which left no evidence whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-11-2008 11:23 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 293 (471030)
06-14-2008 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Granny Magda
06-13-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Timeline of the flood
G'day Granny,
Granny writes:
First of all, I would like to say that I'm sorry
No need to apologize Granny, I personally thought it was funny, "Blunt head trauma", I'll have to use that on some of my mates. Moose was a bit quick on the mouse I think. Anyway welcome back.
Granny writes:
Secondly, I am confused as to where you now stand on your claim that..
LucyTheApe writes:
Stone and metal tools would be found where they were dropped.
Granny writes:
In Re: Timeline of the flood (Message 191) you seem less sure;
Given the right conditions just about anything can be dragged along.
Consider the diagram below.


In the first case the hammer is sitting on top of a raised plane. Regardless of how fast the water rose, the forces acting on the hammer will cancel themselves out. The same when the water recedes.
In the second case the hammer should be dragged down by rapidly receding water due to the force of gravity pulling the water and the hammer in one direction, down.
Your boulder.


d=CAv2 (approx)
Where the drag d is a product of some coefficient C (dependent on, among others, solids in the water), the area of the object A, and the speed of the water v2
Notice that the speed of the water has an exponential effect on drag, that is, the increase in the speed of the water results in an exponential increase in the drag effect. That's why they can land things on Mars even though the atmosphere there is much thinner than earths,(I'm not mentioning the supposed moon landings with NO atmosphere?? Maybe another thread).
In the boulder diagram the forces acting on the boulder are much greater, both d and g (mass*gravity) than the forces acting on the hammer. The boulder would move much more easily than the hammer. But given enough speed in the water, it will move a mountain.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Granny Magda, posted 06-13-2008 11:02 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 246 of 293 (471032)
06-14-2008 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by LucyTheApe
06-11-2008 1:00 PM


Re: end of story
Why would I want to get myself a geology text book? So I can learn to conform, and not have to think for myself?
I said the same thing when they tried to teach me addition. I figured it out for myself. 2+2=22. Simple.
I just don't understand why everything I try and calculate comes out wrong.
Ok, now take your glass of water add a mixture of all minerals, ores, rocks, bones and tip it out down your driveway. Do we end up with a homogeneous layer of silt? No.
But, it DOES all end up ON the driveway in the SAME LAYER.
In other words, if you did a cross section you would see: Bedrock, Sand, Clay, Dirt, Driveway, Bunch of junk
if you did the same cross section elsewhere, you would still see Driveway, Bunch of Junk.
And again somewhere else: Driveway, bunch of junk.
The "bunch of junk" would ALWAYS be on top of the driveway layer no matter where you looked at it.
There is no "bunch of junk" layer all over the world representing the "Magic!" flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-11-2008 1:00 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 2:13 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 247 of 293 (471033)
06-14-2008 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by LucyTheApe
06-11-2008 1:38 PM


Re: end of story
Who appointed the time?
Have you found any erosional discontinuities within the last 10 thousand years?
Noah's lineage is recorded in the Bible, along with a painstakingly boring account of how long people lived.
These ages do not add up to 10,000 years ago.
Since the Bible is the one and only source of data for the Flood, you are prohibited from excluding parts of the Bible you find inconvenient.
Either the Bible is evidence, or it's not evidence. It can't be "somewhat" evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-11-2008 1:38 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 2:24 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 248 of 293 (471035)
06-14-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by LucyTheApe
06-11-2008 1:48 PM


Re: end of story
So it's more important to conform and fill your head with garbage, than it is to think for yourself.
What happened to the real scientists?
How are you "thinking for yourself"? You act like you invented the idea of a flood.
You are discarding a systematic approach for weeding out incorrect informations because it's "conformist" and are instead substituting a belief in "Magic!" and the say so of illiterate goat herders.
That's still "conforming", you are just "conforming" to a belief system that doesn't include any of the scientific discoveries of the last 2000+ years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-11-2008 1:48 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 293 (471037)
06-14-2008 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Nuggin
06-14-2008 1:56 AM


Re: end of story
Nuggin writes:
The "bunch of junk" would ALWAYS be on top of the driveway layer no matter where you looked at it.
Ok Nuggin, now sweep up the junk, hire some earth moving equipment, dig up your driveway, the dirt, the clay, the sand and the bedrock. Now put it all in the glass of water and tip it out down a slope. Now do a cross section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 1:56 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by RickJB, posted 06-14-2008 3:16 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 259 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:36 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 293 (471038)
06-14-2008 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Nuggin
06-14-2008 2:01 AM


Re: end of story
Nuggin writes:
Since the Bible is the one and only source of data for the Flood, you are prohibited from excluding parts of the Bible you find inconvenient.
Let's establish whether a flood was possible or not and whether the evidences supports it before we get down to the specifics. If the flood was not possible, its timing makes no sense.
Have you been hibernating Nuggin, the bible is NOT the only source of data for the Flood.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 2:01 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:38 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 251 of 293 (471039)
06-14-2008 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by LucyTheApe
06-11-2008 2:55 PM


Re: end of story
I don't understand though, according to genetics, we are all derived from one Y male and one mitochondrial female. So how do we tell if a bottleneck has occurred if we all have the same genes? Do we contain somewhere in our genes all the alleles for every possible physical trait?
Firstly, mitochondrial "eve" and Y "adam" were not a mating pair, just to be clear.
Secondly, OBVIOUSLY we do not all have the "same genes" since clearly there are obvious physical difference between the various "races", not to mention different non-observable genetic markers (lactose tolerance, malaria immunity, etc).
Thirdly, no it is NOT possible that everyone carries all the genes. You either have a gene or you don't. In the case of adult lactose tolerance, those groups which first domesticated cattle have it, those groups which didn't, don't.
There are genetic bottlenecks which can be determined by the amount of variation in a genome.
For instance we know that cheetahs went through a relatively recent and rather severe bottleneck which is why there is extremely limited variation within the cheetah species.
For humans to have been reduced to a total breeding pool of 5 unique individuals (Noah, his wife, and the wives of the three sons assuming none of them were related to Noah's wife and were not sisters) all within the last 6,000 years, we should see virtually no differentiation between the "races".
Further, we should see the EXACT same bottle neck in EVERY species of plant and animal since ALL these populations would have been reduced to 2 unique individuals at the SAME time.
But that's not what we see. Why? Because the flood story is a myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-11-2008 2:55 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-14-2008 3:04 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 252 of 293 (471041)
06-14-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by LucyTheApe
06-12-2008 1:28 PM


Re: The lack of a genetic bottleneck.
CS your bottlenecks are nothing more than a deliberate diversion.
If by "diversion" you mean damning evidence that there never was a "Magic!" flood, then yes.
You linked 3-4 examples of things with bottlenecks.
Yes, we KNOW that different species have bottlenecks. That's why were able to discuss the topic.
However, the problem you are facing is that ALL SPECIES of plants AND animals should ALL have the SAME LEVEL BOTTLENECK at the SAME TIME IN THE PAST.
THAT is REQUIRED by the Flood myth.
Don't exist. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-12-2008 1:28 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 253 of 293 (471042)
06-14-2008 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by ICANT
06-13-2008 1:05 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
The fish would have had a field day with all the dead carcuses.
Which fish would those be? The salt water ones who died during the influx of fresh water? Or the fresh water ones who died when the brackish water killed off the fresh water plants they need to survive?
We also have fresh water fish surviving in salt water and salt water fish surviving in fresh water.
No, what you have a species which have adapted, typically in tidal estuaries or river spawning.
If you took a goldfish and put it in a salt water tank, it would be belly up in a day.
If you took a bluefish and put it in a fresh water tank, it would be belly up in a day.
Citing the tiny percentage of fish who CAN survive in both kinds of water as evidence that ALL fish survive in both kinds of water is just more of the dishonesty we've come to expect from people pushing their religious agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 1:05 PM ICANT has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 293 (471043)
06-14-2008 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Nuggin
06-14-2008 2:34 AM


Re: end of story
Nuggin writes:
Firstly, mitochondrial "eve" and Y "adam" were not a mating pair, just to be clear.
You don't know that Nuggin.
Nuggin writes:
Secondly, OBVIOUSLY we do not all have the "same genes" since clearly there are obvious physical difference between the various "races", not to mention different non-observable genetic markers (lactose tolerance, malaria immunity, etc).
"Race" is a concept dreamt up by people that wanted to put themselves on the top of the evolutionary ladder. There's only one race, the "Human Race".
Nuggin writes:
Thirdly, no it is NOT possible that everyone carries all the genes. You either have a gene or you don't. In the case of adult lactose tolerance, those groups which first domesticated cattle have it, those groups which didn't, don't.
Are you saying that we don't have the ability to adapt, create new enzymes and other proteins? I would give more credence to the body rearranging its genetic dynamics than the absolutely ridiculous mechanism of "Random mutation".
Nuggin writes:
There are genetic bottlenecks which can be determined by the amount of variation in a genome.
Bottlenecks, whether they seem to exist or not, tell us nothing. Read up on it. Just another theory.
But that's not what we see. Why? Because the flood story is a myth.
I agree the story is a myth; doesn't make it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 2:34 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:53 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 255 of 293 (471044)
06-14-2008 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
06-13-2008 4:13 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
When are you going to stop putting me in the YEC group?
When you stop arguing that there was a Biblical Flood.
But if the water was rising at the lower levels leaving no place for the water to run to then there would be no sweeping current to move anything. There would be no sediment layer to amount to anything. What there was would be on top of the surface and would disappear very quickly.
New Orleans is a good example of stagnant water. The waves breached the levees and quickly flooded into the low laying areas. The damage was caused by soaking not rushing water. Very few houses or cars were moved, let alone "swept away". The force of the water simply was not that great.
However, the water did fill up the basin.
People are down there clearing out houses. I watched an episode of "Dirty Jobs" where the host was knocking down walls.
In the episode the dragged a washing machine out of a garage which had been closed at the time of the flood.
So, here we have an enclosed garage, a washing machine standing 4-5 ft tall, and a basin within the washing machine.
When they overturned it, brown mud slid out.
How did the mud get INTO the garage then UP INTO the washing machine given that the water itself outside wasn't "rushing", and certainly wasn't rushing INSIDE the garage.
The mud settled out of the water, because THAT'S how sedimentation works.
Who observed the Biblical flood?
No one has ever observed a flood where the oceans were rising faster than the water being rained down on the land.
Right, not even "Noah". That's because this has NEVER happened.
So please explain how there would be enough erosion to cause a sediment layer to be all over the earth. I could see enough erosion in the higher elevation to cause a small layer but that could not even compare to the layers that is shown by local flooding.
By the way, didn't you just say a few posts ago that there weren't any mountains back then? What "higher elevations" do you mean?
Either way, the point you are missing is that he's not talking about a sediment layer which is the same thickness everywhere, but rather one which is chronologically the same place everywhere.
IF there were a world wide flood, it would have been EVERYWHERE at the same time. Therefore, we should be able to find evidence for it EVERYWHERE dating to the same time.
We don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 4:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 12:38 PM Nuggin 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