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

[John Jones]

Ad hom fallacy. This ad hom fallacy occurs every time I mention this site and the fallacy will probably continue in the future.

It's not an ad hom. Please learn what these terms mean before you throw away the rest of your credibility (such as it is).

 

[Craig B]

Then you would prefer not to know that the originator of Pangaea partly got his idea from the bible or a Jesuit priest (Georges Lemaître) was the first to come up with the idea of the big bang.

Why should I prefer not to know it? Lemaître at least didn't use his theory for purposes of religious propaganda, and went so far as to persuade the Pope to desist from doing so. See wiki.

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Creationism and Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation. When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ad hom fallacy. This ad hom fallacy occurs every time I mention this site and the fallacy will probably continue in the future.

An ad hominem is in the form "person A is wrong because he's an idiot." It's just the opposite for the people who are responsible for Conservapedia, they're idiots because they're wrong. Deliberately.

 

[X]

Then you don't believe the world was one continent at one time and broke up into several continents as many scientists believe.

From the article: Pangea

"The idea of a single continent breaking up into the ones we have today was first proposed in 1859 by creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, partly on the basis of the description in Genesis 1:9-10.[1] However, the idea was not accepted by others at the time. Even after Wegener resurrected the idea, it took another half century before it came to be widely accepted.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Pangea

And there is no rule that God couldn't have created new species after the flood.

Conservapedia is, if anything, worse than the AIG-associated site you linked to earlier for credibility.

Want to know why? It's because Conservapedia (ugh, I've typed the name twice now) blatantly distorts, misrepresents, cherry-picks and lies to support preconceived conclusions. To be fair, that puts it right up your alley.

Take, for example, this passage:

"The idea of a single continent breaking up into the ones we have today was first proposed in 1859 by creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, partly on the basis of the description in Genesis 1:9-10.[1]"​

What is the source for this, one wonders. The answer to that is the only source in the entire article:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf
As you can see from the address, it is in no way biased toward creationism.

But let's give it a fair shake. What does it say?

"Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis Flood.¹ The statements in Genesis 1:9,10 about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.)"

X: the source for this is given in the footer as
1. Snider–Pellegrini, A., 1858/9, Le Création et ses Mystères Devoilés, Franck and Dentu, Paris.
As I have neither access to this document nor the knowledge to read French, I shall have to accept their quotation​

I'm willing to accept that they're the same. It is of interest to me to point out that neither of these sources quote the reason Snider thought the continents were one:
The identical plant fossils in Europe and America. How odd that the websites devoted to perpetuating the delusion of biblical inerrancy would omit that detail. It was probably too fact-like for them.

Snider then hypothesized that the continents moved apart during the great flood (various websites say he thought this motion was caused by the flood or caused the flood).

A little more legwork reveals another interesting conclusion: That the biblical flood never reached America, and therefore First Nations People are direct descendents of Adam and Eve.


The problem with this sort of excising of facts is that it results in the gullible soaking up half-truths like candy. Case-in-point below:

Then you would prefer not to know that the originator of Pangaea partly got his idea from the bible or a Jesuit priest (Georges Lemaître) was the first to come up with the idea of the big bang.

Actually, he got his idea of Pangea from plant fossils. He attributed the continental drift to the biblical flood, partially because he lacked any other explanation for it and partly because it the 1850's, the enlightenment was only just starting to reveal the radical notion that the bible wasn't a science book. But it is important to note that he only attributed the CAUSE of continent motion to the flood. His conclusion that the continents had moved was based on two non-biblical facts:

1) Identical plant fossils in Europe and America
2) Europe and America are not currently attached.

Thus the conclusion that they were attached at some point in the past, and had moved apart due to some force or event. He was a Christian, and his bias showed through in his explanation. A more intellectually honest man would have simply admitted he didn't know how it happened. And plate tectonics wouldn't be understood for about a century.

And it's that sort of misconception based on deliberately deceitful paraphrasing that is the reason why Conservapedia is a joke when it comes to credibility.



DOC:

Truth is supported by facts. All facts. Universally, and without exception or revision. If you have to artfully twist or carefully select facts to fit your worldview, chances are that your worldview is wrong.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Then you don't believe the world was one continent at one time and broke up into several continents as many scientists believe.

From the article: Pangea

"The idea of a single continent breaking up into the ones we have today was first proposed in 1859 by creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, partly on the basis of the description in Genesis 1:9-10 .[1] However, the idea was not accepted by others at the time. Even after Wegener resurrected the idea, it took another half century before it came to be widely accepted.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Pangea

And there is no rule that God couldn't have created new species after the flood.

Yes, I do know that. I also have a fair idea of the ways in which we know the breakup occurred over a very long period of time and that a quick search tells me that was 270 million years ago. One of the best ways we know this is recorded in the ocean floors as they spread out from their formation at the mid oceanic trenches. We can measure this rate of shift today and we can see it recorded in the rocks radiometrically and in magnetic alignments of minerals.

Now even if you decide that we can still entertain a super continent existing in the last five to ten thousand years, the uniqueness of Australian plants and animals remains a problem. We don't have enough time for evolution to work on from proto animals and plants. And even if we accept that miracle, the distributions of species do not look like they have radiated from a central point in eastern Anatolia.

Either God has gone to great lengths to not only hide the evidence for the flood but to make it appear something else has happened, or it is a myth. The flood makes falsifiable predictions about what we should see in plant and animal distributions and it fails them.

 

[gabeygoat]

Reboot no. 1: After the Fall of Man. God couldn't foresee that leaving a major temptation alone with two naked teenagers in a theme park was not going to go the way he figured.

Reboot no. 2: The Great Flood. Still hasn't got it right.

Reboot no. 3: Son sent on suicide mission to Earth. 2,000+ years later it still hasn't taken hold.

Reboot no. 4: Constantly being predicted.

this is kind of amazing. mind if i repost on facebook (crediting you (well, Gawdzilla))?

 

[GlennB]

In related news, Jonah lived in a whale for three days.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

this is kind of amazing. mind if i repost on facebook (crediting you (well, Gawdzilla))?

Go right ahead. Just a rework of a well-known idea however, not original with me.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In related news, Jonah lived in a whale for three days.

"Great fish". Wasn't even an air-breathing mammal.

 

[AdMan]

It's a possibility since it would seem the entire earth being under water 150 days and "fountains of the deep" (mentioned in Genesis) shooting out water, could have loosened things up quite a bit for a subsequent sudden shift of land masses.

Ludicrous. Learn some science.

 

[Craig B]

"Great fish". Wasn't even an air-breathing mammal.

Jesus says it was in Matthew 12, according to the AV/KJV

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Can't argue with Jesus.

 

[GeneMachine]

Jesus says it was in Matthew 12, according to the AV/KJV Can't argue with Jesus.

The greek says "κήτους" - which can be "1. any sea monster or large fish" or "2. abyss" according to Liddell-Scott's dictionary. No whale necessary...

 

[Craig B]

The greek says "κήτους" - which can be "1. any sea monster or large fish" or "2. abyss" according to Liddell-Scott's dictionary. No whale necessary...

For English "whale" Google translate gives in Greek both "φάλαινα" which looks to me as if it has been borrowed from French, and also "κήτος". So now you're arguing with Jesus AND Google!

 

[DOC]

It's not an ad hom. Please learn what these terms mean.

So what do you call the fallacy where your judgement of information is not based on the accuracy of the information presented but strictly on your opinion of the source where the information came from?

 

[ddt]

I'm virtually certain that you won't know this but there are civilizations whose history pre-dates that. There was no global flood 6000 years ago.

That's a load of bull.

 

[DOC]

In related news, Jonah lived in a whale for three days.

And in related news some scientists believe Jonah's and the whale's earliest ancestor was the same one celled creature, who ultimately caused Jonah and the whale by unintelligent forces.

 

[DOC]

I'm virtually certain that you won't know this but there are civilizations whose history pre-dates that.

What is your evidence those civilizations survived the flood?

 

[Akhenaten]

Just as well.

Can you see how the distribution of animal species, particularly evident in the marsupials of Australia, contradicts the idea that all living creatures disembarked from the Ark in eastern Anatolia some 4,000 years ago?

Then you don't believe the world was one continent at one time and broke up into several continents as many scientists believe.

Not only do you believe that all the mountains in the world came into existence during the last 4,000 years, but that the continents as we now know them also took shape during that period?

Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous this is?

Do you realise, on any level, that for this amount of change to be occurring so rapidly you'd be able to actually see land masses moving about?

Do you realise that the Mediterranean Sea, about which the World's Greatest Navigator, Sir Luke, gave specific directions, wouldn't even have existed at that time?

Do you understand that the escaping Hebrews of Exodus wouldn't have had to contend with the Red Sea because it wouldn't have been there?


Compared to this bizarre fantasy of yours, the Hollow Earth Theory™ is starting to seem feasible.

From the article: Pangea

"The idea of a single continent breaking up into the ones we have today was first proposed in 1859 by creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, partly on the basis of the description in Genesis 1:9-10 .[1] However, the idea was not accepted by others at the time. Even after Wegener resurrected the idea, it took another half century before it came to be widely accepted.

Garbage.

The idea that all the land in the world was a single mass is one which has been entertained on and off by people throughout recorded history, so some bible thumper restating the theory in the 19th century and adding the twist that goddidit is hardly news, now is it?

The only thing that caused any real controversy since the age of exploration is the actual mechanism by which the continents formed.

And there is no rule that God couldn't have created new species after the flood.

The Rule of Non-Existence™ would seem to cover it.

There's also the Rule of Being Able To Find Fossils of Things Like Prehistoric Marsupials That Are Millions of Years Old Which Prove That They Existed as Species Long Before the Alleged Flood™

And finally, there's the Rule of Why Do the Whole Ark Thing if You Can Just Kill Everything and Zap Up Some New Critters After the Tide Goes Back Out?™

 

[Kid Eager]

What is your evidence those civilizations survived the flood.

Quoted for posterity. Would you like to take a stab at answering your own question?

 

[Akhenaten]

What is your evidence those civilizations survived the flood.

There is no such evidence because there was no flood to survive, but to answer the question you meant to ask, have you noticed that China and its people, for example, are still there?

It's in all the papers.