Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Options
  • 24-09-2011 1:19am
    #1
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭


    icon4.gif

    Part 1 of The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy is available here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566

    Thanks,
    Plowman

    ...........................................

    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    A few questions spring to mind: why are these - the biggest land animals ever to live - never mentioned in the Bible? Did nobody notice them? :confused:

    Here is a description of a Brontosaurus-like creature called 'behemoth' in Job 40:15-22

    apat2.jpg

    15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
    16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
    17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
    18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
    19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
    20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
    21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
    22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    And why did god bother saving them from the flood and then make them go extinct anyway? And why did vegetarian dinosaurs have teeth that are clearly only useful for eating meat?
    Sharp teeth are just as useful in shearing tough vegetation as they are in eating meat!!!!
    Many creatures as well as the large Dinosaurs have gone extinct ... but we still have Crocodile 'Dinosurs' ... and Rhino ones!!!:)

    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    And - referring to the ridiculous video above - how did Noah go about gathering a pair of over 1 million species of insect? How did he catalogue and store them? (of course the number is far more than a million species, but I'm being gentle)
    He didn't need to do anything about the insects ... some may have came on board themselves ... while others survived on floating vegetation, etc. It was only the 'higher' land animals that were specifically saved on the Ark .... and not the insects.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    So many questions, so few plausible answers...
    So few questions ... and all answered plausibly.:)


«134567…232

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    So few questions ... and all answered plausibly.:)

    Plausibly? You believe that nonsense was plausible? :D

    Well if you ignore every single thing we know about biology (the teeth bit was hilarious), logistics and indeed basic common sense, yeah I guess it is plausible. I mean, small children find Santa Claus plausible.

    Could everyone else who believes that explanation is plausible please speak up?


  • Options
    #3
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Plausibly? You believe that nonsense was plausible? :D

    Well if you ignore every single thing we know about biology (the teeth bit was hilarious), logistics and indeed basic common sense, yeah I guess it is plausible. I mean, small children find Santa Claus plausible.

    Could everyone else who believes that explanation is plausible please speak up?
    I forgot that Evolutionists find the idea that frogs turned into princes over millions of years to be plausible ... so perhaps I should have said ... so few Evolutionist questions ... and every one answered comprehensively!!!:)


  • Options
    #4
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    So if you believe the creationist myth that would mean you believe the world and universe to be 6000 years old, and was created in a puff of smoke.
    If this is so, how has the light from the stars reached us considering the distance to us?
    Perhaps Alpha Centuri which is about 4.21 light years away may of reached us but just about.
    Also if we are all related to each other how come there arent so many more deformations due to incest and how can you explain the different races of men?


  • Options
    #5
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    So if you believe the creationist myth that would mean you believe the world and universe to be 6000 years old, and was created in a puff of smoke.
    If this is so, how has the light from the stars reached us considering the distance to us?
    Perhaps Alpha Centuri which is about 4.21 light years away may of reached us but just about.
    Also if we are all related to each other how come there arent so many more deformations due to incest and how can you explain the different races of men?
    ... and we're off again for the nth time!!!

    ... you seriously do need to do a crash course in Creation Science.

    The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion Evolutionist years, but the diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years).
    Creation Scientists believe that the initial expansion of the Universe (which happened instantaneously) was even greater than the Evolutionist Big Bang initial expansion, that supposedly produced a Universe with a Diameter of 93 billion light years in 13.75 billion years.
    Instantantaneous expansion also 'stretched' the light from the stars and the speed of light therefore wasn't a constraint at the moment of Creation.

    Humans were originally created perfect, so marriage between close relatives didn't create difficulties at that time. This is no longer the case, due to our ever increasing mutation load ... but equally, genetic masking rapidly eliminates the expression risk of deleterious mutations above background levels, with consanguinity beyond the fourth degree.

    There is only one race of Mankind ... the Human Race ... but what are popularly called 'races' are due to genetic isolation and local selection effects after the Babel Dispersal.


  • Options
    #6
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    J C wrote: »
    ... and we're off again for the nth time!!!

    ... you seriously do need to do a crash course in Creation Science.

    The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion Evolutionist years, but the diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years).
    Creation Scientists believe that the initial expansion of the Universe (which happened instantaneously) was even greater than the Evolutionist Big Bang initial expansion, that supposedly produced a Universe with a Diameter of 93 billion light years in 13.75 billion years.
    Instantantaneous expansion also 'stretched' the light from the stars and the speed of light therefore wasn't a constraint at the moment of Creation.

    Humans were originally created perfect, so marriage between close relatives didn't create difficulties at that time. This is no longer the case, due to our ever increasing mutation load ... but equally, genetic masking rapidly eliminates the expression risk of deleterious mutations above background levels, with consanguinity beyond the fourth degree.

    There is only one race of Mankind ... the Human Race ... but what are popularly called 'races' are due to genetic isolation and local selection effects after the Babel Dispersal.
    So is that not Evolution?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    So is that not Evolution?
    No ... its isolation and selection of the genetic CFSI diversity originally infused at Creation.


  • Options
    #8
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    You can dress it up as much a you want there JC but its evolution that made the races and evolution that made man.
    The Bible is a book of storys made by man too serve man and is nothing but legend and myth.


  • Options
    #9
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    You can dress it up as much a you want there JC but its evolution that made the races and evolution that made man.
    The Bible is a book of storys made by man too serve man and is nothing but legend and myth.
    As Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Law of Biogenesis ... ye need to do some more 'head-scratching' and research if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!:)

    Ironically, it has turned out that Abiogenesis/Spontaneous Evolution has the same scientific validity as a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden ... and it is ID and Creation that are consistent with the Laws of Science.:)


  • Options
    #10
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Whether its a theory or hypotheses used to test the theory is a moot point.
    The theory and it hypotheses must be repeatably testable in the here and now, if they are part of operative science.

    'Bits' of 'evolution' ... like Natural Selection are testable in the 'here and now' ... and often when they are tested they show circular or opposite results to what is expected if 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution is occurring.
    The Grey Moth ... black Moth ... Grey Moth phenomena shows that NS is merely a tool of population adaptation using pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity ... that has gone 'full circle' ... with the clean up of buildings in the 80's and 90's resulting in a resurgence of the grey / white moth varieties.

    ... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance is the result of a loss of CFSI ... which is consistent with a declining creation from perfection in a fallen world ... and is inconsistent with the idea of an information increasing Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.
    ...

    There is only one criteria for a field to be scientific. It must spawn repeatable, testable predictions. Darwinian evolution makes repeatable hypotheses. For example, it predicts a nested hierarchy of genetic differences that is independent of any specific gene one chooses to analyse. This is repeatable. It also predicts that any comparison between genetic relations, geographical relations, or temporal fossil relations will reflect the same tree of life. This is repeatable.

    ID and Creationism are not scientific.


  • Options
    #11
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    There is only one criteria for a field to be scientific. It must spawn repeatable, testable predictions. Darwinian evolution makes repeatable hypotheses. For example, it predicts a nested hierarchy of genetic differences that is independent of any specific gene one chooses to analyse. This is repeatable. It also predicts that any comparison between genetic relations, geographical relations, or temporal fossil relations will reflect the same tree of life. This is repeatable.
    You are correct that 'Bits' of 'evolution' ... like Natural Selection are testable in the 'here and now' ... and when they are tested they show circular or opposite results to what is expected if 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution is occurring.
    The Grey Moth ... black Moth ... Grey Moth phenomena shows that NS is merely a tool of population adaptation using pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity ... that has gone 'full circle' ... with the clean up of buildings in the 80's and 90's resulting in a resurgence of the grey / white moth varieties ... and the decline of the darker varients.

    ... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance is the result of a loss of CFSI ... which is consistent with a declining creation from perfection in a fallen world ... and is inconsistent with the idea of an information increasing Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.

    None of this is any surprise, as 'Pondkind to Mankind' Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Biological Law of Biogenesis ...
    ... so ye need to do much more 'head-scratching' if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    J C wrote: »
    You are correct that 'Bits' of 'evolution' ... like Natural Selection are testable in the 'here and now' ... and when they are tested they show circular or opposite results to what is expected if 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution is occurring.
    The Grey Moth ... black Moth ... Grey Moth phenomena shows that NS is merely a tool of population adaptation using pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity ... that has gone 'full circle' ... with the clean up of buildings in the 80's and 90's resulting in a resurgence of the grey / white moth varieties ... and the decline of the darker varients.

    ... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance is the result of a loss of CFSI ... which is consistent with a declining creation from perfection in a fallen world ... and is inconsistent with the idea of an information increasing Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.

    None of this is any surprise, as 'Pondkind to Mankind' Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Biological Law of Biogenesis ...
    ... so ye need to do some more 'head-scratching' and research if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!

    The "bit of evolution" I referred to was the tree of relations between all life, including common ancestry. What you incorrectly call Macro-evolution.

    Also, thermodynamics is not violated. The suns photons have fewer degrees of freedom, and hence more "order" than the low-energy infra-red photons emitted by life. Hence the evolution of life does not violate thermodynamics.


  • Options
    #13
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    The "bit of evolution" I referred to was the tree of relations between all life, including common ancestry. What you incorrectly call Macro-evolution.

    Also, thermodynamics is not violated. The suns photons have fewer degrees of freedom, and hence more "order" than the low-energy infra-red photons emitted by life. Hence the evolution of life does not violate thermodynamics.
    How does a reduction in order within the energy reaching us from the Sun result in a vast increase in order (in living creatures) on Earth (which Spontaneous Evolution claims)?

    If this were true then heating a radiator in one room should result in a new computer being created in an adjoining room (or something equally miraculous)!!!!


  • Options
    #14
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    J C wrote: »
    How does a reduction in order within the energy reaching us from the Sun result in a vast increase in order (in living creatures) on Earth (which Spontaneous Evolution claims)?

    The 2nd law is not violated, since the entropy of the system (life + sun) has increased.
    If this were true then heating a radiator in one room should result in a new computer being created in an adjoining room (or something equally miraculous)!!!!

    It seems you still don't understand evolution or thermodynamics. So I am happy to leave you here in the pit, and will instead focus my efforts on your attempts to escape into other threads.


  • Options
    #15
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    The 2nd law is not violated, since the entropy of the system (life + sun) has increased.
    The only situations where even localised entropy can decrease is where both an external energy source is available and it is harnessed by an intelligently designed system ... like a machine ... like photosynthesis.

    In the absence of such a mechanism, no matter how much external energy is available, entropy increases both in the Sun ... and locally, on Earth, where the energy is dissipated.

    Morbert wrote: »
    It seems you still don't understand evolution or thermodynamics. So I am happy to leave you here in the pit, and will instead focus my efforts on your attempts to escape into other threads.
    ... so you don't want me to disturb the other Skeptics ... in all of their innocence, God bless them!!!!

    ... they must have pretty poor worldview, if it cannot survive a dose of reality and physical evidence!!!!


  • Options
    #16
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    Noah's Ark did survive the Biblical Flood ... and you and I wouldn't be here ... if it didn't!!!:)

    But I thought that we agreed; the existence of a fossil record proves that no biblical flood could have taken place and shows that the argument for Creationists is fatally flawed.

    If Creationists are correct then we should find some human remains that pre-date some dinosaur remains.

    But we don't, do we?

    How long does it take for a coal-seam or an oil-field to develop?

    Nothing destroyed in a flood of biblical proportions would have the opportunity to become fossilised or to turn into coal or oil.

    However, earthquakes and tsunamis could give rise to mass burials but again; why don't we find dinosaurs and humans buried together... at the same time?

    No, there cannot have been a biblical flood and so contrary to what you say, humans must exist through some other means.


  • Options
    #17
    Plowman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #18
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But I thought that we agreed; the existence of a fossil record proves that no biblical flood could have taken place and shows that the argument for Creationists is fatally flawed.
    The fossil record is largely a record of the Flood Burial ... with billions of dead things (instantly) buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth. I'd say the fossil record is amongst the best evidence that we have for Noah's Worldwide Flood.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    If Creationists are correct then we should find some human remains that pre-date some dinosaur remains.
    Although Humans lived contemporaneously with Dinosuars ... they didn't live amongst them ... just like today we don't live amongst Elephants or Lions ... due to the risk to life and limb that this would cause!!!

    Human footprints have been found alongside Dinosaur ones in various places in America and Russia ... so they walked together ... or more likely ran ahead of the engulfing flood together!!!
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n4/footprints-in-turkmenistan
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    How long does it take for a coal-seam or an oil-field to develop?
    ... probably a few months as peat and buried vegetation coalified rapidly under the pressures and heat that was generated by the massive tectonic and volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood ... and oil welled up from deep inside the Earth along tectonic fissures ... just like it does today
    http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm
    Some oilfields are filling up from underneath as the oil is being extracted from them ... so oilfields could have similarly filled up in a matter of years after Noah's Flood.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Nothing destroyed in a flood of biblical proportions would have the opportunity to become fossilised or to turn into coal or oil.
    It would be instantaously entombed in sedimetary materials that formed the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks that we now observed all over the Earth.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    However, earthquakes and tsunamis could give rise to mass burials but again; why don't we find dinosaurs and humans buried together... at the same time?
    ... for the same reason that modern Tsunami don't bury Elephants and Lions and people together ... because these animals live seperately from Humans ... and Humans live separtely from them !!!:)


  • Options
    #19
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    The fossil record is largely a record of the Flood Burial ... with billions of dead things (instantly) buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth. I'd say the fossil record is amongst the best evidence that we have for Noah's Worldwide Flood.

    But dead things would be 'instantaneously floated', not buried. As the flood receded, the organic material would have been deposited after rock sediment had settled.

    Rocks sink faster than dead bodies.

    Flood victims are highly unlikely to feature in the fossil-record at all. :)
    J C wrote: »
    Although Humans lived contemporaneously with Dinosuars ... they didn't live amongst them ... just like today we don't live amongst Elephants or Lions ... due to the risk to life and limb that this would cause!!!

    So where are the 150-million year-old human fossils? I mean, presumably, being human does't exempt you from fossilisation, does it?
    J C wrote: »
    Human footprints have been found alongside Dinosaur ones in various places in America and Russia ... so they walked together ... or more likely ran ahead of the engulfing flood together!!!
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n4/footprints-in-turkmenistan

    This article finishes by saying that there is actually no evidence to support this claim.
    J C wrote: »
    ... probably a few months as peat and buried vegetation coalified rapidly under the pressures and heat that was generated by the massive tectonic and volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood ... and oil welled up from deep inside the Earth along tectonic fissures ... just like it does today
    http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm
    Some oilfields are filling up from underneath as the oil is being extracted from them ... so oilfields could have similarly filled up in a matter of years after Noah's Flood.

    Are you for real?

    That is not what that article says. Has the possibility that the floor of the oil-field might be rising been rulled out? Could water be leaking in?

    Or perhaps you are saying that organic fuel is spontaneously created at the centre of the earth.
    J C wrote: »
    It would be instantaously entombed in sedimetary materials that formed the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks that we now observed all over the Earth.

    A flood would not entomb as much as liberate.

    Do you realise how tumultuous a flood of biblical proportion would be?

    The trees and dead bodies would have been atop the sediment; sorted into order of buoyancy.
    J C wrote: »
    ... for the same reason that modern Tsunami don't bury Elephants and Lions and people together ... because these animals live seperately from Humans ... and Humans live separtely from them !!!:)

    What?

    Elephants, lions and people can be affected by the same tsunami.


  • Options
    #20
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But dead things would be 'instantaneously floated', not buried. As the flood receded, the organic material would have been deposited after rock sediment had settled.
    ... that is why the Fossil Flood Burial Record is dominated by water dwelling creatures (mostly bottom feeders) who were most likely to be inundated and entombed first with the trillions of tonnes of mud, silt and sand released by the worldwide tectonic breakup of the Earth's crust and the release of trillions of tonnes of sub-terranean waters that was Noah's Flood.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Rocks sink faster than dead bodies.
    True ... but we're not talking about rocks here ... we're talking about their formation by rapid cementation of sand and silt together with any creatures that have accidentally been entombed (and fossilised) in it
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Flood victims are highly unlikely to feature in the fossil-record at all. :)
    This is exactly what we find ... the fossil record is dominated by marine creatures ... followed by smaller land animals ... then large land animals ... and finally Humans. You're correct that people would have gone to the highest ground ahead of the Flood processes and they would therefore largely escape inundation by sediment ... and fossilisation.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    So where are the 150-million year-old human fossils? I mean, presumably, being human does't exempt you from fossilisation, does it?
    Fossilised Humans and their artefacts have been discovered. However, Evolutionists discount such finds by interpreting them as recent (in Evolutionist time).
    Here is an account of fossilised human footprints found on a rock surface in Africa ... as well as tools and other artefacts in underlying rock layers
    Quote:
    "A trail of fossilized footprints
    left more than 100,000 years ago by an anatomically modern
    human has been found on the shore of a South African
    lagoon. The fossils, found in a sand-dune-turned-rock dated
    at 117,000 years ago, are the oldest known footprints of an
    anatomically modern human ....

    ... Since discovering them last year, Roberts also has
    discovered in underlying rock of the same age a group of
    Stone Age tools thought to have been crafted by the people
    who left the prints.     They include scraping and cutting
    blades, a spear point and a large stone core from which
    flakes were struck. The implements probably were used by
    the early people to kill and butcher prey."

    ... and you can read all about it at the following link
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/97/footprints/release.html

    Could I also remind you that fossils can only come about as a result of major catastrophes. The prerequisite for the formation of fossils is the rapid burial of the dead creatures in clay, sand and other sediments, so that air is eliminated and they cannot decompose or be eaten by other creatures. Equally, the fact that many fossils are perfectly preserved and fossilised trees are found running up through millions of Evolutionist years of layers of supposed rock sedimntation means that the sedimetation time only took a few years at most!!!

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    That is not what that article says. Has the possibility that the floor of the oil-field might be rising been rulled out? Could water be leaking in?

    Or perhaps you are saying that organic fuel is spontaneously created at the centre of the earth.
    Most Mineral Oil reserves do seem to have an abiotic Hydrocarbon origin.


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    A flood would not entomb as much as liberate.

    Do you realise how tumultuous a flood of biblical proportion would be?

    The trees and dead bodies would have been atop the sediment; sorted into order of buoyancy.
    ... anything on top would simply rot ... and wouldn't be fossilised ... and polystrate fossil trees are found sticking up through 'millions of Evolutionist years' of rock layers ... which indicates that they were entombed and fossilised very rapidly indeed ... and the 'millions of years' are just wishful thinking!!!

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Elephants, lions and people can be affected by the same tsunami.
    They could ... but they would be found separately ... and this gives Evolutionists the 'wriggle room' to interpret these finds as having been fossilised millions of years apart ... as distinct from a few miles apart and at the same time!!!!


  • Options
    #21
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    ... that is why the Fossil Flood Burial Record is dominated by water dwelling creatures (mostly bottom feeders) who were most likely to be inundated and entombed first with the trillions of tonnes of mud, silt and sand released by the worldwide tectonic breakup of the Earth's crust and the release of trillions of tonnes of sub-terranean waters that was Noah's Flood.

    It's a matter of numbers; marine life dominates the fossil record because it has existed for longer and in far greater numbers than land-dwelling lifeforms.

    At any rate, I think that you have messed this up.

    The flood entirely covered all land, that is to a depth of over eight-kilometres, and then all that water simply seeped back into the subterranean caverns.

    Now, think of the physics involved; why and how would the water come forth? Rapid heating, perhaps? But not by magma breaking through; that would cause the caverns to be filled with cooling rock cutting off the exit of the water.

    Maybe it was superheated gas? And under extremely high pressure. It would have to be, wouldn't it? I mean, there would have to be enough pressure to lift and hold a column of water at a height of eight-kilometres above sea-level.

    Also, the water-level rose for forty-days. That means that on the fortieth day, the vent-pressure was more than eight-thousand tonnes per square metre; what must the pressure have been on day one?

    Then after forty days the pressure fell and so did the water.

    Is this about right so far?

    Are you proposing that the flood was the result of such a process?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    It's a matter of numbers; marine life dominates the fossil record because it has existed for longer and in far greater numbers than land-dwelling lifeforms.

    At any rate, I think that you have messed this up.
    Marine creatures dominate the fossil record of Noah's Flood because they were closest to the release of the 'fountains of the great deep' that were broken up (and burst forth) with silt and Calcium Carbonate laiden water, and were inundated by it, as the Flood processes proceeded.

    Genesis 7:10-12
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    The flood entirely covered all land, that is to a depth of over eight-kilometres, and then all that water simply seeped back into the subterranean caverns.
    ... it covered the entire Earth due to the tectonic collapse of the Earths surface resulting in the release of vast oceans of sub-surface waters ... which ultimately formed todays oceans when it ran off the rising land masses that formed todays continents, later on in the Flood Event.

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Now, think of the physics involved; why and how would the water come forth? Rapid heating, perhaps? But not by magma breaking through; that would cause the caverns to be filled with cooling rock cutting off the exit of the water.
    ... the super-heated and super-saturated waters deposited their sediment over vast areas to form todays sedimentary rocks.
    Many of todays caves are the last surviving remnants of the exit points for these sub-terranean waters. The water temperature varied, depending in how close it was to volcanic activity

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Maybe it was superheated gas? And under extremely high pressure. It would have to be, wouldn't it? I mean, there would have to be enough pressure to lift and hold a column of water at a height of eight-kilometres above sea-level.
    ... not if it was primarily released by the collapse of the Earths surface into the subterranean waters underneath.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Also, the water-level rose for forty-days. That means that on the fortieth day, the vent-pressure was more than eight-thousand tonnes per square metre; what must the pressure have been on day one?
    it rose gradually over forty days due to the collapse of the surface layers which squeezed out the sub-terranean waters. We see latter day (puny by comparison) examples of this squeezing action or liquefaction driving up groundwater onto the surface during earthquakes today. If you mutiply these events a bllion fold you will get some idea of the scale of the 'fountains of the great deep' that initiated Noah's flood.



    ... here is a smaller scale liquefaction event from the recent Christchurch earthquake


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Then after forty days the pressure fell and so did the water.
    after forty days the ocean floors sank down further ... and the continental land masses rose up further, thereby draining off the waters, to create dry land eventually.

    Have a look at this video between 0:50 - 0:55 to see an example of a car partially buried in the silt that was released by tectonic liquefaction activity that is now drying out and could form new sedimentary rock if it has cementing agents like Calcium Silicates and Calcium Carbonate.



  • Options
    #23
    the_monkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭the_monkey


    @J C


    - edit sorry, thought this was the A+A forum ...


  • Options
    #24
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    the_monkey wrote: »
    @J C


    - edit sorry, thought this was the A+A forum ...
    An easy mistake to make!!!:):D


  • Options
    #25
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    it rose gradually over forty days due to the collapse of the surface layers which squeezed out the sub-terranean waters. We see latter day (puny by comparison) examples of this squeezing action or liquefaction driving up groundwater onto the surface during earthquakes today. If you mutiply these events a bllion fold you will get some idea of the scale of the 'fountains of the great deep' that initiated Noah's flood.

    So the Ark 'fell' into the water?

    What stopped the elephants going through the floor?

    And if the land falling 'squeezed' out the water, where could the water have receded to?


  • Options
    #26
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    So the Ark 'fell' into the water?
    The waters arose around the Ark ... and it floated.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    What stopped the elephants going through the floor?
    The timbers in the floor stropped the Elephants (and all of the other animals) going through the floor ... and the Elephants were probably juveniles
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And if the land falling 'squeezed' out the water, where could the water have receded to?
    ... there were two distict phases ... the inundation (when the 'squeezing' occurred) ... and the recession.
    ... and the water receded into the sinking areas that became todays oceans ... and ran off the rising areas that became todays continents.

    On the widely accepted basis that matter cannot be created or destroyed ... the rising continents were balanced by the sinking ocean floors.

    Flood Geology rocks!!!:):D:eek:


  • Options
    #27
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    The waters arose around the Ark ... and it floated.

    That is not what you said; you said that land collapsing 'squeezed' out the water which means that the Ark was either launched from a port that was sinking, in which case the waters would have been chaotic and broken the Ark to bits, or that the Ark was floated on the back of a massive, the greatest ever, tsunami which would have broken the Ark to bits.

    Neither scenarios for the launching of the Ark, an Ark that survives the initial onslaught of an inundation, has credibility.


  • Options
    #28
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    That is not what you said; you said that land collapsing 'squeezed' out the water which means that the Ark was either launched from a port that was sinking, in which case the waters would have been chaotic and broken the Ark to bits, or that the Ark was floated on the back of a massive, the greatest ever, tsunami which would have broken the Ark to bits.

    Neither scenarios for the launching of the Ark, an Ark that survives the initial onslaught of an inundation, has credibility.
    The water tumult was localised at the points where the waters burst forth and the land subsidance was greatest ... other areas were gently inundated over a number of days by gradually rising waters ... and this allowed the Ark to launch on a gently rising tide of water.


  • Options
    #29
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    how long were they in the ark?


  • Options
    #30
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    how long were they in the ark?
    ... 1 year and 10 days days in total.


    Gen 7:11
    In 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.

    Gen 8:13-16
    13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

    14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

    15And God spake unto Noah, saying,

    16Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    J C wrote: »
    ... 1 year and 10 days days in total.


    Gen 7:11
    In 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.

    Gen 8:13-16
    13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

    14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

    15And God spake unto Noah, saying,

    16Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee


    cheers.
    it must have been big?


Advertisement