[RichieC]

Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen

Random scientific word generator?

monomorphic.

[sephir0th]

oldrnwisr, thanks for the time you put into your posts. Keep it up!

[oldrnwisr]

Originally Posted by J C

The Flood is depicted in the Bible as having two sources of water ... rain falling from above ... and (by far the greater) underground water bursting forth from below (the fountains of the great deep)!!!

Gen 7:10-12
10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Fair enough, but if you're trying to convince us that the Noachian flood actually happened then some physical evidence not quotes would be more helpful.

Originally Posted by J C

The Flood was primarily a tectonic event ... with the break-up of the surface of the earth and the explosive release of vast quantities of underground water laiden with sediment from the rock breakup and saturated with hot Calcium Carbonate that acted as a cementing agent to form sedimentary rocks and entomb dead creatures that rapidly dissolved and fossilised over a matter of weeks.
Your rainfall stats are irrelevant because the primary water source wasn't rain ... but underground oceans!!!
The large artesian basins all over the world are the feint remnants of the pre-flood underground oceans.

Oh, so you're arguing in favour of the hydroplate theory then. This, for those unfamiliar,was developed by creationist Walt Brown and outlined in his book "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood". I think that the problem with this theory is best summed up in three words: Rock doesn't float.

The first problem is that unless the earth's crust were a solid shell with no cracks or fissures prior, to the flood, the water would have escaped instantly. The density of water is 1 g/cm^3 while the density of those rocks which make up the crust such as granite, basalt etc. lie in the range 2.5 - 3.0 g/cm^3. Any crack in the crust would have resulted in the water escaping long before Noah's flood.

Even assuming a solid crust, this doesn't solve the problem of a layer of water ten miles below the surface. First of all, the water at that depth would be well in excess of 100°C. This would create tremendous pressure given that steam occupies about 1700 times more volume than the water which produced it. So for the amount of water that you're suggesting, say 1.6 miles worth, the pressure created by maintaining that water at that temperature would be immense. That create's a problem since the rocks making up the crust, like all ceramic materials have very poor tensile strength. That volume of water at that depth would have easily shattered any hard ceramic shell encasing it.

Also, there is the problem of temperature. The temperature of the crust at the boundary where it meets the mantle ranges from 200° - 400°C. Any eruption of water from that depth into the atmosphere would have killed Noah and anyone else unfortunate enough to be on the surface of the planet.

Finally, like all of your contentions, JC we don't see any evidence of this. The escaping water as it broke through the crust would also have carried basaltic deposits with it, meaning we should find unusual deposits of such materials but we don't.

Originally Posted by J C

... so tree roots were buried under thousands of feet of sedimentary rock ... sounds like the result of one almighty flood of worldwide proportions to me!!!

Less, of the histrionics please JC. It really doesn't help. But maybe that's all you've got to contribute to this conversation. I, on the other hand have evidence, like this:

A 50-million-year-old fossil forest from Strathcona Fiord, Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada: evidence for a warm polar climate

Fossil forests from the lower Cretaceous of Alexander Island, Antarctica

Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia

Originally Posted by J C

Perfectly preserved by instant deposition of water-based mud and sediment ... sounds very Flood-like to me ... and certainly wasn't preserved by some process requiring millions of years to accomplish ... like Evolutionists would have us believe!!!

Again with the waffle. Evidence really would be more helpful. You know, like this:

Fossil nest of sweat bees from a miocene paleosol, Rusinga Island, Western Kenya

Trace fossils and bioturbation: the other fossil record

Upper paleozoic trace fossils from the Gilf Kebir-Abu Ras area in southwestern Egypt

Originally Posted by J C

OK ... so a piece of land had dessication cracks ... was instantly preserved by deposition of water-based sediment ... again not in line with millions of years deposition.


river channels are to be expected in the aftermath of a Flood!!!
Meterorite impact may have been the trigger for the worldwide tectonic event that was the Flood!!!
Preserved Dinosaur (and Human footprints) are indicative of instant inundation ... and not gradualist processes measured in millimeters over millions of years.
Coral reefs were preserved instantly where they stood by inundation with millions of tonnes of sediment ... and not grams of material per year over millions of years, as Evolutionists would have us believe!!

OK, I'm getting mighty tired of dealing with this ****. Put up or shut up JC. Either back up your ridiculous assertions with proper peer-reviewed evidence or admit that you're talking through your arse.

Originally Posted by J C

Do you have a reference for your assertion?

As it happens, I do.

The original creationist claim was made by Whitcomb & Morris in their book "The Genesis Flood", 1961, p. 160.

Their claim was subsequently and thoroughly dissected by Robert Schwadewald in his work "Six 'Flood arguments' creationists can't answer", published in Creation/Evolution, 1982.

Originally Posted by J C

The minimum depth was 15 Cubits ... or about 20 feet ... so light penetration wouldn't be an issue over vast areas.

Hold on, you've previously claimed that the Earth was covered to a depth of 1.6 miles. So low lying areas would have been under several hundred meters of water, plenty of pressure and lack of light to extinguish all plant life.

Originally Posted by J C

... and 99.9% of them are plants, fungi and insects ... none of which were on the Ark ... only the air breathing land animals were on the Ark ... less than 20,000 species today ... and far less before the post-flood speciation event.
For example, the global number of species of mammals, according to Schipper et al. (2008; Science 322:225-230), is only 5,487.

THere are about 5,500 Mammal species, 9,000 Reptile species and 5,300 Amphibians ... so we're maxing out at 20,000 land based air-breathing species of animal.

Are you completely dense or is it just some kind of unfortunate accident that you keep spewing such crap.

I draw your attention to the highlighted portion of your quote above. What exactly about air-breathing land animals excludes insects. Insects do in fact, breathe in that they rely on oxygen and perform gas exchange within their bodies. It's called a tracheal system FYI. I mean there are 22,000 species of ants and 400,000 species of beetles alone. What about them? Oh and by the way, the Bible says to gather creatures which have the "breath of life" in them meaning alive, not meaning breathing. There's a big difference, but since you're only familiar with the KJV, I can understand the confusion.

Originally Posted by J C

All describing the same event ... some more accurately than others.

Yes, and some written down thousands of years before the one you're advancing.

[oldrnwisr]

Originally Posted by sephir0th

oldrnwisr, thanks for the time you put into your posts. Keep it up!

Thank you very much. I find it great to be able to discuss evolution and as I've already said it's important to refute the kind of creationist bollix that JC comes out with, in case some innocent might happen across this thread and be taken in by it.

[Sarky]

As far as I remember from my reading of this thread, everyone who happens along it tends to end up thinking J C is a loon with no evidence for any of his claims. Even dead one started questioning his lack of evidence and question dodging, and he believes the moon landings were an evil decadent western hoax!

[Doctor Jimbob]

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr

Thank you very much. I find it great to be able to discuss evolution and as I've already said it's important to refute the kind of creationist bollix that JC comes out with, in case some innocent might happen across this thread and be taken in by it.

I'm pretty sure I've learned more about evolution from reading your posts than I did at Uni

The infuriating thing is he's going to take the evidence you put up and somehow bastardise it in an attempt to claim it supports creationism.

Can I also point out once more that this notion that every bit of sedimentary rock on earth came from one flood should be obviously untrue to anyone who's studied any large sedimentary formation in any detail whatsoever. There is nothing, nothing to suggest these rocks were deposited in one flood. We just wouldn't see the kind of layering that we see. We wouldn't see everything organised chronologically, that's for sure. It's horseshit of the highest order and anyone claiming nonsense like this is true should be ashamed of themselves.

J C, it's also pretty laughable that you claim 'Microbe to man' (as you like to call it) evolution over millions of years is a ridiculous theory, while claiming the amount of speciation required in the few thousand years required to support this 'Baramin' rubbish is a plausible scientific theory. Do you realise how much you're contradicting yourself here? Do you even think before you post?

[koth]

Gorillas & Humans Closer Than Thought, Genome Sequencing Reveals

[dlofnep]

Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

[Doctor Jimbob]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

Do you realise how much this is going to set him off?

[Bannasidhe]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

Hug - Yes.
Cuddle - Yes.
Kiss -If the gorilla consents but no tongues.
Breed with - No.

[Doctor Jimbob]

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe

Hug - Yes.
Cuddle - Yes.
Kiss -If the gorilla consents but no tongues.
Breed with - No.

Then obviously the two species aren't from the same baramin. Duh.

[Bannasidhe]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

Then obviously the two species aren't from the same baramin. Duh.

That and the fact that the silverback would rip off the head off anyone who tried - this is how rugby was originally invented.
All the Web Ellis picking up the ball and running with it malarky is just creationist nonsense. In reality it started when a horny homo erectus got frisky in the mountain mists and wham - the world's first maul.

[Doctor Jimbob]

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe

That and the fact that the silverback would rip off the head off anyone who tried - this is how rugby was originally invented.
All the Web Ellis picking up the ball and running with it malarky is just creationist nonsense. In reality it started when a horny homo erectus got frisky in the mountain mists and wham - the world's first maul.

Careful, he might think you're being serious.

[J C]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

Careful, he might think you're being serious.

As W2M (Worm to Man) Evolution has it's funny sides ... I never take you guys seriously!!!
I'll reply to oldrnwisr's substantial posting at the weekend.

Originally Posted by dlofnep
Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe
Hug - Yes.
Cuddle - Yes.
Kiss -If the gorilla consents but no tongues.
Breed with - No.

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob
Then obviously the two species aren't from the same baramin. Duh.

You guys are starting to learn Creation Science ... slowly ... and against your wills ... but ye are learning it nontheless!!!
I was a bit like that myself, when I first discovered that I wasn't an Ape with a large Cranium ... I went into denial and had a personal faith crisis ... in W2M Evolution.
... but my pride kept me from admitting that I wasn't a descendent of a Pond-thing ... or a Monkey's Cousin!!!

The peace and love of Jesus Christ to you all.

[J C]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

I'm pretty sure I've learned more about evolution from reading your posts than I did at Uni

There obviously isn't much real stuff to learn in the first place!!

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

The infuriating thing is he's going to take the evidence you put up and somehow bastardise it in an attempt to claim it supports creationism.

The bastardisation of the evidence is on the W2M Evolutionist side of the house ... I'm just 'un-bastardising' it!!!

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

Can I also point out once more that this notion that every bit of sedimentary rock on earth came from one flood should be obviously untrue to anyone who's studied any large sedimentary formation in any detail whatsoever. There is nothing, nothing to suggest these rocks were deposited in one flood. We just wouldn't see the kind of layering that we see.

This is what happened after the Mount St Helens Volcanic and water explosion ...
Quote:- "the bottom layer formed in 6 hours on 18th May 1980, the middle layer was formed on 12th June 1980 and the top layer by mud flow in March 1982,
Please note the scale of the deposition ... and the evidence of layers ... that would be called varves ... but for the fact that everybody saw them forming!!!

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

We wouldn't see everything organised chronologically, that's for sure. It's horseshit of the highest order and anyone claiming nonsense like this is true should be ashamed of themselves.

We don't see this ... except in out imaginations ... we see billions of dead things buried catastrophically in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... how we choose to interpret this ... is largely down to our worldview!!

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

J C, it's also pretty laughable that you claim 'Microbe to man' (as you like to call it) evolution over millions of years is a ridiculous theory, while claiming the amount of speciation required in the few thousand years required to support this 'Baramin' rubbish is a plausible scientific theory. Do you realise how much you're contradicting yourself here? Do you even think before you post?

I've upgraded it to Worm to Man Evolution in deference to the 'discovery' of out supposed worm ancestor!!!
... and the difference is that Creationists postulate that speciation occurred rapidly using pre-existing intelligently designed CFSI ... which is entirely possible (because of the intelligent input) ... while Evolutionists postulate that speciation occurred via a series of 'happy accidents' ... which is completely implausible.
... and how do ye explain polystrate fossils ... like this tree fossil extending through supposed millions of years of rock layers??

Love ye all ... (i.e. I wish you all the very best that this life ... and eternal life can give).