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

[Correa Neto]

Quick comment on the "flooded early Earth":

Its not true. It never been completely under the oceans. Earth's continental crust volume has increased (not steadily) since the Hadean. Continental masses were smaller in the distant deep past. If you want a picture of the early Archean times, think of a planet where most land exposed above the sea level would be island chains such as Japan (continental crust above sea level) and Iceland (oceanic crust aboce sea level). As time passes, this evolved to a situation where continental crust would have formed blocks about the size and shape of the Phillipines island chains and/or New Zealand. Eventually larger masses, about the size of Australia were formed and quite later, the volume of continental crust reached a number lose to noways'.

The oldest (good) example we have of crust exposed above sea level dates from 3.7Gy and is located at Isua, Greenland (check de Wit & Furnes, 2013 at Gondwana Research, and sorry, its inside Elsevier's paywall). If you are looking at clastic sediments, its quite possible, regardless of its age, that that they were generated by the exposure of crust to atmosphere -or at least they were above base wave level. Weathering - erosion - transport - deposition. There's no way to create clastic sedimentary rocks without them, most likely related to exposure to the atmosphere (or at the very least above base wave level).

This put, another nail in the coffin of the Bible's cosmology comes from the source of water- volcanic activity and impacts of comets and meteors. This means the oceans growed slowly, and the very early Earth had little if any surface water.

Here's one more nail: The first (indirect) evidence for free water at Earth's surface comes from the Hadean, before the late heavy meteor bombardment. Whatever oceans there were back then were in great part turned in to steam, leaving some some patches of water in the parts of the surface not heated too much by the impacts. As the bombardment faded away, gradually the crust cooled and gradually the oceans grew.

The above can not be correlated with the Bible cosmology. Reality and the Bible's cosmology are not compatible.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

I have no idea why you're describing someone agreeing with you as a strawman, but whatevs . . .

Are you or are you not claimiing that the mountains have risen up since the time of the flood?

 

[Dinwar]

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

I asked it, in regards to Noah's flood. Geologists have no such problem. As others have pointed out, the Earth was never completely flooded, and there wasn't as much water to begin with. The question for geologists isn't where did the water go, but rather how did it get here, and we've answered that.

You, on the other hand, have to explain where a volume of water multiple orders of magnitude greater than all the water in all the oceans went after the flood. Remember, we're talking about draining that volume in a few days--an even which by itself would leave a geological scar.

Neither old or young earth creationists believe the great flood was that long ago.

And neither do anything to support the idiotic notion.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe God felt it was in the best interest of the world to start over. He might of realized there was no hope because of great amount of "free will" evil that existed at that time. And because God thinks in eternal terms whereas you think in temporal terms, he might have done what was in the best long term interest of the world by starting over.

And maybe the whole crock might of* just been made up out of whole cloth.

Some might say, why didn't God see this coming before he created humanity.

Well they might, but the fact that they're assuming a mythical creature could see anything at all coming shows that they're delusional so we can safely ignore anything else they have to say on the matter.

The answer is free will. In order to guarantee perfect free will, God could have chosen not to know how humanity would act.

As I said above . . .



* yes, I know.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe God doesn't want evil people corrupting the universe and ruining it for everyone else all throughout eternity.

In your version of reality, did the flood achieve the objective of preventing this?

 

[Akhenaten]

So, we aren't forced to obey his every command, but if we don't obey his every command he'll kill us all?

That...that sounds like force to me.

I have yet to see DOC answer this point, despite its having been put to him scores of times over a number years.

 

[Craig B]

Well, yes.

However . . .

See http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler//Genesis_texts.html and notice how the English version of Chapter 1 has "God" while in Chapter 2 it is "Lord God". Two different terms are being translated: "Elohim" and "Yahweh" respectively.

The first creation story (Genesis 1-2:3) always and only refers to God as Elohim. The second creation story always refers to God as Yahweh, or Yahweh Elohim, but never as Elohim alone. These changes in diction consistently match the pattern of other distinctions ... again suggesting two different linguistic dates or at least two separate authors.

Without question, both.

 

[Akhenaten]

If we didn't have free will, we would basically be robots.

Since robotic adherence to arbitrary rules seems to be the behaviour that this abhorrent creature prefers from its followers I'm having trouble seeing why the above is a problem for it.

God could have programmed us to obey all rules and to love him.

And miss all the fun of drowning everyone? As if.

But true love is not programmed love.

It's not abject fear either, but your stupid, malevolent creature doesn't seem to have worked that out.

 

[Akhenaten]

See http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler//Genesis_texts.html and notice how the English version of Chapter 1 has "God" while in Chapter 2 it is "Lord God". Two different terms are being translated: "Elohim" and "Yahweh" respectively. Without question, both.

I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me, mate. I've been to great lengths myself to explain this exact point to DOC in other threads.

 

[dafydd]

deleted

 

[dafydd]

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

Didn't he have a snorkel?

 

[Craig B]

I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me, mate. I've been to great lengths myself to explain this exact point to DOC in other threads.

Sorry, I just hit the quote button for your post, rather than one of his. I do not presume to inform you in this matter, but DOC doesn't appear to have internalised this information.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Neither old or young earth creationists believe the great flood was that long ago.

The mountains mentioned in the OP were certainly there that long ago.

As were the fossils contained within them.


What then is the purpose of this thread?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry, I just hit the quote button for your post, rather than one of his. I do not presume to inform you in this matter, but DOC doesn't appear to have internalised this information.

Cheers, mate.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

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

Only Kevin Costner and Janadele are able to answer these questions.

 

[Lucian]

Maybe God felt it was in the best interest of the world to start over. He might of realized there was no hope because of great amount of "free will" evil that existed at that time. And because God thinks in eternal terms whereas you think in temporal terms, he might have done what was in the best long term interest of the world by starting over.

Some might say, why didn't God see this coming before he created humanity. The answer is free will. In order to guarantee perfect free will, God could have chosen not to know how humanity would act.

And what about all the puppies and kittens and fluffy bunnies and ponies and koalas and pandas? What did they do? They don't have free will; they are not capable of evil. What did they do to deserve annihilation? Sure, God preserved a pair (or seven pairs) of each animal (according to your fairy tale), but what about all the others? No soul, no eternal life, no reward. Just pain, fear, a horrible death, life snuffed out for no reason.

If we didn't have free will, we would basically be robots. God could have programmed us to obey all rules and to love him. But true love is not programmed love.

And by the way, if you want an example of true love, look to Dog not God. Imagine an abused and grossly anthropomorphized dog: "That person was mean to me. He beat me and hurt me and confused me with unclear commands and frightened me with inexplicable punishments. This person is talking nicely to me and offering me a squeaky ball.... I will love him forever. And, you know what? I bet most people are like this nice one who has given me a nice home. When I meet strangers who seem to be suffering from doglessness, I will greet them and wag my tail and show them my squeaky ball."

That's true love, in the adoring eyes of a soulless, free-will-lacking dog.

 

[kmortis]

So, a perfect designer has such poor planning that he has to hit the reset button just after start-up? And we're supposed to buy that because...?

 

[sackett]

Hoo boy! Are you for real?

It was entirely rhetorical....

Of course it was. Or not even rhetorical, but rather an involuntary exclamation that you typed because you couldn't help it. We've all done that; take it from an old-tme DOC survivor.

But I was playing with the idea that it could be treated as a serious question, i.e., a question that Doc might be expected to answer. I'm not entirely sure that he could. I suspect that the degree of intellectual dysfunction exhibited here shades into actual irrationality, into a jumbled confusion of reality and fantasy that the victim can't untangle, even if he tries.

I always find the psychology of the believer more interesting than the vapid stuff he believes.

 

[Akhenaten]

So, a perfect designer has such poor planning that he has to hit the reset button just after start-up? And we're supposed to buy that because...?

Simon says?

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course it was. Or not even rhetorical, but rather an involuntary exclamation that you typed because you couldn't help it. We've all done that; take it from an old-tme DOC survivor.