Did the flood really happen?

[obvious Child]

--coninuation of tangent alert Moe ---

With sufficient water to cover the earth added to our oceans, regardless of how many organisms died the resultant nutrients would be diluted enough by the sheer volume of water necessary that the influx of nutrients would be diluted to the point where the algae would probably be more likely faced with deprivation issues.. regardless of how much biomass is harbored here on earth.

Maybe. Remember that algae blooms don't actually remove all of the oxygen from the entire ocean. They just strip it down to bare levels in the areas that life largely resides in. Plus remember that the nutrients from the land along with natural chemicals there would feed the bloom. This would be the mother of all algae blooms.

Also for oxygenic photosynthesis water is the oxygen donor, not the dissolved oxygen itself in the water.

While that is in fact true, algae blooms of the sort have shown to use up far more oxygen then they produce through photosynthesis. If it wasn't the case, the dead zones off Texas wouldn't exist.

 

[marduc]

So you could accept sheer coincidence that a volcano just happened at the right time but the intervention of a superior being of tremendous ability is not possible?

No, that was kind of tongue in cheek there. I can accept that many biblical stories are based on a grain of truth however (or in some cases perceived truth).

 

[marduc]

While that is in fact true, algae blooms of the sort have shown to use up far more oxygen then they produce through photosynthesis. If it wasn't the case, the dead zones off Texas wouldn't exist.

The dead zones exist because of an influx of bacteria consuming the dead biomass resulting from the bloom. It is the bacteria that is stripping the water of dissolved O2.

 

[JoeMama]

[...] Moses and all the Hebrews trapped at the shore of the Red Sea.

[...]and the Red Sea is parted and Israel {the Hebrews} Cross safely to the other side of the Red Sea
[...]
Moe

It is actually the Reed Sea it's good that you said that, because it's a major misconception among Bible studies.

The Red Sea is:

We really don't have a good idea of what the Reed Sea is.

But the fact that it might not be the Red sea, is good for all those who like to take things literally in the Bible.
Because the Reed Sea, for all we know could be some small little stream, or other bodies of water that dry up with easterly winds.

 

[Gibberish]

In some form it did. it could have been a flood in Egypt (from a wave created by an earthquake) or it could have been a more ancient flood (Gilgamesh).

Like many of the OT stories they have a basis but have been molded and exaggerated with time and to emphasis morality, ethics, or divinity.

 

[Gibberish]

We really don't have a good idea of what the Reed Sea is.

But the fact that it might not be the Red sea, is good for all those who like to take things literally in the Bible.
Because the Reed Sea, for all we know could be some small little stream, or other bodies of water that dry up with easterly winds.

I thought the Reed Sea was the marshy lands between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea?

 

[obvious Child]

So bascially everyone except Walleye accepts that a large regional flood occurred somewhere in the Middle Eastern region no?

I'd accept that a large black sea flood occurred, was written down in the Epic of Gigamesh and eventually incorporated into the Torah under exaggerated terms.

Columbia News ::: Finding Noah's Flood: Evidence of Ancient Disaster is Linked to Biblical Legend

 

[bookwormjs]

The notion of a “Vapor Canopy” based on Genesis is contradicted in the same chapter in which it appears. Also check out what other cultures have recorded about The Flood. A statistical analysis of these presents some interesting results. See these details and check out numerous other biblical mysteries in

Man and His Planet - James E. Strickling, Jr.

 

[Gibberish]

The notion of a “Vapor Canopy” based on Genesis is contradicted in the same chapter in which it appears. Also check out what other cultures have recorded about The Flood. A statistical analysis of these presents some interesting results. See these details and check out numerous other biblical mysteries in

Man and His Planet - James E. Strickling, Jr.

And now a word from our sponsors...

 

[walleye]

The Genesis Flood and Geology

 

[creativedreams]

In northern Minnesota there are many sharks teeth fossils found around the iron ore strip mines where there were ancient seas!

 

[emdash]

If it did happen what does that mean that Noahs sons and daughters ****ed each other?

noah's sons brought wives onto the ark.

first cousins are legal now in most places.

 

[moe]

The Genesis Flood and Geology

Interesting article. I would like to see somebody who has a good knowledge of geology take a look at it though and see if it stands up to the test of an informed opinion on the subject.

It is easy to string together a bunch of impressive statements and convince the uninformed. Not saying that is what this guy is doing but it is generally better to have two informed opposing opinions that point out the weaknesses in both sides views.

Moe

 

[First Thought]

The Genesis Flood and Geology

Again, this nonsense is what you choose to bring to the table?

Geological Evidences of the Great Flood


It would be quite impossible and impractical for us to attempt a thorough, much less exhaustive, examination of the geological evidences of great changes and then relate them to the Flood. No such thing is necessary, however, to make the points we want to make. Nothing in geology contradicts the Biblical account. And then, nothing but the Genesis Flood can really sensibly account for these phenomena. As you think about these things, there is a very significant and singular point to keep in sight. If one single example clearly denies the claims of uniformitarian evolution and historic geological time, then the whole theory is based upon a faulty premise.

 

[moe]

It seems that he is saying that the flood caused the ice age. Not really sure where he is getting all this and I just do not know enough about geology but some things just do not sound right.

The man is not a geologist himself. He is a pastor named earl cripes. In his bio page there is no mention of any kind of science training.

Not to say the man can not educate himself. He has been to college and knows how to study but his degree is in theology.

I do not want to put the man downbecause I do not know enough about geology myself but he is throwing alot of stuff around as fact with out referencing any real credible sources.

Kind of like I said it so believe it because I said it.

Moe

 

[JoeMama]

I thought the Reed Sea was the marshy lands between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea?

Nope.

No one really knows. It has puzzled people for a long time.

Theories are out their, but there is not clear answer.

 

[marduc]

The Genesis Flood and Geology

really????

The deeper you go in the interior of the earth, the denser the material gets and the higher the temperatures rise, some think to as high as 2500 degrees Centigrade, squared!

Why would he actually say 2500 Centigrade squared.. when 6.25 million degrees would have much more ease as well as impact? Perhaps because that is flat out unrealistic and incredulous?

OK, I'll play. The center of the earth is 6.25 million degrees. That is 1/2 of what the estimates for the temperature of the center of the sun is!!! We would not have the solid core that seismology has illustrated exists; regardless of pressure. It would be plasma, as well as the outer core, the mantle, and the surface of the earth itself (remember the heat from the sun is felt here 94.5 million miles away, we are only some 30-some thous. miles away from our core). This figure is fully 1000 times actual estimates of the temperature of the center of the earth (~5700 K)... 1000!!!

So much for the water coming from within the earth.. even if life were possible on earth with that core temperature, any water coming from within would not be liquid.

Moving on.. a lot more there that could be addressed, but why not just use a couple of easy ones to discredit that entire article.

The thermal blanket (i.e. the great water vapor canopy), surrounding the earth and holding in the heat and making the earth's temperatures very warm and uniform, fell as great torrents of rain during the first forty days of the Flood.

Are you serious?? this vapor canopy concept existed in early Mesopotamian models of the earth and heavens. It is still considered in the 21st century?!

But ok, let's pretend there was a vapor canopy.

The vapor canopy supposedly is a huge vast ring of water vapor surrounding the earth.. a heavenly sea that fell in torrents. If we were surrounded by a huge canopy of water vapor, do you realize what that would do to the atmospheric pressure? Take a dive in ten feet of water and let me know, then multiply that pressure by whatever depth of water you are proposing fell from the sky.

All this water falls from the sky.. suddenly all that pressure weighing down our atmosphere is lifted..we have a planet full of people with the bends suddenly as the atmospheric pressure plummets, our atmosphere no longer weighted by this vast ring of vapor expands.. the density of the air we breathe suddenly plummets, as does the amount of oxygen in each cubic foot of air we breath, and now we have the bends as well as oxygen deprivation above and beyond the comparatively minuscule effect an Everest climber would experience.




For that matter. this vapor canopy (existing above our atmosphere) would have to fall through the atmosphere to reach the earth, most meteorites don't make it through this same atmosphere (which as a direct result of the vapor canopy itself would be extremely dense).


That's just a couple.. but cmon.. glaciers formed in 40 days and then fully melted? Do you realize how cold it need to be for this "daily stratification" as layers of glaciers formed one atop another.. all in 40 days?

Diamonds created from the pressure of the flood?? That was the same pressure that was partly hanging above our heads before it fell remember??

That article is flat out crazy and desperate.

 

[moe]

Thanks marduc. Like I said there were things that seemed to be just thrown out there with no support from any credible sources.

Moe

 

[walleye]

geology flood

 

[moe]

geology flood

This is a much better offering than your last one. But he says that we can not use radiocarbon for dating rocks but instead use the fossils contained in the rocks to date them. Ok that makes sense. But you can radiocarbon date the fossils and those dates are in the millions of years. So how can the earth only be 6 to 10 thousand years old if the life forms that inhabit it are in the millions of years old ranges?

Moe

 

[marduc]

geology flood

From your article:

The local-flood theory is even less defensible. The entire Biblical account of the Flood is absurd if read in a local-flood context. For example, there was obviously no need for any kind of an ark if the flood were only a local flood... According to the account, the ark floated freely over all the high mountains and finally came to rest, five months later, on the mountains of Ararat. The highest of these mountains today is 17,000 feet in elevation, and a flood which could cover such a mountain six months or more was no local flood!

So basically any evidence that contradicts the bible must be false since.. well it contradicts the bible. :doh

An obvious indication of global water activity is the very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited.

This being the case the sediment layers would uniformly be arranged by specific gravity, lighter layers on top of denser. Here let me just let the article discredit itself on this one:

Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata

How would you explain the existence of soluble salt deposits amongst these very layers as well?

moving on:

Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

Noah had dinosaurs on the ark right? we will get back to this one and tie it back in with another part of the article.

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution!

Nope not at all, the author does have quite the ability to ignore inconvenient data. Blind cave lizards/fish/spiders? bacterial resistances to our efforts to eradicate them, or for that matter pathogens mutating and evolving to hop from an animal carrier to humans?? Avian flu anyone? Roaches becoming tolerant to pesticide??

Or here how about this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-technology/37481-macroevolution-observed-african-lake.html

original article:Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in Africa’s Greatest Lake : EcoWorldly

How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood. The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer.

back to our dinosaur conundrum. layering of fossils. So dinosaurs were not mobile enough to make it to high ground, yet elephants and sloths were? pterodactyls could not have flown to higher ground? I would think they could postpone burial longer, more so than I could as a man I am sure.
chalk is comprised of the skeletal remains of plankton, how did these manage to make it atop dinosaur remains, while other simple marine invertebrates were below?

How about fossil records of coral reefs found above terrestrial fossils?

Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility

ok.. yeah that explains it. We are so much more mobile than any other creatures.. again pterodactyl?


What about other details.. 40,000 years of ice core data in the greenland icecap.. no evidence of a global flood? 10,000 years of tree ring data.. again no record of a flood.

How would they have fed all types of animals? how would they have fit them on the ark? what about picky eaters? koalas.. was there a stash of eucalyptus leaves for them? how did they get them to the mideast? penguins? polar bears? how would the food not spoil? What did they do with all that animal ****?? how come the animals didnt have virulent epidemics running through the population?

how come walleye won't debate this directly instead of one line article link drive by's?

Too many far fetched questions that yield too many far fetched answers.

 

[First Thought]

Man, I did not even have to shred any of walleye's articles; Marduc did it for me. :2wave:

 

[obvious Child]

The Genesis Flood and Geology

Absolute Piss.

Nothing in geology contradicts the Biblical account. And then, nothing but the Genesis Flood can really sensibly account for these phenomena. As you think about these things, there is a very significant and singular point to keep in sight. If one single example clearly denies the claims of uniformitarian evolution and historic geological time, then the whole theory is based upon a faulty premise.

Incorrect. The fossil record does not support a global flood. Nor does any geological evidence suggest that the world was ever globally flooded. Furthermore, uniformitarian evolution is something creationists have come up with. Nowhere does TOE state that evolution proceeds at a uniform rate.

One of the clearest evidences of the Genesis Flood happening in just the way and the short period of time that the Bible says, is the enormous vertical build up of stratified layers in the Grand Canyon. In the Grand Canyon we have very high embankments comprised of one sedimentary layer on top of another. All of these are comprised of more or less of different types of soils and rocks.

Except that the types of sediment aren't sorted by density. Therefore the flood didn't occur or occurred in a fluid medium unlike any we have seen on this planet. Furthermore, the stratified layers in the Grand Canyon also show fossil deposits based on evolution's predictions, not by density as would occur under a global flood. Explain to me how sediment that is much heavier then silt managed to get deposited on top of very fine, very low density silt. The Global Flood defies physical laws you can test in your sink.

The uniformitarian evolutionary explanation, greatly simplified, is that these were done gradually over untold millions of years as the region, being a geosyncline plane, sank beneath the sea and received a strata layer, only to be heaved up by some force. It would then sink again in another few millions of years. Another evolutionary theory is or that these strata continued to pile up in place over a geological time period, only to be exposed by the gradual cutting down of a uniform river over millions of years. There are some other similar ideas too, but you get the picture.

Why is this preposterous? We know for a fact that rivers erode their banks. We know for a fact that plate tectonics pushes layers up.

These arbitrary and dishonest theories can only be believed by religious atheists who are so desperate to deny the Bible that they will grasp at any alternative. If one removed the religious zeal of these Biblical antagonists, no sensible scientist would ever believe for a moment such illogical and disreputable gobbledygook.

Insults. Got it. No actual science.

As the currents, from all parts of the earth, came into the land region of the Grand Canyon and stopped, they deposited one layer on top of another; each one different from the other.

This makes no sense. Nowhere on the planet are layers of the same material corresponding to the same time. Unlike the K-T Iridium layer,there is no such similar layer of same material in the same order across the planet.

Need I go on about this idiocy or are you just going to keep posting bare links?

 

[obvious Child]

geology flood

Your inability to post anything other then bare links shows how little you understand the subject.

Post something original and then cite your argument from a source.

 

[obvious Child]

walleye,

Can you explain to me how a giant sloth which move at a rate of 1 mph managed to survive a global flood longer then a trilobite which lives its whole life in water?

After all, clams are located in strata below giant sloths suggesting that the trilobite died and was fossilized first before the giant sloth. Since a trilobite can move it could avoid being buried by sediment and thus had to have died as to not avoid the sediment.

So how did a giant sloth manage to outlive a marine trilobite?