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

[RoboTimbo]

And remember according to science there was a time when heaven and earth (the universe) did not exist. Something created it.

These are both incorrect, as has been explained numerous times. It's as if you are deliberately lying.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually I believe those were Moses' laws of the Old Testament. Christ brought the New Testament.

And yet you were finally forced to admit that Jesus and the Bible condone slavery. Jesus brought rules for beating your slaves.

Is slavery a moral institution, DOC?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And yet you were finally forced to admit that Jesus and the Bible condone slavery. Jesus brought rules for beating your slaves.

Is slavery a moral institution, DOC?

Is religion a mental institution, DOC?

 

[smartcooky]

So as someone asked earlier in the thread where do you believe all the water went?

The water didn't actually go anywhere, its still here!

Apart from the relatively small amount of water loss through atmospheric escape over the last 2.5 billion years, there is essentially the same amount of water on the earth now as there was then.

Your problem DOC is that you have cherry-picked parts of the information in the link I posted earlier, while you have ignored or missed other parts.

For your enlightenment, I reprint the relevant part you have appeared to have missed and the source link..

"The Australian scientists who produced the new computer simulation believe that billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today. A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods."

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

The water hasn't "gone" anywhere, all that has happened is that, due to 2.5 billion hears of plate tectonics, some of the land has risen and some of the land has fallen. The water level has essentially stayed the same while the level of the land has changed

Imagine a 50 gallon fish tank.

Fill 1/3 of it with gravel and level it out,

top it up to the 2/3 mark with water.

All of the gravel is now covered with water.

Now reach into the tank and scoop the gravel from one end to the other to create a slope that starts at the top of one end to the bottom at about a 45° angle

Some of the gravel is now above the water, and the water level has dropped slightly because the gravel that is out of the water no longer displaces it.

However, THE AMOUNT OF WATER IN THE TANK HAS NOT CHANGED.

The level is lower, and it no longer covers all of the gravel, but it hasn't gone anywhere.

Then you believe the earth could be covered with water once but not a second time?

Yes, because now that plate tectonics has created mountains and highlands, there is not enough water to cover them. In our fish tank analogy, you would have to add more water to the tank to cover the gravel on the left, and you can get that from the kitchen tap, but back on earth, there is no magical supply of extra water...the water we have now is all the water we will ever have.

 

[catsmate]

I need someone to refresh my memory: What's the fallacy where you argue that because a part of X did Y, all of X did Y?

Fallacy of Composition I think.

 

[godless dave]

Yes, and graduated college also.

And you were never taught about plate tectonics?

 

[fuelair]

Yep. Poe.

And/or more likely, poepoe!

 

[fuelair]

That was just a reboot. Second, or third depending on how you count them. More plot "adjustments" than Eureka.

Now that last is just plain mean!!!

 

[fuelair]

You want to see a church lady choke? Ask her who Noah's great-grandkids bred with.

The animals? Noah had to be saving them for something!!!!

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

You believe that the Himalaya was at the bottom of the ocean around the same time that Noah was doing the floating zoo thing.​

I can't wait to see your working.

 

[Craig B]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/So.png[/qimg]

You believe that the Himalaya was at the bottom of the ocean around the same time that Noah was doing the floating zoo thing.​

I can't wait to see your working.

If the Himalayas have risen around 30,000 feet in say 5,000 years, that's 6 feet per year, and Mount Everest should be some 360 feet higher than it was 60 years ago when it was first conquered. That's my working, anyway. Do I get a pass, and a smiley face at the bottom of the page, which is what I used to get for my best work, back in the days when Everest was first climbed?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

According to the Bible, however, that could not have been the case at any time between the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (whichever one you choose) and the flood account in Genesis 6, now could it?

Are you therefore claiming that mountains such as the Himalaya have only come into being since the flood?

 

[Akhenaten]

If the Himalayas have risen around 30,000 feet in say 5,000 years, that's 6 feet per year, and Mount Everest should be some 360 feet higher than it was 60 years ago when it was first climbed. That's my working, anyway.

Sounds about right.

Do I get a pass, and a smiley face at the bottom of the page, which is what I used to get for my best work, back in the days when Everest was first climbed?

How about a cookie?

​

 

[Akhenaten]

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".

Gosh, I never saw that coming!

Wouldn't it all have drained away through the openings at the poles?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Prior to the geological discoveries of the past 200 years, thinking fossilized sea creatures on mountain tops indicated a world-wide flood was not that unreasonable. To think that today requires very poor education or determined ignorance.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

No, it doesn't.

Genesis 2:19-19


¹⁸And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

¹⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.​

Explain to us, DOC, how you interpret the above as saying that "Then he created sea life. Then land animals, and lastly humans."

 

[Mister Agenda]

DOC, you know you can have your cake and eat it in this case. Just take the position that the Genesis Flood only covered the world known to Noah and you can have a very big flood on the plains of Mesopotamia without throwing the science of geology into the waste bin because it's inconvenient to your literal reading of a chapter of the Bible.

 

[Craig B]

No, it doesn't.

Genesis 2:19-19


¹⁸And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

¹⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.​

Problem is, Chapter 1 of Genesis doesn't "correlate" with Chapter 2. Since the work of an 18th century scholar, it has been accepted by rational commentators that they were written at different times by different people.

 

[Akhenaten]

And that's what Old Earth Creationists believe. But whether you're old earth or young earth, the order of events is the same.

<dreck>

The order of events isn't even the same in two consecutive chapters of Genesis.

Just because you've abandoned the thread(s) where this has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the discrepancy won't go away.

Somebody is just bound to copypaste an example in this thread, any minute now.

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

Red herring!


Whatever you and your apologist du jour want to describe as the subject of the two chapters, this is what they actually say:

If Genesis 1 says

²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

and Genesis 2 says:

¹⁸ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

¹⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.​

then they both can't be right.

Sequence in Genesis 1:

Cattle and other critters then man and woman together.​

Sequence in Genesis 2:

Man then critters then woman.​

You can flap your arms about and try to change the subject as much as you like but the contradictions will remain.

See! Told you!

 

[Akhenaten]

Problem is, Chapter 1 of Genesis doesn't "correlate" with Chapter 2. Since the work of an 18th century scholar, it has been accepted by rational commentators that they were written at different times by different people.

Well, yes.

However . . .