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

[Agatha]

Also there are differences of opinion between Christians as to the age of the flood. The bible has gaps in genealogy at other places in the bible so there could be gaps in the genealogical record before Noah. Because of those gaps some believe it could have been 10,000 years ago, and some believe much longer.

However, anyone who has studied geology, physics or history to at least GCSE level (that's the exams English children take at age 15/16) is aware that there was no global flood, the earth is approximately 4.5billion years old, and modern humans have been around for the past 200,000 years.

 

[catsmate]

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

So yet again you demonstrate your ignorance of what ad hominem actually means............... That itself constitutes a variation on the strawman fallacy.
And your invocation of conservapedia is an Appeal to False Authority.

Biblical literalism.

 

[pgwenthold]

This PhD in Geological Engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris#cite_note-5 disagrees:

OK, I know this was long time ago, but can you please tell me where "John D. Morris" got this supposed PhD in "Geological Engineering"?

The only PhD thesis I can find for someone named John D Morris submitted to the UMI Dissertation Database is for someone who got a PhD in Education the University of Florida doing regression prediction in 1975.

I found 10 Geological Engineering PhDs with the last name Morris, but no Johns

1
Preview A STOCHASTIC MODEL FOR AN INTERMITTENT HYDROLOGIC PROCESS Diss.Morris, Charles Darwin. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1978. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1978. 7913553.

2
Preview Rebirth analysis for sustainable design: A theory, method, and tool Diss.Morris, Jeffrey Phillip. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2011. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2011. 3476256.

3
Preview Seawater calcium isotopes and the Cenozoic carbonate depositional history of the oceans Diss.Griffith, Elizabeth Morris. Stanford University, 2008. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2008. 3332831.

4
Preview Influence of stream corridor geomorphology on large wood jams and associated fish assemblages in mixed deciduous-conifer forest in upper Michigan Diss.Morris, Arthur E L. The Ohio State University, 2005. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2005. 3180117.

5
Preview Topographic and geomorphologic analyses of volcanic and impact-related landforms on Earth and Mars Diss.Morris, Aisha Renee. University of Hawai'i at Manoa, 2008. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2008. 3347662.

6
Preview Risk, Language, and Power: The Nanotechnology Environmental Policy Case Diss.Morris, Jeffery Thomas. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2010. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2010. DP19645.

7
Preview The biology and ecology of the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Diss.Morris, James Adiel, Jr.. North Carolina State University, 2009. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3377598.

8
Preview The origins of UNICEF, 1946--1953 Diss.Morris, Jennifer M. Miami University, 2004. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2004. 3137669.

9
Preview Landscape scale and contaminant effects on aquatic assemblage structure Diss.Morris, Charles C.. Indiana State University, 2012. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507572.

10
Preview Collaboration as paradox: The case of the Patuxent River, MD nutrient control strategy Diss.Bidjerano, Morris. State University of New York at Albany, 2009. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3371781.

So where did he get his PhD? A legitimate PhD thesis in the US will be deposited in the Dissertation Abstracts (and even some non-legitimate ones are there). Mine is there. Dr Martin Luther King's is there. Dr Laura Schlessinger's is there. Bill Cosby's is there. But no John D. Morris, Geological Engineering.

He is lying about his PhD. It's a sham from a diploma mill (are you sure it wasn't bestowed upon him by his father?)

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you want a fair dinkum working geologist with a PhD arguing for the flood and a young earth, here you go:


And here is how you manage such ideas when you are actually doing geology and not lending authority to claptrap on the creationist talk circuit:

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.​

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

 

[Akhenaten]

Also there are differences of opinion between Christians as to the age of the flood.

And there go the goalposts.

The bible has gaps in genealogy at other places in the bible so there could be gaps in the genealogical record before Noah.

And the whole thing could be made up, just as the evidence suggests.

Because of those gaps some believe it could have been 10,000 years ago, and some believe much longer.

'Some' aren't here to discuss it.

YOU are.

Stick to the scenario.

And in doing so, try and remember that you've already pushed the flood so far back in time that there's no way the details that are contained in the biblical story could have been preserved. I know, of course, that you'll be hopping around cackling about 'oral traditions' in response to this but perhaps you'll pause to reflect on how ridiculous you're going to look before you actually post it?

 

[DOC]

However, anyone who has studied geology, physics or history to at least GCSE level (that's the exams English children take at age 15/16) is aware that there was no global flood...

Argument by assertion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Argument by assertion.

You have such a childlike innocence when you throw out terms that you don't understand at circumstances that don't apply.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Argument by assertion.

It must look that way from your perspective but it is a plain fact. The idea of a global flood is mostly limited to Christian creationists and not seriously entertained among academics or working geologists.

I will say again, the species distribution patterns predicted by all animals disembarking in eastern Anatolia is falsified by observation. It didn't happen.

 

[SezMe]

I'm both fascinated and terrified to think that an allegedly educated person from a first world country in the 21st century believes this to be a scientifically valid proposition.

My stance as well. DOC is a fun chew toy and quite harmless by himself. But that there are millions who believe this sort of thing really gives me the willies.

 

[Akhenaten]

Argument by assertion.

Wherever did you get the idea that this is a meaningful response whenever you encounter a fact?

Of course it's an assertion, as is "the sky is blue", and unless you actually have sufficient evidence to refute it then it stands as it was stated.

As do the parts of the post that you inexplicably omitted.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Argument by assertion.

At least it's not a bible quote...

Please respond to my post #361:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9176448&postcount=361

 

[joobz]

So where did he get his PhD? A legitimate PhD thesis in the US will be deposited in the Dissertation Abstracts (and even some non-legitimate ones are there). Mine is there. Dr Martin Luther King's is there. Dr Laura Schlessinger's is there. Bill Cosby's is there. But no John D. Morris, Geological Engineering.

He is lying about his PhD. It's a sham from a diploma mill (are you sure it wasn't bestowed upon him by his father?)

I found it.

DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTIES OF A SELF-BURSTING PELLET AS AGGLOMERATED FROM COAL FINES BY USE OF AN ORGANIC BINDER
Diss.Morris, John David. The University of Oklahoma, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1980. 8113246.


It's legitimate work in powder handling and engineering. ALthough, it most certainly isn't work geared toward geology.

 

[Mudcat]

Doctor Dave, the CEO of ICR, doesn't have any problem with that.
Why should you?

Granted, according to his bio at ICR the man " is best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark"

http://www.icr.org/john_morris/

That reminds me that a month ago my mom brought these expeditions up and asked me what I thought of it.

Me: "It's a waste of time and resources, they'll never find Noah's ark."

Mom: "Why because you believe it doesn't exist?"

Me: "There's that, too. But put yourself in Noah's shoes for a moment. You just survived a catastrophic flood that has wiped out most life on earth and swept away all the trees and all you have is a huge boat made of wood and maybe some tools. What are you going to do for shelter?"

Mom: "So you believe Noah disassembled the ark?"

Me: "If he even existed at all, if this situation actually happened, it's the only logical conclusion."

 

[Elizabeth I]

I found it.

DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTIES OF A SELF-BURSTING PELLET AS AGGLOMERATED FROM COAL FINES BY USE OF AN ORGANIC BINDER
Diss.Morris, John David. The University of Oklahoma, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1980. 8113246.


It's legitimate work in powder handling and engineering. ALthough, it most certainly isn't work geared toward geology.

Damn! I've already learned two new things from this thread today!

 

[pakeha]

Here is the second and third sentences of your link:

"The age claims listed are generally disputed and may indeed be obsolete. Differences in opinion can result from different definitions of "city" as well as "continuously inhabited" and historical evidence is often disputed."

____

Also there are differences of opinion between Christians as to the age of the flood. The bible has gaps in genealogy at other places in the bible so there could be gaps in the genealogical record before Noah. Because of those gaps some believe it could have been 10,000 years ago, and some believe much longer.

DOC.
You asked for evidence of civilisations which are older than the biblical account of a universal flood, remember?
Read those two sentences again, DOC.
Now read the tables and their sources.

Keep in mind none of those places were destroyed by flooding.

And a question.
How do gaps in the genealogy before Noah affect when the flooding occured?
If it actually happened, there'd be evidence of it in Jericho.

Or here Natufian Culture^WP

Oddly enough, while the Natufian culture shows no signs of flooding, it does of the Younger Dryas^WP, more or less the opposite of flooding.

Then there's Nevali Çori^WP

"In terms of absolute dates, 4 radiocarbon dates have been determined for Nevalı Çori. Three are from Stratum II and date it with some certainty to the second half of the 9th millennium BC, which coincides with early dates from Çayönü and with Mureybet IVA and thus supports the relative chronology above. The fourth dates to the 10th millennium BC, which, if correct, would indicate the presence of an extremely early phase of PPNB at Nevalı Çori."

And quess what? No signs of flooding found until the damming of the Euphrates in 1968-73 inundated the site.

What do you think this means, DOC?

 

[DOC]

...we know to have taken approximately 270 million years...

How do you know this or is this someone's theory?

 

[Akhenaten]

How . . .

Easily.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How do you know this or is this someone's theory?

No, it was written down by a bunch of semi-literate goat herders living in skin tents in the desert.

 

[smartcooky]

And here is how you manage such ideas when you are actually doing geology and not lending authority to claptrap on the creationist talk circuit:

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.​

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

That was a very interesting read.

Perhaps it should be renamed "The Two Faces or Dr Snelling"

 

[X]

Your intimation that Pangea was one continent as recently as 6K years ago seems to indicate otherwise.

Suppose you lay out a chronology:

In your opinion, when did 'god' create the world?

In your opinion, when was Pangea last a single continent?

In your opinion, when did the "global flood" happen?

In your opinion, when did the orogeny of the Himalayas happen?

Please to put those 4 events in the order you want to be able to claim that they happened, with the dates you want to wish for them.

I was thinking about making a post like this on the drive in to work today.
You beat me to it.

I second this request.

Please DOC, lay out for us exactly what you are arguing for.