oldrnwisr, thanks for the time you put into your posts. Keep it up!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and some written down thousands of years before the one you're advancing.
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.
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!
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?
Do you realise how much this is going to set him off?
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.
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.
I'll reply to oldrnwisr's substantial posting at the weekend.
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.
The bastardisation of the evidence is on the W2M Evolutionist side of the house ... I'm just 'un-bastardising' it!!!
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!!!
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!!
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).