If you believe in Noah's Ark, you are...
Gabbylittleangel

Sarasota, FL

#1101 Jul 17, 2011
Maybe this will help you understand where the water came from, where it went, and how it happened.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#1102 Jul 17, 2011
Gabbylittleangel wrote:
Maybe this will help you understand where the water came from, where it went, and how it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zKO-vTwYCo8XX
THAT was funny... Brown's "hydroplate theory" violates all modern science, and was written for those who know nothing about the subject.

Source of energy required for such events? What happened to ENORMOUS frictional forces? So MUCH wrong... these claims were demolished years ago.

They are fantasies by Walt Brown, who made them up just to fit his religious beliefs. That's NOT science!

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#1103 Jul 17, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence do we have that there is a necessity to increase genetic material?
Are you saying all the genetic material we have today couldn't possibly have been present in 6 people?
One of the assumptions you start with is that everything is the same as it was then such as Mountain heights. Under the most extreme conditions how fast can land masses move?...
A few inches a year...maybe as much as a foot or so. Why don't you calculate the energy requirements to move plates hundreds of miles a year?:) DON'T FORGET to explain the process that removes the heat generated; don't want to boil the oceans away, do we?

Genetic material? You are assuming an enormous rate of mutations; you might as well just stick with evolution...that's much more likely!

There was no "flood" anyway; we've already taken care of that, remember?
Thinking

Cranbrook, UK

#1104 Jul 17, 2011
It's amazing that Noah was able to find and put all the animals that weren't even discovered yet by his Middle Eastern goat herding friends on that boat- and yet fail to name them...

At least the Santa lie is fun for kids.
Gabbylittleangel wrote:
<quoted text>
Assumes that the sloth was exactly the same 4400 years ago as it is today.
Assumes that South America existed 4400 years ago.
Assumes that the land mass that is now known as South America was divided by oceans from the place where the ark was built.
Assumes that there were no sloths close by when the ark was built.
Assumes that the sloth is not a product of natural selection.
Silvermittweasle

Ottawa, Canada

#1105 Jul 27, 2011
That story always bugged me too with how many holes were in it. How did the people repopulate? cause I dont recall Noah having a daughter, but sons and a wife. And only his family were the human survivors. So...insest? And, I highly doubt that they were the only believers in the entire world.
messianic114

High River, Canada

#1106 Jul 27, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
A few inches a year...maybe as much as a foot or so. Why don't you calculate the energy requirements to move plates hundreds of miles a year?:) DON'T FORGET to explain the process that removes the heat generated; don't want to boil the oceans away, do we?
Genetic material? You are assuming an enormous rate of mutations; you might as well just stick with evolution...that's much more likely!
There was no "flood" anyway; we've already taken care of that, remember?
What I remember Bob is I asked questions about trees vertically aligned through rock layers and you gave me trees horizontally through one layer, I asked for dating of fossils by trace elements and you gave me igneous rock in which no fossils are ever found, I asked do we find sedimentarty rock sandwiched in between igneous rock and I got no anwer and I asked if volcanic rock is found with trace elements in it how can we use this to date rock, since the trace elements existed in the mantle before being deposited and I got no answer.

By the way Bob I lived through the Sylmar earthquake and I believe land moved 3 feet in a matter of seconds.

As far as energy requirements, the earth has the potential of more energy than I can imagine. The energy released in one volcanic eruption is immense. The explosion from Krakatoa was heard in England. That was only the sound, what about the rest.

As for the oceans boiling, Jewish tradition holds that there was boiling water involved in the flood.

As to genetic material, I asked where we would need an increase of gentic material and I believe the context was humankind. I will leave it at that since this is not about evolution but the flood. Is there enough genetic material in six people to account for the diversity in humankind? I think that was the question of which I don't know the answer.

Lastly I don't believe any evidence was given that would cause me to discount the flood. I'm already questioning the evidence you have already given and awaiting answers.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1107 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I remember Bob is I asked questions about trees vertically aligned through rock layers and you gave me trees horizontally through one layer, I asked for dating of fossils by trace elements and you gave me igneous rock in which no fossils are ever found, I asked do we find sedimentarty rock sandwiched in between igneous rock and I got no anwer and I asked if volcanic rock is found with trace elements in it how can we use this to date rock, since the trace elements existed in the mantle before being deposited and I got no answer.
By the way Bob I lived through the Sylmar earthquake and I believe land moved 3 feet in a matter of seconds.
As far as energy requirements, the earth has the potential of more energy than I can imagine. The energy released in one volcanic eruption is immense. The explosion from Krakatoa was heard in England. That was only the sound, what about the rest.
As for the oceans boiling, Jewish tradition holds that there was boiling water involved in the flood.
As to genetic material, I asked where we would need an increase of gentic material and I believe the context was humankind. I will leave it at that since this is not about evolution but the flood. Is there enough genetic material in six people to account for the diversity in humankind? I think that was the question of which I don't know the answer.
Lastly I don't believe any evidence was given that would cause me to discount the flood. I'm already questioning the evidence you have already given and awaiting answers.
As for the oceans boiling, 2500 years of Hebrew scholarship has determined that there was no flood, no Noah, no Ark.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp... flood

"If you believe in Noah's Ark, you are a certifiable moron"
messianic114

High River, Canada

#1108 Jul 27, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the oceans boiling, 2500 years of Hebrew scholarship has determined that there was no flood, no Noah, no Ark.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp... flood
"If you believe in Noah's Ark, you are a certifiable moron"
I briefly scanned this article and say no reference to 2500 years of Hebrew scholarship coming to the conclusion there was no flood. I did see a section on the "critical opinion" in which I didn't see them deny the story, but even if they did it would only be the opinion of men since the 1800's.

Instead of name calling why not give some good evidence. If you search the internet you can find opinions on anything, this is hardly evidence.
Cujo

Regina, Canada

#1109 Jul 27, 2011
For the believers (and non), please watch this. A comical, but realistic view on what would have needed to be done in order for the Noah story to be even remotely true.



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1110 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I briefly scanned this article and say no reference to 2500 years of Hebrew scholarship coming to the conclusion there was no flood. I did see a section on the "critical opinion" in which I didn't see them deny the story, but even if they did it would only be the opinion of men since the 1800's.
Instead of name calling why not give some good evidence. If you search the internet you can find opinions on anything, this is hardly evidence.
I you think your opinion overturns 2500 years of Hebrew scholarship you are a nitwit.
messianic114

High River, Canada

#1111 Jul 27, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I you think your opinion overturns 2500 years of Hebrew scholarship you are a nitwit.
Its not about my opinion, It's about an article which doesn't say anything about 2500 years or even if it is the consensus opinion.
You made a statement to the effect that Jewish scholarship for the last 2500 years opposed the idea of a literal flood of which you posted no evidence. In this case the article didn't (as far as I could see):
1. Deny the flood happened
2. Gave no evidence that this was the Jewish perspective within scholarship for the last 2500 years.
3. That any critical analysis of the texts are the majority opinion

I think you would be hard pressed to show ANY opposition to the belief in the flood over 300 years old.

Is this another of your displays of critical thinking?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1112 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not about my opinion, It's about an article which doesn't say anything about 2500 years or even if it is the consensus opinion.
You made a statement to the effect that Jewish scholarship for the last 2500 years opposed the idea of a literal flood of which you posted no evidence. In this case the article didn't (as far as I could see):
1. Deny the flood happened
2. Gave no evidence that this was the Jewish perspective within scholarship for the last 2500 years.
3. That any critical analysis of the texts are the majority opinion
I think you would be hard pressed to show ANY opposition to the belief in the flood over 300 years old.
Is this another of your displays of critical thinking?
I am saying that Jews have been studying Hebrew scripture for 2500 years. Current understanding is based on knowledge of Geology, Anthropology, Paleontology and Archaeology.

Sola Scriptura Fundamentalism is the last bastion of willful ignorance.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#1113 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I remember Bob is I asked questions about trees vertically aligned through rock layers and you gave me trees horizontally through one layer, I asked for dating of fossils by trace elements and you gave me igneous rock in which no fossils are ever found, I asked do we find sedimentarty rock sandwiched in between igneous rock and I got no anwer and I asked if volcanic rock is found with trace elements in it how can we use this to date rock, since the trace elements existed in the mantle before being deposited and I got no answer.
By the way Bob I lived through the Sylmar earthquake and I believe land moved 3 feet in a matter of seconds.
As far as energy requirements, the earth has the potential of more energy than I can imagine. The energy released in one volcanic eruption is immense. The explosion from Krakatoa was heard in England. That was only the sound, what about the rest.
As for the oceans boiling, Jewish tradition holds that there was boiling water involved in the flood.
As to genetic material, I asked where we would need an increase of gentic material and I believe the context was humankind. I will leave it at that since this is not about evolution but the flood. Is there enough genetic material in six people to account for the diversity in humankind? I think that was the question of which I don't know the answer.
Lastly I don't believe any evidence was given that would cause me to discount the flood. I'm already questioning the evidence you have already given and awaiting answers.
Well... Your problem seems to be that
1. you didn't read carefully (or you just 'made up' your own version!)
2. you didn't TRY to understand, or attempt to study further!

I DID answer about how fossils are dated, why the method is valid, AND how radioactive elements are used to date rocks (even though those elements have existed at least since the Sun's formation, if not before)... You simply ignored my response; a common creationist attitude around "here" (I can't tell you how many times I've had a discussion end abruptly following one of my detailed responses!).

"Polystrat fossils": Nothing unusual there, although some example are perhaps better than others. Multiple layers can easily form from one brief river flood, or other single event; coarse materials are deposited first, finer sediment later, and clay-sized particles last...3 or more layers right there...

AND...other alluvial event may leave an additional set of such deposits; over a period of a few years, some feet of sediment composed of various beds can be easily deposited.

You seem to miss the whole point about "energy" in your comment about earthquakes! The amount of energy involved in your imaginary plate tectonics scenario is far beyond your understanding!

Claiming "there's a lot of energy" is a LOT different than explaining how an ENORMOUS amount of energy could be generated, focused, and then dissipated without frying everyone on the planet (there's no "Ark" left in your story by then, you know). The entire "hydroplate" story is fantasy, ignoring all geological evidence, and all of our knowledge of physics as well!

The rocks show no sign of rapid movement, radiometric dating fits speeds of a few inches a year, magnetic evidence, and a host of other data all coincide nicely.

As for you questioning my evidence! You have to know something about the subject first... Get started! Read a textbook or two; take a college geology course...

Folks like you are common around here: "Convince me now! Show me the evidence here! Give me a link that proves this! Teach me all the knowledge of your whole 30-year career in a few paragraphs! But don't use too many big words..."

Time for you to put forth an effort to learn. DON'T do it on the web! That's for folks who already know something about the subject, and who have a fair chance of knowing when web page claims are nonsense!

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#1114 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
The crux of the thread was do we want mind police by restricting the opinoins of others. I'm surprised that such a critical thinker like yourself cannot stay on track. As I recall from other posts your thinking is neither deep nor insightful, just critical.
In reality you are very religious, your religion tells you, you evolved from non-living matter. You believe this (or something like it) even though we have no scientific evidence this has ever happened and we have no mechanism to explain how it could happen.
An example of scientific critical thinking is aging rocks by strata layers based upon the fossils found in those layers. Then they age the fossils based upon what layer of rock they are found in. Even a child can see that this is circular reasoning. In addition when one finds a petrified tree traversing multiple rock layers (supposedly millions of years) you would think that this would be enough to bring into question the method used to age rocks but to my knowledge it is still done this way.
Your statements are oft-repeated nonsense. Do you REALLY think that geologists reach their conclusions that way? Have you ANY knowledge of the subject (I'll answer that one for you: no, you don't!).

Rock strata are described, as are the fossils found within; this establishes a sequence of events that occurred at the location over many years.

SO...(as an example) now we know that the area was first a shoreline environment, followed by a river delta and floodplain landscape, then shallow marine, shoreline, and desert...(we now know the basic history of the site).

The DATES are established by radiometric dating; we don't usually date the fossils; they rarely contain radioactive elements. We DO date certain layers that contain the proper elements (K\Ar, U\Pb, Rb\Sr). These layers are often volcanic ash layers, or lava flows (and ash layers have a MUCH wider distribution).

Every few years (or centuries, or millennia), ash falls drift across many landscapes. Each event leaves a "instantly formed" layer that may be dated, interbedded within all the strata deposited at that location.

Fossils found in strata between dated layers must have an age younger than underlying strata, and older than overlying strata.(So fossil might be dated as being between 200 million years and 210 million years old, if those are the dates established for two ash layers).

Once the age of strata and fossils have been established, then some can be used to extend time references further. Therefore, a certain species of seashell may indeed be used to date strata elsewhere...BUT ONLY AFTER RADIOMETRIC DATING HAS ESTABLISHED AN ABSOLUTE AGE FOR THAT SPECIES!

That is NOT "circular reasoning"! Certain strata are used to establish ages for rocks and fossils, those rocks and fossils may be used to extend the time sequence elsewhere.

As for your claim that some fossils are "traversing multiple rock layers (supposedly millions of years)"... This is also nonsense spawned by ignorance (and deliberate lies). NO geologist says that multiple strata span millions of years!

A sequence of sediment from an marine environment might represent very long time spans, but sediments from an alluvial or deltaic environment accumulate MUCH faster! A single year can commonly add several feet of sediment in a river floodplain; having a fossil tree penetrate several layers is perfectly normal (and indeed, it a common occurrence today along major river like the Mississippi River).

You may find a textbook that says a few hundred feet of strata represent millions of years... and some examples do. However, the claim you repeat results from a vast over-generalization and outright lies commonly found on creationist websites\books.

And some of the folks who wrote those distortions and lies did so quite deliberately...

Have you considered WHY they found it necessary to lie to you???

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#1115 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob, if radiometric dating is used on an ash layer would it be safe to say that:
1: the radioactive material is much older than the ash, as it came from the bowels of the earth and we don't know how long it was down there?
2: We don't have any idea on the decay rate of these isotopes under the extreme conditions where they originated?
3: If several feet of sediment can be deposited in a year under normal conditions what could we expect under the conditions of a world-wide flood?
4: These trees you refer to, will they fossilize?
5: If you are familiar with the fossil tree example, what was the age of the layers according to geologists?
6: Were marker fossils found within the layers and what were they?
7: What was the specie of the fossil tree?
1. Yes... But irrelevant because the daughter product starts to accumulate once the rock is deposited\cooled, which means we CAN date the time of formation of the igneous rock (and THAT is what establishes the date!).

2. WHAT "extreme conditions"? No conditions known on Earth would change radioactive decay rates (stellar cores, maybe?). Certainly no major change in decay rates happened...we'd still be glowing (it would be a bit "hot" around here:)

3. Big thick deposits... massive examples of graded beds (coarse grains on the bottom, fine grains on top); fossils in a jumble of similar-density organisms (something we DON'T see!) No one knows of such a world-wide layer (or even a big regional deposit of that sort).

What we DO see is a diversity of deposits that look (except for changes in fauna and flora)just like environments found today: shallow marine, shoreline, deltaic, forested plain and alluvial channel, desert deposits (creationist DESPERATELY try to "turn those into" marine deposits!), upland deposits, with typical coarse-grained channel deposits (mountain streams), arkose deposits representing erosion of granitic mountains, graywacke deposits recording ancient stratovolcano chains (and the tectonic subduction zone generating them!)

4. Yes. Entire forests have been "drowned" and preserved still standing; http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil...

Unfossilized examples from today are common, as I said.

5. Overall, the strata is Middle Pennsylvanian; about 310 million years old.

6. The whole collection of plants themselves are "markers" for the Pennsylvanian Period; a very distinctive assemblage...

7. Calamites, Cordaites, Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, Pecopteris, Alethopteris among many; they are common Pennsylvanian "Coal Age" plants. Similar forest grew across (what is now) Eastern North America; forests in Illinois were virtually identical (see link above).

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1116 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Instead of name calling why not give some good evidence. If you search the internet you can find opinions on anything, this is hardly evidence.
Uniformitarianism is not a controversial assumption when compared to magic.
-- Professor John Hoelsenbeck
messianic114

High River, Canada

#1117 Jul 27, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Well... Your problem seems to be that
1. you didn't read carefully (or you just 'made up' your own version!)
2. you didn't TRY to understand, or attempt to study further!
I DID answer about how fossils are dated, why the method is valid, AND how radioactive elements are used to date rocks (even though those elements have existed at least since the Sun's formation, if not before)... You simply ignored my response; a common creationist attitude around "here" (I can't tell you how many times I've had a discussion end abruptly following one of my detailed responses!).
"Polystrat fossils": Nothing unusual there, although some example are perhaps better than others. Multiple layers can easily form from one brief river flood, or other single event; coarse materials are deposited first, finer sediment later, and clay-sized particles last...3 or more layers right there...
AND...other alluvial event may leave an additional set of such deposits; over a period of a few years, some feet of sediment composed of various beds can be easily deposited.
You seem to miss the whole point about "energy" in your comment about earthquakes! The amount of energy involved in your imaginary plate tectonics scenario is far beyond your understanding!
Claiming "there's a lot of energy" is a LOT different than explaining how an ENORMOUS amount of energy could be generated, focused, and then dissipated without frying everyone on the planet (there's no "Ark" left in your story by then, you know). The entire "hydroplate" story is fantasy, ignoring all geological evidence, and all of our knowledge of physics as well!
The rocks show no sign of rapid movement, radiometric dating fits speeds of a few inches a year, magnetic evidence, and a host of other data all coincide nicely.
As for you questioning my evidence! You have to know something about the subject first... Get started! Read a textbook or two; take a college geology course...
Folks like you are common around here: "Convince me now! Show me the evidence here! Give me a link that proves this! Teach me all the knowledge of your whole 30-year career in a few paragraphs! But don't use too many big words..."
Time for you to put forth an effort to learn. DON'T do it on the web! That's for folks who already know something about the subject, and who have a fair chance of knowing when web page claims are nonsense!
As usual Bob, you say you are answering but you don't!

You didn't answer about a tree through multiple layers.
You didn't answer about sedimentary layers sandwiched between igneous rock.
You didn't answer about why I should believe that igneous rock tells me when the rock was layed down.

All I need is a few paragraphs, take one question, how about the tree through multiple layers. Give me a reasonable answer. If you don't have an answer I can respect that, go to the question about how igneous rock containing radio datable material tells me when the rock was formed.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1118 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual Bob, you say you are answering but you don't!
You didn't answer about a tree through multiple layers.
You didn't answer about sedimentary layers sandwiched between igneous rock.
You didn't answer about why I should believe that igneous rock tells me when the rock was layed down.
All I need is a few paragraphs, take one question, how about the tree through multiple layers. Give me a reasonable answer. If you don't have an answer I can respect that, go to the question about how igneous rock containing radio datable material tells me when the rock was formed.
Of course he did. He also pointed out, more politely than I do, that you are too ignorant to understand the evidence.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#1119 Jul 27, 2011
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual Bob, you say you are answering but you don't!
You didn't answer about a tree through multiple layers.
You didn't answer about sedimentary layers sandwiched between igneous rock.
You didn't answer about why I should believe that igneous rock tells me when the rock was layed down.
All I need is a few paragraphs, take one question, how about the tree through multiple layers. Give me a reasonable answer. If you don't have an answer I can respect that, go to the question about how igneous rock containing radio datable material tells me when the rock was formed.
A tree is standing on a flood plain. A spring flood occurs; a layer of sand is deposited; a layer of clay is deposited on top.

Repeat several times over the next 5 years... the tree is now buried to a depth of several (4-8 feet?) of sediment. It is buried by several layers of sand (sandstone, eventually), and several layers of clay (shale, eventually), hereinafter referred to as "multiple layers".

That's as simple as I can make it... Standing tree; multiple layers...

I certainly DID answer about sedimentary layers and igneous rocks; I said that ash falls have been common throughout much of Earth's history; that each such fall produces a layer sometimes stretching hundreds of miles, leaving a single-event layer of millions of square miles extant. Trapping of daughter product within that layer begins at the time of layer formation; parent\daughter ratio therefore give date of layer formation...

That's as simple as I can make it... And I explained it before. If you fail to understand... go to a library or take a college course.
messianic114

High River, Canada

#1120 Jul 27, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes... But irrelevant because the daughter product starts to accumulate once the rock is deposited\cooled, which means we CAN date the time of formation of the igneous rock (and THAT is what establishes the date!).
2. WHAT "extreme conditions"? No conditions known on Earth would change radioactive decay rates (stellar cores, maybe?). Certainly no major change in decay rates happened...we'd still be glowing (it would be a bit "hot" around here:)
3. Big thick deposits... massive examples of graded beds (coarse grains on the bottom, fine grains on top); fossils in a jumble of similar-density organisms (something we DON'T see!) No one knows of such a world-wide layer (or even a big regional deposit of that sort).
What we DO see is a diversity of deposits that look (except for changes in fauna and flora)just like environments found today: shallow marine, shoreline, deltaic, forested plain and alluvial channel, desert deposits (creationist DESPERATELY try to "turn those into" marine deposits!), upland deposits, with typical coarse-grained channel deposits (mountain streams), arkose deposits representing erosion of granitic mountains, graywacke deposits recording ancient stratovolcano chains (and the tectonic subduction zone generating them!)
4. Yes. Entire forests have been "drowned" and preserved still standing; http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil...
Unfossilized examples from today are common, as I said.
5. Overall, the strata is Middle Pennsylvanian; about 310 million years old.
6. The whole collection of plants themselves are "markers" for the Pennsylvanian Period; a very distinctive assemblage...
7. Calamites, Cordaites, Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, Pecopteris, Alethopteris among many; they are common Pennsylvanian "Coal Age" plants. Similar forest grew across (what is now) Eastern North America; forests in Illinois were virtually identical (see link above).
1. Can you provide me a link to these daughter products?
2. Are you guessing here or are you staing fact?
3. I agree with this analysis, this is what I would expect.
4. This example is of horizontal not vertical fossils.
5. What is the basis for this dating?
6. Thanks for the info.
7. Thanks for the info.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's have a discussion, HG. (Oct '12) 2 min Atheistgirl 183
GS, defend this defamation of my character with... (Oct '12) 3 min Atheistgirl 974
Evidence Against God 6 min Atheistgirl 3,926
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 6 min KAB 8,358
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 1 hr 10uhsee 1,374
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 1 hr Barnsweb 179
Spirit bodies. 3 hr little lamb 57
More from around the web