Jump to content
IGNORED

Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood


ksolomon

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

On 1/14/2019 at 6:26 PM, Wade8888 said:

An East wind blows to dry up the flood in the story in the Bible. If this were a global flood, an east wind would do nothing to contribute to drying up the waters of the flood. [...]

Hi Wade,

nowhere in the Bible does it say "East wind". It says:

Gen 8:1b KJV: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

Then you go on:

On 1/14/2019 at 6:26 PM, Wade8888 said:

especially since the Apostle Paul said the stories in Genesis were an Allegory, and Allegory need not be literally true.

They are literally true, in my opinion. An allegory does in fact not necessarily have to be true in a literal sense... but Paul doesn't use the word "allegory".

On 1/14/2019 at 6:26 PM, Wade8888 said:

I don't know where that story comes from, but was probably incorporated by a baal worshiper.

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all Bible stories come from God. If you call him a baal worshipper, that's on you.

On 1/14/2019 at 6:26 PM, Wade8888 said:

Finally, the creation story in Genesis is also not literally, word for word true, as the 3rd and 4th days of creation are in the wrong order: The Sun, the Stars, and the Moon are all much older than Plants.

Science does not say that plants are 24h older than the stars, anyway. I believe Bible is true, no matter what science is teaching currently.

Regards,

Thomas

Edited by thomas t
grammar and typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:26 AM, Wade8888 said:

(1)  An East wind blows to dry up the flood in the story in the Bible. If this were a global flood, an east wind would do nothing to contribute to drying up the waters of the flood. Thus I conclude that the language of the Bible is intended to describe a regional flood, not a global flood.

 

(2)  To my mind, the Black Sea flood discovered by Ballard, is probably the best candidate for the origin of the Biblical Flood story.

 

(3)I see no reason to argue for a literal world-wide flood any more, especially since the Apostle Paul said the stories in Genesis were an Allegory, and Allegory need not be literally true. For example, I don't believe the True God commanded Abraham to burn Isaac on an altar, as Human Sacrifice is later forbidden in the Law of Moses. I don't know where that story comes from, but was probably incorporated by a baal worshiper.

 

(4)Finally, the creation story in Genesis is also not literally, word for word true, as the 3rd and 4th days of creation are in the wrong order: The Sun, the Stars, and the Moon are all much older than Plants. The first day could be correct, because it could be interpreted as "Symmetry Breaking".

(1)  Can you cite that verse that says "an EAST wind"?  All I see is Genesis 8:1 that says "wind".  I also see the Bible directly saying a global flood. Three times in Genesis 6.  Genesis 7:4 - "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."  , and Genesis 7:21-23 - "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.  And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Besides, if the flood were only local, why did God say three times in Genesis 6 that it would be global?  Why does it say twice in Genesis 7 that it WAS global?

And why, if God said he would never flood the earth again, - why would there be constant and myriad local floods around the world all the time?  Was God lying?  No.  The Great Flood was global.  That's what he would never send again?

And.....why, if the flood were only local - why would there be a need for a outrageously huge Ark?  Why not just tell Noah and his family to move to a certain area away from the Flood?  Noah had 100 years to build the Ark.  Think of just how far he and he family could travel by foot and camel in a hundred years!  

 

(2) Read Genesis 6 - 8.  And read Matthew 24 where Jesus Christ said that ALL were swept away in the Flood.  And then read 2 Peter 2 where Peter says that that only Noah and 7 others were spared and that the whole "world" was deluged with water and perished.

 

(3)  Paul NEVER said that the stories in Genesis were an allegory.  He NEVER said that they were not literally true. What he said in Galatians 4 was that you could take the REAL women Sarah and Hagar and their respective sons, Isaac and Ishmael and see spiritual representations.  The whole book of Galatians was about the law and TO those were stayed immersed in it.

He said that Sarah and her son Isaac are like the covenant of freedom, the new covenant.  He says you could see Hagar and her son, Ishmael like the covenant of slavery, being  under the law.  He says these women existed.

Paul never said the Old Testament stories were allegories.

 

(4)  Days 3 and 4 are backwards according to whom?  God provided a holy light on Day 1.  Plants had light.  He provided two lights, the sun and the moon, on Day 4 to mark signs and the seasons, mark the calendars, and to govern by day and night.  I don't have a problem with this order.

Edited by Jayne
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Genesis 7:23 -  He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground ...

Genesis 7:23 -  He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground

Genesis 8:21 - Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

It could be argued that Genesis 7:23 gives some wiggle room for living things not technically "on the face of the ground", but Genesis 8:21 does say "every living creature". I don't see any way to argue around it

I don’t think I need a “way around it”. Things which are not “technically "on the face of the ground"” are likely the many creatures that live in water (i.e. non-terrestrial creatures). When Gen 8:21 says “as I have done”, it means in the same manner that was described in the previous chapter (with all the caveats about the complete destruction only referring to land-dwelling creatures). That is – God won’t destroy everything again in the way He just did – with a flood.

 

 

No, what is exclusive to YEC is the idea that massive land bridges were present as recently as 4,000 year ago

Right – and that’s how you loaded the question. You were likely somewhat aware that the facts indicated a prior land bridge between Australia and Asia. And you are also fully aware that YEC don’t trust the secular uniformitarian assumptions that are used to generate secular time-frames. So you weren’t just asking for the facts – but you wanted facts plus a secular interpretation that is consistent with YEC. That is a technically irrational expectation. In a debate, I am only rationally obligated to provide an interpretation reconciling the facts to the premise of my own position. Unless observed, time-frames are all interpretations – and interpretations are subjective; i.e. fundamentally reliant upon the presuppositions of the interpreter.

 

 

The ice bridge model would require a temporary connection to an even colder land mass, mass invasion of this Antarctica-like land mass by marsupials, but virtually no other mammals, rapid warming and successional development of new ecosystems to support the marsupials (like eucalyptus forests) -- all within the last 4,000 years. This is assuming that the migration of the marsupials took place instantaneously. Realistically, the time frame for this all to have occurred would be several hundred years shorter. I'm not a geologist or an ecologist, but I'm close to certain there is no evidence supporting this highly improbable scenario

As far as I am aware, the most prominent YEC model is that there was an ice-age shortly after the flood which lowered the water levels leaving a land bridge between Asia and Australia.

From a YEC perspective, the abundance of the fossil record is mostly due to the flood – so post-flood migratory evidence in the fossil record would be very sparse at-best. And given the YEC premise that diverse populations can start from low numbers (as discussed with you in another thread), such a scenario doesn’t require mass migration. If only a few specimens crossed the ice bridge, there wouldn’t be much, if any, evidence of their movement other than the fact that they are found where they are. So we could be talking about a combination of land bridges and ice bridges.

 

 

I would expect the same for sessile marine organisms, but although the massive amounts of sediment moved by such a cataclysm would certainly trap some swimming organisms, it would be logical to assume that many of these would fare better, even in a massive flood, than terrestrial organisms

The issue is less about who fares better in a flood, and more about were those who succumb would be buried in the strata. Terrestrial creatures would more likely be buried either on land, or in shallow waters. Marine creatures would more likely be buried further below sea level – and subsequently covered with more layers of run-off sediment.

 

 

Massive sediment flow in a terrestrial environment meets little resistance from air, but would meet substantial resistance in an aquatic environment. Sure, the sediment flow into an ocean would be extreme enough to bury organisms in a coastal habitat, but there would likely be massive areas of open ocean where a large portion of organisms would be undisturbed

I think you are assuming the geology of the world wouldn’t be significantly affected by a global flood. Given the weight of water on a floating crustal plates, there was likely massive geological upheaval across the globe. For all that water to run off the land masses, deep trenches had to be carved out of the ocean floors by high velocity water movement. In the YEC model, the world we see today is largely the result of the flood. The flood effectively remodeled the face of the planet.

 

 

I'm not an expert in botanical paleontology, either, but I'm going to assume that the experts in the field would rely on more than one single gymnosperm forest, since there are still plenty of conifer forests presently on the planet. This article may have some of the information you are curious about.

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/7416/paleo_2005_DiMichele_et_al_PCAS_56(Suppl_I)_HR.pdf

I’ll look at the paper when I get a chance. I previously stated that we can’t expect any two different creatures be found together in a flood scenario. But one thing we can predict, is that the same or similar species of creatures are likely to be found together. Two organisms of the same species live in the same habitats, have the same mobility, and succumb to sedimentary flood inundation in the same way.

 

 

I would expect the sediment flow caused by the flood and the major event needed for fossilization would not be able to physically separate human and dinosaur corpses as neatly as the fossil record indicates

Unless humans had dinosaur pets, I don’t see why they’d need to be separated. Nevertheless, bodies of different masses and buoyancies would move through flowing waters at different rates and encounter different currents. Bigger, heavier bodies would more likely settle before lighter bodies. Larger bodies would take longer to cover with sediment.

 

 

I understand that YEC scientists have many hypotheses in order to attempt to explain observed facts in a light that aligns more closely with the presupposition of a 6,000-ish year old earth. But in order to maintain this scientific viewpoint, it requires numerous, repeated interpretations that are less plausible than the "secular" model”

All anyone has is “many hypotheses in order to attempt to explain observed facts in a light that aligns more closely with [their] presupposition”. That is the nature of historical investigation. All any of us has is stories made up to account for extant facts. The one we find “less plausible” is dependent on personal presupposition. If you want to make an argument about more or less plausibility, you can’t just assume rational superiority because you think it so, you have to justify through math or logic why your argument is more plausible.

 

 

For example, ice and/or land bridges that only marsupials may cross

This is a Strawman misrepresentation of my argument.

 

 

dinosaur and hominid fossils in completely separate rock layers because they didn't cohabitate, cataclysmic sediment flow that carefully separates dinosaur and hominid due to differential density

You have to justify why it’s so implausible to suggest that creatures not living together, probably didn’t die together – and therefore probably weren’t buried together. You can ridicule about species being carefully separated, but the ridicule is meaningless in the absence of supporting evidence and arguments.

How can you, given the rarity of fossilisation conditions (even in a flood), and with such a sparse fossil record, claim to know what two kinds of specific creatures should be found fossilised together? It’s an Appeal to Ignorance. We don’t know what was buried together until we find them buried together.

 

 

massively fluctuating radioisotope decay rates or massively fluctuating speed of light

Neither of these is a requirements for YEC models. What we point out is that the uniformitarian assumptions of consistent rates over massive magnitudes of time and space are fundamental logical requirements of the secular models. These are the necessary logical foundations of the secular models. If even one of the secular assumptions is found to be unreliable, then the entire process can’t be trusted. And in every instance, exceptions to these assumptions have been observed. Since there is no way to objectively determine the veracity of the assumptions in any individual case, there is no obligation on anyone to accept any claim based on these assumptions. In fact, critical reasoning would demand that the processes (and resulting claims) be rejected until objective tests can be demonstrated. You can’t even assume they are ‘mostly trustworthy’ without an objective test.

 

 

Edited by Tristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

And you are also fully aware that YEC don’t trust the secular uniformitarian assumptions that are used to generate secular time-frames. So you weren’t just asking for the facts – but you wanted facts plus a secular interpretation that is consistent with YEC. That is a technically irrational expectation.

Incorrect, I am just asking if you have any evidence available for the existence of a land bridge within the last 3500-4000 years. I truly do not need help rephrasing a straightforward question.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

In a debate, I am only rationally obligated to provide an interpretation reconciling the facts to the premise of my own position. Unless observed, time-frames are all interpretations – and interpretations are subjective; i.e. fundamentally reliant upon the presuppositions of the interpreter.

Isn't this just a fancy way of saying "I don't have any evidence suggesting a land or ice bridge within the last 3500-4000 years"?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

And given the YEC premise that diverse populations can start from low numbers (as discussed with you in another thread), such a scenario doesn’t require mass migration. If only a few specimens crossed the ice bridge, there wouldn’t be much, if any, evidence of their movement other than the fact that they are found where they are.

Does your model involve a small population of marsupial-kind that has evolved into around 200 species of extant marsupials and multiple other extinct varieties? How would you explain the lengthy primary succession involved in the development of the current Australian biomes? Is there evidence of glacial retreat from the Australian land mass? How would you respond to anthropologists that believe aborigines have been in Australia for about 60,000 years?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

For all that water to run off the land masses, deep trenches had to be carved out of the ocean floors by high velocity water movement. In the YEC model, the world we see today is largely the result of the flood. The flood effectively remodeled the face of the planet.

Is this the hypothesis for a Pangea to modern geography model? I haven't read much about this from a YEC perspective.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Bigger, heavier bodies would more likely settle before lighter bodies. Larger bodies would take longer to cover with sediment.

According to this explanation, wouldn't we have small animal fossils all on top - insects and rodents and such, with humans down close to the bottom with the other large mammals? Is that a pattern seen somewhere?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

If you want to make an argument about more or less plausibility, you can’t just assume rational superiority because you think it so, you have to justify through math or logic why your argument is more plausible.

I simply agree frequently with experts in their respective fields. And before you mention the "popular appeal" fallacy, let me remind you that in technical matters, if your explanation contradicts a high majority of the experts, your arguments would work best with solid evidence behind it - not mere conjecture, regardless of how logical you feel it is.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

For example, ice and/or land bridges that only marsupials may cross

This is a Strawman misrepresentation of my argument.

Bad form on my part, you have my apology. I really would like to see some evidence supporting your supposition, and at least a good hypothesis why the placental mammals are so sparse.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

If even one of the secular assumptions is found to be unreliable, then the entire process can’t be trusted.

Would you agree that we can accurately measure radioactive decay rates (even for isotopes with VERY long half-lives) and the speed of light today? I am also certain you are aware that rock dating with multiple isotopes leads to very precise date estimates. How do you explain that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  81
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2018
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Wade,

nowhere in the Bible does it say "East wind". It says:

Gen 8:1b KJV: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

Then you go on:

They are literally true, in my opinion. An allegory does in fact not necessarily have to be true in a literal sense... but Paul doesn't use the word "allegory".

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all Bible stories come from God. If you call him a baal worshipper, that's on you.

Science does not say that plants are 24h older than the stars, anyway. I believe Bible is true, no matter what science is teaching currently.

Regards,

Thomas

There are commandments in the Law of Moses against human sacrifice and "passing through the fire", so why do you think God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his Son?

 

By mentioning 2 Timothy 3:16, you are making an "Appeal to authority" fallacy, or rather Paul was making a fallacy, and you are quoting Paul making a fallacy.

 

As for the wind, I got that passage mixed up with something from Exodus. However, it doesnt' matter which direction the wind blows; Wind would not dry up a world wide flood 15 cubits above Mt. Everest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Incorrect, I am just asking if you have any evidence available for ...

Incorrect, I am just asking if you have any evidence available for the existence of a land bridge within the last 3500-4000 years. I truly do not need help rephrasing a straightforward question.

Isn't this just a fancy way of saying "I don't have any evidence suggesting a land or ice bridge within the last 3500-4000 years"?

You think by conflating two questions you have found yourself a gotcha.

Do I have evidence of land and ice bridges? Absolutely. The extant facts can be interpreted by both secular and YEC models to indicate that these bridges existed in the past. I'm not bothering to chase them down because you are fully aware that these evidences exist – which is why you loaded the question with a second requirement.

Do I have evidence that these existed in the past 4300 or-so years? Absolutely. According to God's eyewitness testimony, we can calculate that a world-changing global flood occurred around 4300 years ago. Therefore the world's current geology is a post-flood construct (including the facts indicating an ice age and land bridge).

The reason you thought you had a gotcha is because you know I don't trust dating methods based on unverifiable secular premises. The premise of my model is scripture. Why should I be obligated to provide you with evidence based on mathematical formulas which I consider to be untrustworthy? That is not a rational expectation. When it comes to science, I trust observations. When human observations about history are unavailable, I trust the eyewitness account of God. Everything else is speculation - which both models employ liberally.

 

Does your model involve a small population of marsupial-kind that has evolved into around 200 species of extant marsupials and multiple other extinct varieties?

No. My model does not consider marsupial to represent a kind.

 

How would you explain the lengthy primary succession involved in the development of the current Australian biomes?

There was already plant life established by the time Noah disembarked from the ark. Primary succession doesn't need that “lengthy” a period of time.

 

Is there evidence of glacial retreat from the Australian land mass?

I am aware of evidence of glaciers in Western Australia. I'm not going to look up the specifics because the ice age in Australia is as much a part of the secular model, as it is part of the YEC model. It's only factors relating to time frames that conflict.

 

How would you respond to anthropologists that believe aborigines have been in Australia for about 60,000 years?

I would ask them how they came to that number, then explore the assumptions underpinning the legitimacy of the 'dating' method.

 

Is this the hypothesis for a Pangea to modern geography model? I haven't read much about this from a YEC perspective

It's a similar idea, but obviously over a much shorter time scale. It's a rapid (or catastrophic) Plate Tectonics model, rather than a uniformitarian model.

 

According to this explanation, wouldn't we have small animal fossils all on top - insects and rodents and such, with humans down close to the bottom with the other large mammals? Is that a pattern seen somewhere?

No. The general succession pattern is based on mobility and habitat. The fact that mass and size influences how a body moves through a current means that, even if different types of organisms did die together, we can't assume they would settle together and be fossilised together.

 

I simply agree frequently with experts in their respective fields. And before you mention the "popular appeal" fallacy, let me remind you that in technical matters, if your explanation contradicts a high majority of the experts, your arguments would work best with solid evidence behind it - not mere conjecture, regardless of how logical you feel it is

What “technical matters”? I only disagree with secular premises and interpretations.

I am happy for you to "simply agree" with whomever you choose. But when you are debating someone holding a contrary position, you don't get the right to simply assume a position of superiority. You have to make your case. We both self-evidently find our respective positions to be more plausible, but we can't simply assert that our position is more plausible without rational justification of that claim. Such an assertion doesn't mean anything without that support.

 

I really would like to see some evidence supporting your supposition, and at least a good hypothesis why the placental mammals are so sparse”

The facts are that outside of Australia, there are marsupial fossils but no extant marsupials. One popular interpretation of this fact is that marsupials were out-competed by mammals and went extinct in these regions. It is a well-understood principle that competition can drive dispersal. Therefore, given the premise of the Biblical flood, it is reasonable to put these ideas and facts together to hypothesise that intense competition forced marsupials to disperse more quickly than mammals into new locations. There are many facts interpreted by both models to indicate an ice age and land bridge between Asia and Australia – which has subsequently disappeared under rising sea levels. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that rapid marsupial dispersal gave some of them access to this pathway, but mammal dispersal was slower, and so mammals weren't were they needed to be at the right time to take advantage of the bridge.

All models of history are, at their core, simply stories we make up to account for the facts in light of our faith presuppositions. I don't have a time machine – so it's not reasonable to hold my model to a higher standard than anyone else's. I don't have any more facts than the secularists. My only advantage is that my premise is the witness account of the Creator.

 

Would you agree that we can accurately measure radioactive decay rates (even for isotopes with VERY long half-lives) and the speed of light today?

I haven't looked into how the “decay rates” are measured – but for the sake of argument, I'm happy to assume these observations are accurate.

 

I am also certain you are aware that rock dating with multiple isotopes leads to very precise date estimates. How do you explain that?

I'd say this is largely myth. Sometimes the error overlaps, but I'd wager I could find far more examples of different methods disagreeing than you could find them agreeing. To be fair, the process is expensive, so most of the time, only one method is used- and accepted if it gives a 'right' date (i.e. within the expected range according to secular time scales), or else explained away (or not reported at all) if it gives a 'wrong' date.

But I concede that most of the 'right' dates tend to agree. What are the odds?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You think by conflating two questions you have found yourself a gotcha.

Wrong. I do not understand your thought process that interprets any questions I have that might be difficult to answer as some sort of "gotcha" trap. If you are sensing a trap, it originates from your imagination, and not my attempts to linguistically trap you. This inherent distrust in my ability to have an honest discussion erodes my desire to do so. I'll make this post short.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

The reason you thought you had a gotcha is because you know I don't trust dating methods based on unverifiable secular premises. The premise of my model is scripture. Why should I be obligated to provide you with evidence based on mathematical formulas which I consider to be untrustworthy?

Incorrectly telling others what they think has to be some type of logical argumentation fallacy. I'm certain you could identify it. I ask because I'm confident that you and I are not the only people to have ever had this discussion. I am guessing that someone, at some time, has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge and I'm asking (repeatedly) if you are aware of any evidence. To save us both the trouble, I'm now just going to take your obfuscation as a "no".

 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

There was already plant life established by the time Noah disembarked from the ark.

It seems as though this model would directly contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 7:23 - "He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground". It is also problematic in the "ice bridge" model that would clearly destroy the necessary plant life.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

There are many facts interpreted by both models to indicate an ice age and land bridge between Asia and Australia – which has subsequently disappeared under rising sea levels.

I'm not hoping for an answer here, but introducing a point to ponder. After a global flood, there would clearly need to be a long era of lowering sea levels. It seems that the sea level would have to drop a certain level for a land bridge to be present (a recent ice bridge seems only remotely as possible), and then rapidly reverse to cover up the bridge again before placental mammals could cross.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

marsupials were out-competed by mammals

A final side note - I'm sure you are aware that marsupials are also mammals and meant "placental mammals" in several places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Wrong. I do not understand your thought process ...

I do not understand your thought process that interprets any questions I have that might be difficult to answer as some sort of "gotcha" trap. If you are sensing a trap, it originates from your imagination, and not my attempts to linguistically trap you.

I had no difficulty answering the question. It's not about “linguistics”, but about logic. Even if I found a paper that dated the land bridge to a time-frame I agree with, I couldn't use it and maintain logical consistency with my own position. Even though from the outset, this question was clearly formulated to provoke a 'so you don't have evidence' response, you gave the game away when, after I explained the logical inconsistency in the question, you said “Isn't this just a fancy way of saying "I don't have any evidence

 

This inherent distrust in my ability to have an honest discussion erodes my desire to do so

If I thought you were disingenuous, I wouldn't be wasting my time. But every so often you drift away from rational debate, then get frustrated when I call you on it.

 

I am guessing that someone, at some time, has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge and I'm asking (repeatedly) if you are aware of any evidence. To save us both the trouble, I'm now just going to take your obfuscation as a "no".

As a rule, I generally prefer to avoid acronyms like LOL. But I genuinely laughed out loud when I saw this.

I don't know if anyone “has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge”. I haven't looked because I can't use such evidence and maintain a logically consistent position.

 

It seems as though this model would directly contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 7:23 - "He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground"

Only if you surgically remove the statement from it's context.

Genesis 7:23 (NASB) “Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark

 

I'm not hoping for an answer here, but introducing a point to ponder. After a global flood, there would clearly need to be a long era of lowering sea levels. It seems that the sea level would have to drop a certain level for a land bridge to be present (a recent ice bridge seems only remotely as possible), and then rapidly reverse to cover up the bridge again before placental mammals could cross

Some of the models about the timing of the proposed ice age are reviewed in this document;

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_2/j30_2_54-59.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

Hi Wade,

 

23 hours ago, Wade8888 said:

so why do you think God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his Son?

my personal take on this one: God didn't let Abraham sacrifice him; It was a test.

 

23 hours ago, Wade8888 said:

By mentioning 2 Timothy 3:16, you are making an "Appeal to authority" fallacy

By Bible I mean the ultimate authority... I don't notice any fallacy in it. Appeal to authority fallacies are often made when it comes to human authority. The Bible however, as I see it, is redacted by God in its entirety.

 

23 hours ago, Wade8888 said:

As for the wind, I got that passage mixed up with something from Exodus.

Thank you for your honesty.

Wind would not dry up a world wide flood 15 cubits above Mt. Everest.

God dried the whole place up by various means, not only the wind, see also Gen 8:2-3.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

P.S.: just curious: may I ask why you answered me and not Jayne? Jayne wrote in more detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't know if anyone “has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge”. I haven't looked because I can't use such evidence and maintain a logically consistent position.

I'm having trouble figuring out why presenting evidence would be logically inconsistent with your position. I'm not asking (and have never asked) for you to present radioisotopic dating evidence, or any other type of evidence that would be logically inconsistent with your world view. I asked for any evidence. And to this point, you have been completely disinclined to provide any, and insist that my persistence can only by motivated by my desire to set a trap for you. I do not understand your hesitancy to address this particular topic.

I found the following quote in the article you provided:

Quote

However, the build-up of additional ice as continental glaciers during the Ice Age would have temporarily lowered sea levels by another 60–85 m below even today’s level for a total sea level drop during the Ice Age maximum of as much as 130 m, depending on ice thickness estimates.2,24 This 130 m includes the 70 m drop in sea level for the current glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, and an additional 60+ m drop for the various continental glaciers during the Ice Age. The resulting land bridges would have made viable pathways for animals, big and small, to walk to the major continents (figure 2).

This is at least an explanation based on some reasoning. All I've asked for is some type of evidence supporting this type of hypothesis. I have not asked you to tie yourself into a logical pretzel in order to explain your hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...