Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
 40 online now: DrJones*, marc9000, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 36 visitors) Newest Member: Mikee Post Volume: Total: 867,001 Year: 22,037/19,786 Month: 600/1,834 Week: 100/500 Day: 58/42 Hour: 0/1

EvC Forum Science Forums Geology and the Great Flood

# 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noahâ€™s Flood

Author Topic:   100 Categories of Evidence Against Noahâ€™s Flood
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 16 of 96 (463111) 04-12-2008 6:39 AM Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard05-12-2007 1:16 AM

Here's another that was missed (though it is heavily implied by 98 and 99):

Geometric impossibility. The reason dry land exists is because there isn't enough water to cover it. If there were, then there wouldn't be any dry land. Local floods are possible because water is taken from somewhere else: A flood here means a drought there. But in a global flood, there must be enough water to cover everything simultaneously.

Expanding on this concept: The total amount of water available on the earth is on the order of 10^8 cubic miles. This includes the water that is suspended in the atmosphere. If the water that were suspended in the atmosphere were to be precipitated out, it would raise the ocean levels by about an inch...and would then immediately be sucked back up into the atmosphere.

Of the water not in the atmosphere, 97% of the water is in the oceans and thus is unavailable for flooding: It is forming the floor upon which we must add water to cover the dry land that is sticking above it. In order to cover Mt. Everest, we need on the order of 10^9 cubic miles of water:

The radius of the earth is approximately 4000 miles. Mt. Everest is approximately 5 miles above that. Thus, we need a shell of water with an inner diameter of 4000 miles and is 5 miles thick.

The volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3. Thus, the volume of the shell is the volume of a sphere with a radius of 4005 miles minus the volume of a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles:

4/3*pi*4005^3 - 4/3*pi*4000^3 = 4/3*pi*(4005^3 - 4000^3) ~ 10^9 cubic miles

The amount of water that it would take to flood the earth is an order of magnitude larger than the amount of water even available to do it.

But again, the fact that we have any dry land at all makes the entire question moot: We have dry land because there isn't enough water to flood it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2007 1:16 AM anglagard has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

 Message 17 of 96 (463179) 04-12-2008 6:48 PM

Voice from the Past
The original purpose of this list is to expose just how much any global flood advocate must explain and indeed overcome in order to state a remotely viable case for their position. To the opposition I must make it clear that you have to explain each and every one of these categories to a greater degree than the current state of modern science and scholarship in order to be taken seriously by the academic community.

One thing that is interesting about the categories is that they can be modified under the influence of new information to keep them around 100. Another is that leaving around 70-80% intact and replacing the history and a bit of the archeology with cosmology they can be used to overwhelmingly support an old earth.

Somewhere between being too busy and getting burned out (rain causes magnetic reversals?) I kind of let this thread slide until I figured S1WC had moved on to bigger and better things and therefore any further posts would be pointless.

Another purpose I had with posting the 100 categories is that I wanted to see how they could be enhanced and improved through discussion with experts, or at least those with more knowledge of particular categories than I have at my fingertips. Thanks, Coyote and Rrhain for your input. Someday, God willing, I hope to make some improvements and I will definitely be taking your suggestions into account.

The list owes most of its content to the work of Talk Origins, Glen Morton, and RAZD. The posts of Iceage and Jar are responsible for one category each IIRC. My only original contribution involves the hydrologic problem, as best I know. If I slighted anyone, please let me know here or at the WorldWideWord Dreamcatcher.

When similar threads to the 100 categories were originally proposed there were far more advocates of a global flood in or around 4350 BCE than there appear to be now and there was some reluctance in promoting it due to it being a 'scientific' version of the 'Gish Gallop.' As circumstances have appeared to have changed, I hope that it proves to be informative, creates more opportunity to debate the fine points, and overall proves damning to the cause of Noah's Flood advocates.

If the 100 categories can help in any small part in keeping that YEC crap out of public schools, than my efforts now and in the future in its promotion will have proven worthwhile.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Buzsaw
Inactive Member

 Message 18 of 96 (463186) 04-12-2008 8:34 PM Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard05-12-2007 1:16 AM

 anglagard writes:1. Angular unconformities â€“ Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?2. Radiometric dating â€“ All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.3. Fossil Sorting â€“ The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.4. Varves â€“ How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal of pollen grains found in the layers?5. Sedimentation rates â€“ Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows â€“ How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?7. Ice sheets â€“ Ice caps canâ€™t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events â€“ Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.

Hi Anglagard. Since some of my responses my apply to more than one of your points my responses may not coincide with your points numerically.

1. A thoughtful reading of the opening statements of Genesis 1 substantiates that according to the Biblical record there were two significant global floods, the first of which comprised of all of the existing water of planet earth being on earth.

Factoring this important fact in the debate may account for some of the sedimentation/layering/platonic activity etc. As the atmosphere was created by unknown amounts of heat/light pre-sun/moon, the earth surface had to have been significantly affected by sediment layers etc due to the settling and drying up of the continents.

The 2nd global Noahic flood clearly implied a preflood terrarium atmosphere. The flood likely resulted in deeper oceans, raised mountain ranges and lowered valleys. Recent evidence for this is the Dr. Robert Ballard discovery in the depths of the Black Sea of human structures 300' below the existing shoreline. I believe National Geographic and Ballard claim this was a regional flood phenomena but imo that only reflects their bias against global flood ideology.

2. The unproven but also unrefuted terrarium hypothesis implies a non-uniformitarian chemical makeup of land and atmosphere, thus rendering all dating methods as debatable/questionable/non-imperical.

3. The terrarium hypothesis explain accounts for the possibility of a super climate capable of producing long life, larger species of animals.

4. The terrarium hypothesis may account for the formation of the ice caps of the poles, given sudden cooling due to the loss of the terrarium H2O in the new atmosphere leaving the cold poles unprotected. Thus also the possibility of explaining the phenomena of frozen tropical animals existing in the ice in regions of Siberia etc.

5. I've cited in my Buzsaw Hypothesis of the probability of the dinosaurs being the pre-fallen serpent species which became extinct due to the curse of the genes of the offspring of the parent dinosaurs which existed before the flood, the modified/cursed belly crawling reptiles/serpents being the only ones given place in Noah's Arc. Keep in mind here that all reptiles were considered serpents in the language of the Genesis manuscripts.

One may click on my Buzsaw username for a topical index search of archived debates I've engaged in on this if it is not brought up in the cite search engine

6. I see no problem with the magnetic field hypothesis you mentioned relative to the Genesis record. This, in fact may have some bearing on how one, the other or both floods were effected. I am not scientifically apprised on this enough to make a call.

7. Both Biblical floods would have most likely effected extensive volcanic activity which seemingly could account for just about anything one might cite relative to lava layering etc.

That's all I have time for presently. Perhaps I may weigh in on other points at another time.

I appreciate the work you went to for this thread. It makes for provacitive and interesting discussion and debate. :cool:

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2007 1:16 AM anglagard has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2008 3:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded Message 22 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-13-2008 4:26 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 04-15-2008 12:53 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 19 of 96 (463205) 04-13-2008 3:43 AM Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw04-12-2008 8:34 PM

quote:

1. A thoughtful reading of the opening statements of Genesis 1 substantiates that according to the Biblical record there were two significant global floods, the first of which comprised of all of the existing water of planet earth being on earth.

A more correct reading is that Genesis 1 assumes that the initial state of the cosmos was an ocean. This is the case with other Middle Eastern creation myths. It is not, strictly speaking a flood because - as Genesis states - there was no land to flood.

quote:

Factoring this important fact in the debate may account for some of the sedimentation/layering/platonic activity etc. As the atmosphere was created by unknown amounts of heat/light pre-sun/moon, the earth surface had to have been significantly affected by sediment layers etc due to the settling and drying up of the continents.

Since it is not a fact - and since land is the major - perhaps only - source of sediment. This does not seem likely.

quote:

The 2nd global Noahic flood clearly implied a preflood terrarium atmosphere. The flood likely resulted in deeper oceans, raised mountain ranges and lowered valleys. Recent evidence for this is the Dr. Robert Ballard discovery in the depths of the Black Sea of human structures 300' below the existing shoreline. I believe National Geographic and Ballard claim this was a regional flood phenomena but imo that only reflects their bias against global flood ideology.

The flood story does not imply a terrarium atmosphere. A global flood is unlikely to raise mountains (although it might reduce their height somewhat by erosion in the early stages). Nor is it likely to lower valleys, let alone the ocean floor. Ballard's discoveries have been discussed here and relate to the failure of a natural dam. Morevoer it has since been shown that the flooding of the Black Sea was slower than was originally suggested, so that even the idea that the flood story is a greatly exaggerated version of the Black Sea flood has been abandoned.

quote:

2. The unproven but also unrefuted terrarium hypothesis implies a non-uniformitarian chemical makeup of land and atmosphere, thus rendering all dating methods as debatable/questionable/non-imperical.

You know perfectly well that this is not true. You have been asked to support it more than once and every time you have run away. Not once have you given even one reason to believe it.

quote:

4. The terrarium hypothesis may account for the formation of the ice caps of the poles, given sudden cooling due to the loss of the terrarium H2O in the new atmosphere leaving the cold poles unprotected. Thus also the possibility of explaining the phenomena of frozen tropical animals existing in the ice in regions of Siberia etc.

Again this makes no sense. And there are no "frozen tropical animals" in the ice of Siberia to need explaining.

quote:

5. I've cited in my Buzsaw Hypothesis of the probability of the dinosaurs being the pre-fallen serpent species which became extinct due to the curse of the genes of the offspring of the parent dinosaurs which existed before the flood, the modified/cursed belly crawling reptiles/serpents being the only ones given place in Noah's Arc. Keep in mind here that all reptiles were considered serpents in the language of the Genesis manuscripts.

This hypothesis fails to account for the evidence that snakes are not closely related to dinosaurs. And it was refuted by the fossil evidence which proves that snakes co-existed with the dinosaurs (unlike humans).

quote:

7. Both Biblical floods would have most likely effected extensive volcanic activity which seemingly could account for just about anything one might cite relative to lava layering etc.

Lava flows which formed underwater are recognisable as such. And there is no obvious connection between a flood and the release of lava.

Other than that it can be noted that you did not offer a valid refutation of even one of Anglagard's points.

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

Taz
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006

 Message 20 of 96 (463206) 04-13-2008 4:13 AM

I have a question.
Since I'm a total geology idiot, I have a question. Can someone explain to me how a flood could raise mountains?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

 Replies to this message: Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 04-13-2008 1:25 PM Taz has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005

 Message 21 of 96 (463222) 04-13-2008 1:25 PM Reply to: Message 20 by Taz04-13-2008 4:13 AM

Re: I have a question.
 Since I'm a total geology idiot, I have a question. Can someone explain to me how a flood could raise mountains?

That would require a Creationist to propose a "mechanism." They don't do that. Instead, they assert that geological features including mountains, canyons, valleys, sediment layers, and other such things "could have been created by a global flood."

They never say how, they just say "yeah, a flood could have caused that."

 This message is a reply to: Message 20 by Taz, posted 04-13-2008 4:13 AM Taz has not yet responded

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 669 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008

 Message 22 of 96 (463231) 04-13-2008 4:26 PM Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw04-12-2008 8:34 PM

 Buzsaw writes:2. The unproven but also unrefuted terrarium hypothesis implies a non-uniformitarian chemical makeup of land and atmosphere, thus rendering all dating methods as debatable/questionable/non-imperical.

I have yet to see any YEC-ist consider the physical implications of this "non-uniformitarian chemical makeup". If the rate of radioactive decay in a dozen different elements, whose current behaviors show consistent correlations with one another and with other, independent forms of physical evidence, had all been drastically different before a specific year in the 5th millenium BCE, it becomes necessary to provide not only predictive models to account for those other forms of physical evidence, but also an account of how physics itself would have to be different -- e.g. since one of the by-products of radioactive decay is heat, the pre-flood world would have been a lot hotter. The various differences would have had an effect on how (or whether) life would survive. And this in turn raises concerns about how different pre-flood life must have been relative to post-flood life. In other words, can any YEC-ist present a clear case that life forms existing in the "hypothesized" pre-flood environment could also survive in the post-flood environment, given the changes in physical constants asserted during the year of the flood?

I think the reason this non-uniformitarian idea has not been "refuted" is that it has not yet come up with any sort of account that merits serious investigation. It's a case of someone making stuff up in order to assert an event that could not have happened in reality.

 4. The terrarium hypothesis may account for the formation of the ice caps of the poles, given sudden cooling due to the loss of the terrarium H2O in the new atmosphere leaving the cold poles unprotected....7. Both Biblical floods would have most likely effected extensive volcanic activity which seemingly could account for just about anything one might cite relative to lava layering etc.

Which is it? Extraordinary cooling (to account for the ice-caps), or extraordinary heat (because of all the volcanoes -- not to mention all the preceding excess heat from elevated rates of radioactive decay)? Is it both at the same time? Well, sure, if you have no interest at all in paying any attention to physical evidence, it might as well be all of the above and "anything you might cite..." -- why bother with evidence at all?

But seriously, can anyone make a coherent assertion about volcanic activity during (or immediately adjacent to) a one-year flood event occurring within arhaeologically recorded time, based on what we have observed with our own eyes about the behavior of volcanoes? Similarly for ice-cap formation, sedimentation, continental drift, ocean-floor plate expansion and subduction, and (my new favorite, thanks to Coyote) definitive proof that the "chosen people" were not the only ones who clearly survived the alleged event (oh of course... that depends on aging measures that you question, but cannot refute, let alone provide any plausible alternative theory).

Hmm... perhaps you could assert that the Garden of Eden was actually on the North American Continent, since anything is possible when God is pulling all the strings to suit His whim, using tricks that he has scrupulously avoided since the onset of recorded history.

I think it's easier to hypothesize that God induced a mass hallucination among the people who "survived" the "flood" -- it involves a lot less monkey business with impossibly complicated distortions of physics. Either that, or else look for a different kind of meaning (not physical history) in this part of Genesis.

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

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

Buzsaw
Inactive Member

 Message 23 of 96 (463240) 04-13-2008 11:01 PM

Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Here is a faily good explanation of why the Biblical record implies a pre-flood canopy atmosphere as depicted in the Genesis account.

So as not to post the whole lengthy page I've cited some segments of paragraphs to show what it's about.

 The expanse or firmament of Genesis 1:7 may be...... ........The rainbow was the perfect object for........... .........This pre-flood canopy probably consisted of....... water vapor. .......Water vapor is clear, unlike clouds or steam. A little experiment........THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT .......With a water-vapor canopy, heaven and earth system #1 would be....... .....Scientists have found tropical forests and coal deposits in Antarctica. Ninety-foot plum trees which were....... .......In these frigid zones many trees, some fossilized and some quick-frozen, have been found....... ......The water vapor canopy may have more than doubled atmospheric pressure........

The above link also has some interesting input on THE GREAT DINOSAUR MYSTERY and LONGEVITY OF LIFE relative to the Genesis account as well as the following info on learning more on this topic.

 [1] For more information about "Hyperbaric Therapy" see: J. C. Davis, "Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy," Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 4 (1989), 55-57. Also: Textbook of Hyperbaric Medicine, ed. K. K. Jain (Toronto: Hogrefe and Huber Pubs., 1990), p. 492. Also: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy: A Committee Report (UHMS PUB 30 CRHOB), ed. J. T. Mader (Bethesda: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Inc., 1989), p. 90.[2] Most of my comments about the effects of the vapor canopy came from Dr. Joseph Dillow's excellent discussion of the effects of the vapor canopy in The Water's Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Water Vapor Canopy (Moody Press, 1982).[3] Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, pp. 28,29.[4] For more information about Glen Rose and the human footprints, contact: Dr. Don R. Patton at the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science, Inc. (MIOS), P.O. Box 550953, Dallas, TX 75355-0953 and Dr. Carl E. Baugh at the Creation Evidences Museum and Archaeological Excavations, P.O. Box 309, Glen Rose, Texas 76043 (817) 897-3200.[5] In Genesis 7:11, the flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month and in the seventh month on the seventeenth day (five months later) as recorded in Genesis 8:4, the ark rested on Ararat. According to Genesis 8:3, these five months included 150 days -- 150 days divided by five months = 30 days in a month; 30 days x 12 months = 360 days in an Old Testament year.[6] The Institute for Creation Research is most helpful and has several different publications dealing with dating techniques. Every family should subscribe to the I.C.R. monthly newsletter, Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 (619) 448-0900.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

 Replies to this message: Message 24 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2008 2:13 AM Buzsaw has responded Message 31 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-14-2008 6:58 PM Buzsaw has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 24 of 96 (463243) 04-14-2008 2:13 AM Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw04-13-2008 11:01 PM

Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
I notice that your quotes miss out any reference to the Bible. If the Bible REALLY implied the existence of the mythical "vapour canopy" then that would not be the case. THe page tat you quote is trying to harmonise a "literal" reading of Genesis with an erroneous view of science.

The "waters above the firmament" are not described as vapour, nor is there any reason to assume that this is what the author of Genesis meant.

Genesis 2:6 is part of a creation account and does not claim that this state lasted until the Flood. If the author of Genesis meant to sat that this situation persisted to the time of the Flood, then why is it not explicitly stated ? Likewise, the rainbow is said to be a miracle, not something which occurred naturally as a consequence of a "change" in "weather systems". And we must ask, what does the "vapour canopy: have to do with the absence of rain ? Surely the presence of more water vapour in the atmosphere would be unlikely to prevent rain.

The alleged evidence of a "greenhouse effect" caused by the vapour canopy is equally lacking. The alleged "ninety-foot plum tree" is an error (obviously the author is relying on creationists rather than scientific sources). And the alleged benefits of hyperbaric chambers are still controversial. (It is also worth noting that there is no attempt to estimate the extra pressure resulting from the alleged canopy).

The section on dinosaurs is also inaccurate. For a start it is quite likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. And certainly there were predators among them. It is a stretch to say that the prohibition on meat-eating (itself inferred) applied to any species but humans (and according to Genesis even humans sacrificed animals).

There is an interesting question here. Why would someone who genuinely revered the Bible create an error by insisting on a strained reading ? Surely putting a falsehood in God's mouth is blasphemous to any Christian.

The claim about brontosaurus is in error (the real story is that the same species was named twice and that the late name - brontosaurus - was dropped when it was realised). The species certainly did exist, but the rules require that the official name is "apatosaurus". There was a mistake about the head, but it has nothing to do with the identification of the species - merely the creation of a display specimen. (See here

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

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

 Replies to this message: Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 10:00 AM PaulK has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member

 Message 25 of 96 (463247) 04-14-2008 10:00 AM Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK04-14-2008 2:13 AM

Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
 PaulK writes:I notice that your quotes miss out any reference to the Bible. If the Bible REALLY implied the existence of the mythical "vapour canopy" then that would not be the case. THe page tat you quote is trying to harmonise a "literal" reading of Genesis with an erroneous view of science.The "waters above the firmament" are not described as vapour, nor is there any reason to assume that this is what the author of Genesis meant.

1. My quotes were merely beginnings of link paragraphs.
2. It is assumed that the waters above the firmament are vapor as the link explains for sunlight etc to reach earth. The waters above the firmament were more vapor consisting of vaporized water which would likely appear as a cloud line forming the canopy. The [i]firmament below the canopy would be what would be ideal for optimal life conditions on earth whereas the [i]waters/vapors above would serve as the canopy.

 PaulK writes:Genesis 2:6 is part of a creation account and does not claim that this state lasted until the Flood. If the author of Genesis meant to sat that this situation persisted to the time of the Flood, then why is it not explicitly stated ? Likewise, the rainbow is said to be a miracle, not something which occurred naturally as a consequence of a "change" in "weather systems". And we must ask, what does the "vapour canopy: have to do with the absence of rain ? Surely the presence of more water vapour in the atmosphere would be unlikely to prevent rain.

1. Unless there becomes a reason (such as the flood) to indicate a change in the Genesis atmosphere one should logically conclude that it was the same. Your argument here makes no sense. There would be no reason for the writer to state what should be assumed.
2. The text clearly implies by statements cited that there was no rain but that the mist did the watering.
3. That God designed the rainbow relative to rain is no more of a miracle that our present rainbow would be to the IDist. That statement simply states that God, the designer designed the rainbow which would be effected by the phenomenon of rainfall. The rainbow clearly implies a different atmosphere pre-flood to that of post flood.

 leged evidence of a "greenhouse effect" caused by the vapour canopy is equally lacking. The alleged "ninety-foot plum tree" is an error (obviously the author is relying on creationists rather than scientific sources). And the alleged benefits of hyperbaric chambers are still controversial. (It is also worth noting that there is no attempt to estimate the extra pressure resulting from the alleged canopy).

l. The benefits of hyperbaric chambers are being applied regularly by health practitioners. What is so controversial about them. Of course the pre-flood atmosphere was not this perse but the point is made that the atmosphere likely provided a better mix of oxygen than that of the post flood one which likely contributed to longer life and larger species. You have not provide any specifics to substantiate your objections to the possibilities set forth here. As with modern science, nobody's claiming proof here. It's all about how it could have been, establishing a viable alternative to the claims of modern science methodology.

Don't forget that the above also has other corroborating evidence for it's credibility, including fulfilled prophecy, the Exodus evidence/archeology, and other phenomena. This hypothesis is not pie in the sky based on blind faith.

 PaulK writes:The section on dinosaurs is also inaccurate. For a start it is quite likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. And certainly there were predators among them. It is a stretch to say that the prohibition on meat-eating (itself inferred) applied to any species but humans (and according to Genesis even humans sacrificed animals).

1. Quite likely does not mean proof. It's a matter of opinion and ours isn't required to coincide with yours. :) The link does quite a good job, imo, of explaining an alternative POV, though it doen't necessarily coincide with my own on dinosaurs either.

2. That Abel sacrificed animals doesn't necessarily mean he ate the sacrifice.

 PaulK writes:There is an interesting question here. Why would someone who genuinely revered the Bible create an error by insisting on a strained reading ? Surely putting a falsehood in God's mouth is blasphemous to any Christian.

You haven't shown evidence of deliberate error/blasphemy on the part of me or the link author. Focus on the content as Admin admonishes and not on the messengers.

I'm not qualified to make judgement about brontosaurus, but there's plenty more of substance in the link supportive of my POV besides coverage of this animal which you've cited.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

 This message is a reply to: Message 24 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2008 2:13 AM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2008 3:06 PM Buzsaw has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 26 of 96 (463255) 04-14-2008 3:06 PM Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw04-14-2008 10:00 AM

Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
quote:

1. My quotes were merely beginnings of link paragraphs.

That's no use, you're meant to make your case in your own words - and use links for support. When even the quotes from the link are useless, you're doing it wrong.

quote:

2. It is assumed that the waters above the firmament are vapor as the link explains for sunlight etc to reach earth. The waters above the firmament were more vapor consisting of vaporized water which would likely appear as a cloud line forming the canopy. The firmament below the canopy would be what would be ideal for optimal life conditions on earth whereas the waters/vapors above would serve as the canopy.

Yet that is not said in the Bible it is described as water, meaning the liquid, not vapour.

quote:

1. Unless there becomes a reason (such as the flood) to indicate a change in the Genesis atmosphere one should logically conclude that it was the same. Your argument here makes no sense. There would be no reason for the writer to state what should be assumed.

But I am not assuming a major change in the atmosphere. Nor do I accept your assertion that the Flood indicates such a change. And you have not explained why the alleged vapour canopy should prevent rain.

quote:

2. The text clearly implies by statements cited that there was no rain but that the mist did the watering.

The text also says that no plants were growing. If you take that as applying to the whole world you contradict Genesis 1:11-12. And in the flood story there is no suggestion that rain is new - Genesis 7:4 is written as if Noah should know what rain was.

quote:

3. That God designed the rainbow relative to rain is no more of a miracle that our present rainbow would be to the IDist. That statement simply states that God, the designer designed the rainbow which would be effected by the phenomenon of rainfall. The rainbow clearly implies a different atmosphere pre-flood to that of post flood.

Or different laws of physics. Or it implies that the story is a myth. Given that even this mist should diffract light it seems unlikely that it was the atmosphere.

quote:

l. The benefits of hyperbaric chambers are being applied regularly by health practitioners. What is so controversial about them.

Apparently the benefits for many conditions are under question. If you check Wikipedia that is explciitly stated. The list of conditions it is established for is quite limited. There are also potential problems.

quote:

Of course the pre-flood atmosphere was not this perse but the point is made that the atmosphere likely provided a better mix of oxygen than that of the post flood one which likely contributed to longer life and larger species.

The oxygen content is independant of the pressure. And the alleged vapour canopy only contributes pressure.

quote:

You have not provide any specifics to substantiate your objections to the possibilities set forth here.

Then please provide some evidence from a reliable source that this "ninety-foot plum tree" really was found. But here's what Ed Babinski found when he investigated it And what else should I do to substantiate my assertion that the article does not estimate the pressure ? Surely it is up to you to refute it - if it is not true.

quote:

Don't forget that the above also has other corroborating evidence for it's credibility, including fulfilled prophecy, the Exodus evidence/archeology, and other phenomena. This hypothesis is not pie in the sky based on blind faith.

As I've seen there's no record of prophetic success - it's easier to find failures. Real archaeologists have abandoned the idea of the Exodus. It would take blind faith to believe your "corroboration".

quote:

1. Quite likely does not mean proof. It's a matter of opinion and ours isn't required to coincide with yours. The link does quite a good job, imo, of explaining an alternative POV, though it doen't necessarily coincide with my own on dinosaurs either.

But it does mean that any argument that relies on assuming that dinosaurs were cold-blooded is in trouble. Probably false premises do not make a convincing argument.

quote:

2. That Abel sacrificed animals doesn't necessarily mean he ate the sacrifice.

I didn't say that it did. (But the animals are still killed and cooked).
However there is no verse which says that animals were forbidden to eat meat until the flood (and if there was it would be wrong).

quote:

I'm not qualified to make judgement about brontosaurus, but there's plenty more of substance in the link supportive of my POV besides coverage of this animal which you've cited.

Then you have to present it. You haven't even dealt with all the points I raised. Most significantly it does not support your assertion that there were "tropical animals" found frozen in Siberia - although it certainly does talk about frozen animals in Siberia. Nor does it support your contention that the Flood would affect dating. It only refers to an idea that the "vapour canopy" - if it existed - might affect carbon dating, but that idea is known to be false. As you should know from discussions here.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 10:00 AM Buzsaw has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 5:43 PM PaulK has responded

clpMINI
Member (Idle past 3504 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005

 Message 27 of 96 (463257) 04-14-2008 5:30 PM Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard05-12-2007 1:16 AM

Mayflies?
 61. Short-lived life forms â€“ Mayflies only live a few days. How could they reproduce in a barge in a non-riparian environment?

Short lived life forms may be a good point, but mayflies may not be a good example. Although the adult mayflies emerge and are only active for a couple days then die, the juveniles are active for a pretty long time in rivers and streams up to that point.

Generally though, juvenile mayflies do require pretty clean, freshwater environment which would surely be difficult to produce on a barge. Mayflies are a classic indicator species for when stream quality is poor.

Maybe come up with a better example of a shirt lived species for point #61?

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2007 1:16 AM anglagard has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 32 by anglagard, posted 04-14-2008 10:28 PM clpMINI has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member

 Message 28 of 96 (463261) 04-14-2008 5:43 PM Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK04-14-2008 3:06 PM

Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
 PaulK writes:But I am not assuming a major change in the atmosphere. Nor do I accept your assertion that the Flood indicates such a change.

Paul, that you're not assuming a major change and I am as per the Biblical account, this debate is going nowhere. We could argue till the cows come home on opposite assumptions and find it to be a waste of time. I've made my points and put all the time I can afford into responses to you. Nothing I say is going to change you and vise versa. I'm sure you'll go on and on in the future accusing me of running off from it but sorry I just don't have that much time to put into your assumptions.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

 This message is a reply to: Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2008 3:06 PM PaulK has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2008 6:30 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded Message 30 by teen4christ, posted 04-14-2008 6:37 PM Buzsaw has responded Message 33 by anglagard, posted 04-14-2008 10:45 PM Buzsaw has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 29 of 96 (463264) 04-14-2008 6:30 PM Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw04-14-2008 5:43 PM

Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
quote:

Paul, that you're not assuming a major change and I am as per the Biblical account, this debate is going nowhere. We could argue till the cows come home on opposite assumptions and find it to be a waste of time.

If you're assuming your conclusion you ARE wasting your time. The point is that your "criticism" of my argument completely missed the mark - BECAUSE I don't assume a major change in the atmosphere - and because the Bible does not mention one or imply one, either.

quote:

I've made my points and put all the time I can afford into responses to you.

You neglected to provide any significant support for your points. In fact a good number of your points had already been refuted in previous discussions.

quote:

Nothing I say is going to change you and vise versa.

Repeating unsupported assertions is certainly not going to change my mind. Nor is repeating assertions that have already been shown to be false.

quote:

I'm sure you'll go on and on in the future accusing me of running off from it but sorry I just don't have that much time to put into your assumptions.

Only because you DO run away - instead of supporting your assertions. If you don't have time for honest discussion this is not the site for you. You are expected to support your points or withdraw them. You are not expected to keep repeating them and refuse time and time again to support them.

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 5:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008

 Message 30 of 96 (463265) 04-14-2008 6:37 PM Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw04-14-2008 5:43 PM

Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw, I have a question. If the pre-flood atmosphere was saturated with water vapour, does it mean that people back then never had much sunlight?

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 5:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 10:53 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)