Noah's Ark

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Mickmeister, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    As posted to Aq, I already know most rebutals to my comments and you are right about those who reject the first chapters of the Bible, the rest goes down with it, that's a very wise statement.

    If you dare to look at the other side of the coin, then you can compare notes with what you know. I have seen both sides of the argument.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    If waters full of debri, animals, mud, rocks, plants etc, were moving while depositing, what would the sedimentary layers reveal?

    Would the little molluscs settle first or the dinasours?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The sedimentary layers are a problem for flood theology in themselves.
    There is too much salt..
    This can be explained in Geological terms as due to the real floods which occurred the Mediterranean.
    This was long before men arrived,
    at first killing and exploiting each other and inventing religions,
    and later arguing on sciforums.

    The amount of Messinian salts is larger than 4·1018 kg (Ryan, 2008, Sedimentology), exceeding by a factor of 50 the amount of salt normally contained in the Mediterranean waters. This suggests either a succession of desiccations or a long period of hypersalinity during which incoming water from the Atlantic Ocean was evaporated with the level of the Mediterranean brine being similar to that of the Atlantic

    A good theological explanation would be that God cried over man's sins.
    Big salty tears, so causing the huge salt deposits.
    Alternatively, the story of Lot's wife could explain the deposits.
    She was turned into a pillar of salt, if you remember.
    If that pillar was a few million miles high, that could explain the excess of salt.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    I know what you want to hear. But if that was true, then it would apply to all organisms, right?

    Unfortunately, the layers speak a different story. Plenty of the opposite of what you want to see.
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Don't ask me, ask the fossil record.

    Ask how entire genera of marine plants and animals were wiped out by a global flood, or why trees didn't float to the top. This critter was deposited after the era of the dinos (i.e., above dinos):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And this lungfish was deposited in the Devonian, before dinos (i.e., below dinos):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You really need to be addressing the fossils, instead of talking around them.
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Your mention of the Mediterranean brought the following to mind: we invariably link pseudoscience to Creationists. But their Geography sucks, too. A couple of fun exercises: (1) find the general vicinity of the Garden of Eden based on the four rivers that flow out of it, and (2) figure out how a fish that swallowed Jonah (in the Mediterranean?) made it to the vicinity of Nineveh (Mosul, Iraq).

    I'd also like to see Noah's itinerary for fetching all the critters of the world and how they got back home after being stranded in Turkey. The alpaca sure had a long way to go. Maybe Jonah's whale (ok, fish) ran a taxi service, swallowing them in nearby Nineveh and vomiting them out near their destination. Piece of cake for a fish that could take a swallowed man from the Levant to Iraq by circumnavigating Africa and the Arabian peninsula.
     
  10. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    Lung fish - still the same creature, no half sponge half worms, or half mullusc half fishes etc.

    Trees floating on top, whole forests did, whole forests did not. There were many different scenarios at the beginning of the flood.
     
  11. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    No, one rule does not work for all situations, let alone in catastrophies. Even if you were steeped in Darwinism you have to consider that principle.
     
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Could you expand on that, and explain exactly how it counters the argument.
    The argument that fossils are repeatedly found in the same geological layers, independent of their weight, size or location.

    You are stumbling on this question aren't you?
    Admit it.
     
  13. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    You know, finding split species like you suggest would invalidate evolutionary theory. Because that's not how evolution works. It's a pretty strawman though. Gradual changes, over eons, and through fossils we get brief frames of this change over time. Once you get how old things really are, then even small things like wind and rain can reduce mountains, or a small river can carve out a huge canyon, or one species can change into something different.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,886
    That's your problem really. If there was a global flood, we would expect catastrophic evidence to be global - and it isn't. You can easily point to little catastrophes, local examples of your "many scenarios" - but you're trying to extrapolate from that to One Big Catastrophe. The evidence does support catastrophes but not one big one.
     
  15. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Gerhard Kemmerer

    No Crocoducks?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Fish species evolve into other fish species, lungfish are able to breath air and likely led to ALL species with a backbone that can breath air, you breath air, ipso facto, you are a species of fish(in a skewed kind of view). But then all air breathing, land dwelling creatures with a backbone are actually a kind of fish. Since this view ignores most of the differences between creatures we draw arbitrary lines between groups of species based on their traits, but at the core we are all forms of bacteria(the creatures that led to fish in the first place)and if you go back further, all creatures and plants, molds, etc. are simply support systems for the reproduction of the DNA molecule, itself the result of chemical evolution.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    By the way, this is more like a Crocoduck would look like.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    That picture reminded me of the recent XKCD, had to post it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    No, this creature is extinct. You're confusing phenotype and genotype, and you're ignoring natural history altogether.
    Research the Devonian era lungfish Dipterus valencienne if you need more information.

    That's gibberish. What do you call a fish with lungs? A half-salamander?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Until you at least begin to study nature, you're not in a position to make declarations about how it works. Or doesn't.

    My statement was to show the absurdity of your fairy tale scenario in which the fossil layers are created from a single cataclysm, and after you tried to inject something about density of dinos vs mollusks. I showed you two fish to show they lie both above and below dinos. My point about trees is that they would all have floated to the top, and then been deposited at the top most layer when the underground ocean mysteriously disappeared back into its pressurized tomb, just before it magically sealed itself up. Of course all of this is pure malarkey based on a myth and completely contradicting all the vast evidence which you are simply ignoring.

    At some point you really have to stop inventing all this nonsense and address the facts of science. Until then you're just being dishonest.
     
  19. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    Yes, I would not know, because the flood left behind many scenarios, some of which you can draw evidence from in favour of evolution, other areas not, but the flood claims them all.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012
  20. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    Yes, a long duration of time probably would produce those effects in this world, if it did happen.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012
  21. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    It's an awful theory.
     
  22. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    You don't see any evidence for the flood, neither do millions. What's new?

    Go to any road cutting and what do you see? Why would an earth which was supposedly created by molten rocks, have so many layers.

    No one seems to know where the dirt came from to BUILD UP one layer on top of the next.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012
  23. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    I can understand why you follow evolutionary theories, you have a wealth of info that all ties in,
    and I like the fact that you remember some of the stuff I posted even though you don't agree with it.

    I have never seen any evidence for evolution. Every animal is just a result of variation in principles of design. I don't conclude that they all evolved from common ancestors. Sure some look similar, but even the DNA is incompatable for interbreeding.

    I see variations and adaptations within a few generations, but not over endless times.

    The fact is that all forms of life are made within weeks and reach maturity in years at most, but never eons of time.

    Adaptations and mutations create different species but not different animals. Once again in a very short time, from hours to weeks in insects, a few generations in mammals.

    You and I were developed within a few months before birth. There is no magical rising out of a swamp.

    You can't have faith in something that does not happen in our world.
     

Share This Page