Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[fuelair]

Is this thread a joke?

Did the OP go to high school?

I wish I thought so, but I suspect he went to some sort of theological school of higher and deeper "education" (i.e. inculcation and indoctrination
as well as intellectual fapification).

 

[DOC]

Did the OP go to high school?

Yes, and graduated college also.

 

[SezMe]

I don't give a rat's tail where it came from, I want to know where it WENT.

DOC The babble has the answer.

 

[SezMe]

File this post under idle curiosity.

Yes, and graduated college also.

Where? What was your major?

 

[X]

DOC, before you embarrass yourself any further, do a little reading on plate tectonics. And truly, you ARE embarrassing yourself.

No one is proposing that the mountains were under water. That's absurd. What happened is that the rock that makes up the mountains got thrust up slowly due to plate tectonics. You know, the stuff we can directly observe? Like the spreading of America and Europe (they're moving apart at a rate of one inch per year) or the continuing rise of the Himalayas (1.5 - 2.5 inches per year).

Mind blowing, isn't it? Rock MOVES.

So, eons ago, the rock that was the Himalayas was under the sea. Tectonic plate collision thrust these rocks upward, high into the sky, while other rock slid underneath and went back into the earth.

That's right, the tectonic plates recycle themselves. One end is being created, forced apart by pressures deep within the earth. As the plates slide, ever so slowly, they contact each other. Sometimes, they slide alongside each other (this is called a transform plate boundary, San Andreas is a famous example and is specifically a strike-slip fault). Sometimes, as I already mentioned the plates move apart (this is called a divergent plate boundary, and the mid ocean ridges are examples). And sometimes the plates push against each other (this is called a convergent boundary). Convergent boundaries are interesting. One of two things can happen: One plate slides under the other (subduction), or both plates crumple and lift. Guess what that second one causes. That's right! Mountains!

Mystery solved!

All it takes is a grade-school understanding of science (seriously, I learned this in 5th grade).

At any rate, if you're going to propose that water from within the earth burst forth and flooded the earth*, you must explain where that water went. You have to explain the clear stratification of fossils which follows the evolutionary history of the earth, the lack of non-sea creatures at the tops of these mountains, the separation of salt and fresh water species (their fossils are not found together), the utter lack of a corresponding genetic bottleneck across all the earth's species, etc etc etc.

Of course, you could just say god "magiked" it all. In which case, you immediately admit that all your attempts at scientific proof have been yet another of your many many lies.


* There's a very good YouTube video discussing the physics and thermodynamics of this, which proves that such an event would yield scalding hot water, flash-broiling any living creature near the water. I believe it was a response to Nephilim Free, but I'm not sure.



PROTIP: Don't like to obviously biased websites. the name of the website, ChristianAnswers.net, should ring bells of suspician of bias. It would be like us linking to "DebunkingMoronsMonthly.org", instead of neutral websites that educate people on the real science. In fact, I'm going to recommend you go one step further: STOP GETTING YOUR SCIENCE EDUCATION FROM CREATIONIST WEBSITES!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, but the evidence shows that the area of those plates that created the Himalaya mountains was at one time under water. So if this area was under water at one time, as well other mountain ranges, one can conclude that there is a distinct possibility that the whole world was under water at one time.

This has to be a Poe...

DOC: how long ago, in your concept of geology, were the Himalayas under water? What, in your concept of geology, was going on in the rest of the world?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well the bible does say God was above the surface of the waters before he created land.

But if you don't believe that, then I guess you don't think some of the water could have seeped into the inner parts of the earth.

Here is a link that says 70% of what comes out of volcanoes is water. It also points out places where the water from the worldwide flood might have come from. In the bible the waters did not just come from the rain but from the "fountains of the deep".

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

Yep. Poe.

 

[DOC]

There are theories that state just that....

http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/31/early-earth-was-covered-in-water-274995/

From your link"

"A new model of the early Earth suggests that until around 2.5 billion years ago oceans covered almost the whole of the planet. Just 2% to 3% of the Earth’s surface would have been dry land, compared with 28% today...
...However, unlike in the movie, the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved..."
___

This all correlates with the bible. First God created the earth. Then God was "over the surface of the waters" before he created the continents. Then he created sea life. Then land animals, and lastly humans.

but it was 2.5 billion years ago...

And that's what Old Earth Creationists believe. But whether you're old earth or young earth, the order of events is the same. The bible is not a detailed science book, it deals mostly with spiritual matters and God's relation with humanity. But it seems God gave man a little info about creation, in a way his non-scientific mind could understand, probably in order to satisfy early man's curiosity, before moving to the more important spiritual matters.

 

[AdMan]

Did the OP go to high school?

Yes, and graduated college also.

It seems you missed too many days.

We know the reasons behind the fossils. It has nothing to do with the buybull.

 

[DOC]

DOC, before you embarrass yourself any further, do a little reading on plate tectonics. And truly, you ARE embarrassing yourself.

No one is proposing that the mountains were under water. That's absurd.

Strawman, I never said the mountains were under water. I said the land that made up the mountains was at one time under water.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, and graduated college also.

You are an educated man so you must see the many predictions that a global flood makes yet fails. Consider the distribution of animal species. Does it appear all the species were introduced to eastern Anatolia a few thousand years ago and migrated to the rest of the world? Or does it appear that many evolved in isolation on continents like Australia? Which story explains the unique animal life found in Australia today and which story is contradicted by it?

 

[Correa Neto]

The problem is that the ammount of continental crust 2.5Gy ago was not the same it is nowadays... Continental crust is "built" by partial melting of oceanic crust when it is subducted. As time passes, more continental crust is created. Back in the Archean the continents were smaller and not as thick as today. So, less exposed area above the sea level.

Continental crust production, BTW, was not homogeneous along geological time. There were "production peaks" at 2.7 and 2.1Gy, for example.

Biblical tales are not matching Earth's history... Unless you do a lot of cherry picking.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Strawman, I never said the mountains were under water. I said the land that made up the mountains was at one time under water.

DOC: if all the land was underwater, where did the sediment (eroded rocks) come from?

 

[Sideroxylon]

From your link"

"A new model of the early Earth suggests that until around 2.5 billion years ago oceans covered almost the whole of the planet. Just 2% to 3% of the Earth’s surface would have been dry land, compared with 28% today...
...However, unlike in the movie, the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved..."
___

This all correlates with the bible. First God created the earth. Then God was "over the surface of the waters" before he created the continents. Then he created sea life. Then land animals, and lastly humans.

And that's what Old Earth Creationists believe. But whether you're old earth or young earth, the order of events is the same. The bible is not a detailed science book, it deals mostly with spiritual matters and God's relation with humanity. But it seems God gave man a little info about creation, in a way he could understand, probably in order to satisfy early man's curiosity, before moving to the more important spiritual matters.

Two point five million years ago we are talking about Homo habilis, a user of stone tools and incapable of building a massive ship.

 

[devnull]

Let me understand this.

You are hoping to find evidence of a story where god kills nearly all living creatures, except those that fit on a single boat.

That's always my reaction too.

I think people lend this stuff credibility merely by responding to it.

 

[Craig B]

DOC

Regarding your

So if at one time the land that now makes up the world's highest mountain range was under water, one can make a conclusion that at one time the entire planet could have been under water.

I think you have missed the point. How is it conceivable that the Flood covered the highest part of the world long enough for coral reefs to form there? These belong on the sea bed, and take a long time to form, and require stable and settled conditions. They were evidently formed before the land masses collided and they were then pushed upwards. The Himalayas are rising even at the present time, and the processes now taking place can easily account for the presence of these fossilised corals.

 

[Dinwar]

Any geologist will laugh at the idea that Genesis accurately portrays the order in which anything arose. The only places Genesis is right is where being wrong would be simply insane (for example, land had to come before plants).

 

[Craig B]

Any geologist will laugh at the idea that Genesis accurately portrays the order in which anything arose. The only places Genesis is right is where being wrong would be simply insane (for example, land had to come before plants).

The sun by any sane standards has to come before the daylight. But it doesn't. Also, God "divided the light from the darkness", which is a very strange thing to do, unless darkness is a substance.

 

[AdMan]

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Yeah, no light before there was a heaven and an earth. That makes a lot of scientific sense.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Strawman, I never said the mountains were under water. I said the land that made up the mountains was at one time under water.

And then suggested that this was due to the biblical flood. Clearly that is not the case.

Of course, while you're at it, you might search the old noah's ark thread and learn how the ark as described in the bible turns to splinters the moment it would be put on a placid lake.
Rather than trying to rationalize it with science, which will never work, why not just go with 'god did it with magic'?