Proof of Noah's flood.

[Bonky]

I'm answering this because I enjoy the subject of Australian marsupials. Firstly I don't see a problem with keeping "delicate" animals on the ark. Noah had more than enough preparation time to learn how to look after specific animals. Secondly I believe there has been rapid speciation since the flood ,and so not all the species we see today were actually on the ark.

 

All Australian marsupials have a common ancestor with a certain South American possum. Regarding DNA they are virtually identical to eachother, but regarding outward appearance and morphology they have large differences. So the koala bear is simply a possum-like creature that has adapted to eating eucalyptus. When animals are isolated on an island they can sometimes adapt rapidly to fill the missing ecological niches.

I'm just curious about something. You seem to support the idea that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry. Is this correct?

I'm not sure how Noah would be able to prepare to learn how to take care of every kind of creature. Surely he couldn't google anything and I wouldn't begin to think that every kind of animal existed nearby.

[Guest]

I'm not sure how Noah would be able to prepare to learn how to take care of every kind of creature. Surely he couldn't google anything and I wouldn't begin to think that every kind of animal existed nearby.

 

~

 

Beloved, Why Google When You Can Talk Directly To God

 

You are to take with you seven pairs, a male and its female, of all the clean animals, and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and its female, Genesis 7:2 (HCSB)

 

For God Knows The Kinds Of Critters In His Creation

 

Then God said, "Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. Genesis 1:24 (HCSB)

 

And Men Still Don't

 

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NIV)

[Jzyehoshua]

Let's begin with the problems posed by fossil desert deposits. Desert Deposits You don't need a Ph.D. in geology to know that desert dunes and other desert deposits do not form under roaring flood waters. These require not only time, but also dry land. The Flood of Noah supplies neither.

The Old Red Sandstone, which looks for all the world like a collection of fossilized desert dunes, was formed in Devonian times. It has outcrops extending from the British Isles to Poland and Russia's White Sea, and from Germany to Norway (Gilluly, Waters, and Woodford, 1968). Outcrops have even been found in Greenland and North America. In Devonian times, before North America and Europe drifted apart, these dunes covered an entire semi-arid continent.

Several lines of evidence derived from this great geologic formation create difficulties for the flood geology model. For instance, the interfingering of these sandstones with marine sediments shows that the shoreline of this continent advanced and retreated several times. Thus the desert rocks are entangled with rocks that the flood geology model says were formed within the one-year-long flood. Also, redbeds, consisting partly of rust formed above sea level, are also

found in this formation. These would not have been formed in any catastrophic flood. The Old Red Sandstones also contain typical playas, complete with their characteristic cubic salt crystal deposits. These are desert salt-pan deposits formed after the rainy-season lakes evaporate. Today, in the Mojave Desert, playas can become lakes for a couple of weeks, only to dry out again, leaving a crust of salt deposits like those found in the Red Sandstone. Although a few freshwater ponds did exist on this ancient semi-arid continent, they dried up from time to time. So, we find fossil mud cracks in the shales that came from the dried-up pond bottoms, and we find fossil lungfish, a type of fish that can survive drought by building a mud cocoon in the pond bottom and breathing air. Hundreds of square miles of fossil sand dunes in these deposits contain cross-bedding and sand-blasted pebbles (ventifacts) of the sort found in modern desert sand dunes, and in no other kind of modern sediment. These different independent lines of evidence converge to show that the Old Red Sandstones almost certainly formed over thousands of years in a dry climate, not in any kind of flood catastrophe.

The Grand Canyon contains fossil desert dunes and other sediments that to all appearances were deposited on dry land. The Permian Coconino Sandstones in the upper walls of the Grand Canyon have the frosted well-sorted wellrounded sand grains found only in land-deposited sand dunes (Shelton, 1966). Furthermore, many of the laminae of the cross-bedding contain fossil footprints that could only have come from reptiles or other quadrupeds climbing up the face of a slightly damp sand dune in the open air. (Those climbing down the slopes left no tracks because they simply slid.) ICR geologist Dr. Steve Austin has taught the theory that amphibians resting between underwater dunes made the tracks. His theory is very interesting, but rather implausible since the Flood must have been violently dumping several meters' worth of sediment per day.

The Canyon's Supai and Hermit Shales, found today beneath the Coconino Sandstones, look exactly like river deltas that formed above sea level (Shelton, 1966). Back in Permian times, many quadrupeds (probably reptiles) left their footprints in the soft delta mud. As the mud baked hard in the sun, it formed cracks. The hardness of the baked mud preserved the footprints and mudcracks until the flooded rivers of the rainy season buried them in fresh mud. These fossil prints and mudcracks are found today, as well as iron oxides that form in the open air, showing that these shales formed above sea level.

A few points.

1) Desert dunes wouldn't form during a Flood of course, they would form after it. Dunes are created from evaporation after massive temperature changes, exactly what you'd see after a Flood that had wreaked havoc on the global climate. Similarly, red sandstones can be explained not just from the evaporation of rainy seasons but a global Flood.

 

2) Shale footprints are not something to be easily explained from slow gradual processes, you have to rapidly harden the footprints to prevent their decay or destruction from erosive forces. What would most easily explain them would be volcanism. If volcanism were coupled with a global Flood, it could harden the footprints very quickly. You don't ordinarily see footprints in the fossil record and they certainly don't preserve within swamps or sand which washes them away very quickly, as pointed out in Section 3 of Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity.

3) "Several times at the end of the Miocene epoch (six to eight million years ago), the Mediterranean Sea dried up, leaving extensive desert deposits on the sea bottom (Hsu, 1972). The Straits of Gibraltar opened and closed, causing these complex changes, as the Glomar Challenger discovered in 1970 by using echo soundings and deep-sea core samples. Each time the Mediterranean slowly dried up, first calcite precipitated around the rim of the basin of the Balearic abyssal plain, then anhydrites and gypsum further in, and finally rock salt in the center at the deepest point. This is just the order that these salts would precipitate if you set out a large saucer of sea water to dry."

Sounds exactly like what a global Flood would produce. You interpret that evaporation over millions of years, I interpret it as the result of a Flood. And also, you'd see a series of tidal recessions as the Floodwaters receded from the Earth, also.

4) "Igneous rock requires 200 years to decay into a reasonable soil."

Igneous rock, volcanism, doesn't normally couple with a massive Flood that mixes large amounts of dead organisms together and deposits them within a short time along with dirts, all of which could result in the soils used.

5) Continental drift is a theory, under a Flood model the continents would drift as the result of the breaking up of the Great Deep (Genesis 7:6) and the Earth would be divided. (Genesis 10:25) You'd see drifting of the continents quite easily under a Flood model also, just at a faster pace.

6) Actually glass sponge reefs in particular had been assumed extinct until isolated examples were discovered off the coast of Canada in 1999. Maybe they managed to survive in that instance due to some unusual geographical feature, but reefs do show signs of mass extinction in the past consistent with a Flood.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20055869/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/rare-glass-sponge-found-pacific-seafloor

Also, coral reefs do evolve far more rapidly than evolutionists assumed consistent with a young earth, so of course they are claiming that climate change is just causing them to "speed up" their evolution. So actually by bringing up the rate of coral reef evolution you bring up a strong evidence FOR the Flood.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020392

7) There are serious problems with dendrochronology as mentioned in the Climategate emails, most notably that it can't reproduce the warming of recent years. Climatologists expect us to believe they are right about how the trees acted in the past even though they don't act that way in the present.

"It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response. Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test."

 

-Jeff Severinghaus

Edited July 30, 2014 by Jzyehoshua

[ARGOSY]

 

I'm answering this because I enjoy the subject of Australian marsupials. Firstly I don't see a problem with keeping "delicate" animals on the ark. Noah had more than enough preparation time to learn how to look after specific animals. Secondly I believe there has been rapid speciation since the flood ,and so not all the species we see today were actually on the ark.

 

All Australian marsupials have a common ancestor with a certain South American possum. Regarding DNA they are virtually identical to eachother, but regarding outward appearance and morphology they have large differences. So the koala bear is simply a possum-like creature that has adapted to eating eucalyptus. When animals are isolated on an island they can sometimes adapt rapidly to fill the missing ecological niches.

I'm just curious about something. You seem to support the idea that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry. Is this correct?

I'm not sure how Noah would be able to prepare to learn how to take care of every kind of creature. Surely he couldn't google anything and I wouldn't begin to think that every kind of animal existed nearby.

 

 

No-one knows the extent of the pre-flood knowledge. We cannot fathom a world where people live to 900 years old.  The possibilities for the accumulation of knowledge are endless. He could have hired a few people to gather knowledge about the more distant types, and spent 20 or 30 years studying the local types. This is all pure speculation, but I'm a planner, and if that was my task I would research it. I am not sure of the preparation time he had.

 

Its not necessarily correct that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry, but this is a fact with Australian Marsupials and a particular South American possum. They analysed retroposons (specific mutational sequences)  which are identical between Australian marsupials and yet only match one type of South American marsupial.

http://www.livescience.com/6770-marsupials.html

[Jzyehoshua]

 

I'm answering this because I enjoy the subject of Australian marsupials. Firstly I don't see a problem with keeping "delicate" animals on the ark. Noah had more than enough preparation time to learn how to look after specific animals. Secondly I believe there has been rapid speciation since the flood ,and so not all the species we see today were actually on the ark.

 

All Australian marsupials have a common ancestor with a certain South American possum. Regarding DNA they are virtually identical to eachother, but regarding outward appearance and morphology they have large differences. So the koala bear is simply a possum-like creature that has adapted to eating eucalyptus. When animals are isolated on an island they can sometimes adapt rapidly to fill the missing ecological niches.

I'm just curious about something. You seem to support the idea that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry. Is this correct?

I'm not sure how Noah would be able to prepare to learn how to take care of every kind of creature. Surely he couldn't google anything and I wouldn't begin to think that every kind of animal existed nearby.

 

Well there are indications in the Flood account as well as elsewhere in the Bible that animals are communicated with by God. Logically Noah wouldn't have been able to gather all the animals, they likely came of their own accord by God's commandment.

 

Notice that after leaving the Ark God said He would place the fear and dread of mankind upon all the animals (Genesis 9:2), that animals would be required to give account to God for the killing of humans (9:5), and that God would establish a covenant with the animals as well. (9:10,15) Similarly in Numbers 22 God even gave a donkey the ability to speak, showing they have an understanding of God as well.

 

In other words, the animals could have played a role in taking care of themselves. They may have helped with moving the excrement or feeding themselves. Again, how they would even get in the Ark at all presumes they were cooperating with the voyage under God's commandment. Thus to follow the Biblical model one must assume their cooperation in the voyage, possibly even in building the Ark itself.

[warrior]

I will put it like this. There is ZERO evidence that there was a flood 4000 years ago. There is ZERO evidence that the world is 6000 years old. There are tree's older then Creationists think the world is.

 

The pope, almost every last cardinal, most other sects of christianity like babptists and othodoxists etc. All accept the fact that science is true no matter how much you do not understand it.

 

A good idea, if you want to that is. Is go learn more about geology and how science is able to date things. There are several methods to dating rocks, minirals and how we can tell how old stuff is. 

 

Remember, the most important two fallacies to avoid.

 

1. Personal incredulity

 

2. God fo the gaps.

 

I believe Bill Nye gave a good speach about all this in his Debate Vs Ken Ham. go watch it, its good stuff.

[Jzyehoshua]

I will put it like this. There is ZERO evidence that there was a flood 4000 years ago. There is ZERO evidence that the world is 6000 years old. There are tree's older then Creationists think the world is.

 

The pope, almost every last cardinal, most other sects of christianity like babptists and othodoxists etc. All accept the fact that science is true no matter how much you do not understand it.

 

A good idea, if you want to that is. Is go learn more about geology and how science is able to date things. There are several methods to dating rocks, minirals and how we can tell how old stuff is. 

 

Remember, the most important two fallacies to avoid.

 

1. Personal incredulity

 

2. God fo the gaps.

 

I believe Bill Nye gave a good speach about all this in his Debate Vs Ken Ham. go watch it, its good stuff.

 

1. First of all you bring up the argument from popularity claim for the record, not me, but it's false. Actually as many as 42-46% of Americans believe mankind was created in the past 10,000 years according to Gallup. And more believe young earth creationism is definitely true than believe evolution is according to a 2007 Gallup poll. Furthermore the 2012 poll showed that 46% of college graduates and 25% of postgraduates are young earth creationists.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

 

Since only around 70% of Americans are Christians, that means the majority of Christians in America are young earth creationists.

 

2. You give no examples of how I resorted to personal incredulity (which by the way is used heavily by Evolutionists in criticizing the Flood) or a God of the gaps argument. To the contrary, I gave specific cases of evidence that contradicts Evolution and is more supportive of the Creationist belief in a global Flood. And personally I'd say the most important fallacies to avoid are the Ad Hominem and Strawman fallacies.

3. I watched the Nye debate some time ago. Just because Ken Ham didn't provide answers to certain points very well doesn't mean the answers don't exist. Nye made a number of very weak arguments that I debunked at the time here.

 

4. I've addressed my concerns about radiometric dating here.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Jzyehoshua
Please do not post links to your own blogs or Face Book

[warrior]

If young earth was proven in any way or had any credible proof. Then this would not be an issue.

 

This boils down to three points.

 

1. Science is NOT a religion. Science is not based on your personal feelings or beleifs. If "anyone" including you. Had the slightest proof against evolution, the slightest proof that the flood happened. Or even the tiniest iota of proof that under peer scrutiny that could prove a single claim of yours. Than this would not be an issue.

 

Your gallup poll thing is largely over estimated. As Mark Twain put it. There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics is what those charts fall under. People in America by majority believe in creationist ideas because our education lacks horribly and they simply do not understand the science and neither do you. Which is why I claim you are arguing from ignorance.

 

Anyone who tries to dispute evolution or the big bang is arguing from ignorance.

 

Also, your gallup poll link.

 

is the Band wagon fallacy. Just because an idea is popular, does not make it true. Need I remind you of the band wagon the church had on the idea that we were the center of the universe and everything revolved around US?

 

As neil Dagrasse tyson once quoted which Is a bit funny and true. - The thing about science is that even if you do not agree with it, its still true.

 or it went something like that.

 

Basically, Science does not care what your Christian scientists have to say. It does not matter if your faith gets its little feelings hurt or if a 2000 year old bed time story gets put out to pasture. Science does not care for human emotion, thoughts or understanding. It only cares about the actual answers that is based on the evidence that it finds though following the scientific method. Even if it takes a long time to get the answers. It only cares about the conclusion and nothing more.

 

Also, radiometric dating is not the only thing we use for dating something. Its just one of the ways we go about doing so. Again, if someone really wants to learn how the earth was formed and how old the universe is. Just pick up some books on geology and how we calculate the speed of light and distence between objects and you will have answers as to many of the concerns that people have.

 

It comes from a lack of understanding and education really. Its not your fault or anything and your not really stupid because of it. Your just illogical and ignorant.

[Jzyehoshua]

If young earth was proven in any way or had any credible proof. Then this would not be an issue.

 

This boils down to three points.

 

1. Science is NOT a religion. Science is not based on your personal feelings or beleifs. If "anyone" including you. Had the slightest proof against evolution, the slightest proof that the flood happened. Or even the tiniest iota of proof that under peer scrutiny that could prove a single claim of yours. Than this would not be an issue.

 

Your gallup poll thing is largely over estimated. As Mark Twain put it. There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics is what those charts fall under. People in America by majority believe in creationist ideas because our education lacks horribly and they simply do not understand the science and neither do you. Which is why I claim you are arguing from ignorance.

 

Anyone who tries to dispute evolution or the big bang is arguing from ignorance.

 

Also, your gallup poll link.

 

is the Band wagon fallacy. Just because an idea is popular, does not make it true. Need I remind you of the band wagon the church had on the idea that we were the center of the universe and everything revolved around US?

 

As neil Dagrasse tyson once quoted which Is a bit funny and true. - The thing about science is that even if you do not agree with it, its still true.

 or it went something like that.

 

Basically, Science does not care what your Christian scientists have to say. It does not matter if your faith gets its little feelings hurt or if a 2000 year old bed time story gets put out to pasture. Science does not care for human emotion, thoughts or understanding. It only cares about the actual answers that is based on the evidence that it finds though following the scientific method. Even if it takes a long time to get the answers. It only cares about the conclusion and nothing more.

 

Also, radiometric dating is not the only thing we use for dating something. Its just one of the ways we go about doing so. Again, if someone really wants to learn how the earth was formed and how old the universe is. Just pick up some books on geology and how we calculate the speed of light and distence between objects and you will have answers as to many of the concerns that people have.

 

It comes from a lack of understanding and education really. Its not your fault or anything and your not really stupid because of it. Your just illogical and ignorant.

 

 

1. Scientific theories can be religious in nature, including the theory of evolution. The scientific method might be an objective system for evaluating theories, but it does not remove one's bias in the selection of theories. Ultimately I see evolutionists all the time attempt to deny away any evidence for creationism or a global flood, even if they have to resort to "well, science just doesn't have an answer for that yet." Furthermore, something is not a scientific theory unless it is falsifiable, so unless you can show an original test of falsifiability for a theory by which it has withstood the test of time, it is not a scientific theory at all. You have to be able to prove something false to be able to prove it true.

 

2. "Anyone who tries to dispute evolution or the big bang is arguing from ignorance."

This is just evidence of your own discriminatory, closed-minded, prejudicial, biased stereotyping. You can't prove this to be true, you just assume it because you want it to be true. It's easier for you to just write off everybody who disagrees with you as less informed than actually confront the facts and evidence by looking into the issues for yourself.

 

That you're resorting to the namecalling shows your own level of education is being challenged, you haven't looked into the facts very deeply and have to resort to ad hominems to cover up your lack of factual examination. If you were as sure of the evidence as you claim, you would use fact-based arguments instead of resorting to this sort of petty mudslinging.

 

3. I knew you'd bring up the Bandwagon Fallacy or Appeal to Popularity Fallacy which is why I already pointed out "First of all you bring up the argument from popularity claim for the record, not me." You were the one who started out arguing that Evolution was more popular than Creationism among Christians.

 

You can't commit the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy and then criticize others of using it for just pointing out your own faulty, fallacy-based argument is false. I was addressing your own original claim that evolution is more popular than creationism among Christians (which it's not). Just pointing out your argument is false is not Appeal to Popularity.

 

4. I'm well aware that evolutionists claim they can cross-check different dating methods. However since multiple dating methods are equally thrown off by volcanism and other natural processes, and since they all are flawed methods to begin with, arguing they can cross check one another is itself fallacious.

 

5. As for the speed of light, it assumes the planets weren't originally created in their positions, as opposed to moving outward from a Big Bang over a long period of time. Furthermore, the rate of universal expansion and the observed speed of light are both inconsistent with the long time spans assumed by evolution.

 

https://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn.html

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

 

The lack of antimatter in the universe also contradicts Big Bang theory as well.

[warrior]

1. Scientific theory is NOT based on religion. When are you people going to stop this tired old argument.

 

2. Again, science does not care what I think or what you think. You are basing your aguments from strawmen arguments and arguments from ignorance. You have completely missed the point. You are confusing your own beliefs with what the evidence of what science has shown us. Again, science does not care what your own personal beliefs are. Even Darwin admitted to this at the "second half" of his eye evolution statement that you theists take out of context. It does not matter if it does not make sense to me, if that is what the evidence shows. That is how it is regardless.

 

3. Tu quoque now eh? Please do not be so transparent. Try walking over to Europe and spread your beliefs with Christians over there and you will find out how disporportionate your Creationism beliefs are over seas. Like I said, it is the bandwagon here in America, due to our horrid Education system. If you take the time to actually learn the science and learn how it finds its answers. You would not be able to argue with it, vs your faith which is not based on any evidence what so ever.

 

4. The planets current positions, and where they are going at what accelerated rate vs where they might had been a billion years ago has already been carefully cacluated and a lot of research has been put into it. Speed of light is a constant. I don't know what Christian website you found with some evidence on this to be different, but its been the same.

 

There is no such thing as speed of light that is infinite to reach our planet 6000 years ago and then suddenly drop off to its current constant speed.