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

[John Jones]

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.

So you're saying the bible is not literally true, and not a source of historic fact?

I'm glad we finally got that settled.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

First, define the word "theory" as you are using it here. I'm sure you wouldn't want to dishonestly bait and switch the scientific meaning with the lay meaning, would you?

 

[smartcooky]

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.

That is laughable...

The current rate of continental drift is a measured 1cm to 10cm per year depending on which continent your are talking about. The continents took about 200 million years to get to their current positions.

If you are suggesting that this all happened since your claimed Noachean flood 4000 years ago, then in order for the continents to drift from Pangaea to their present positions, the rate of drift would need to be 50,000 times faster, or between 500m and 5km per year! i.e up to 13 metres per day or about half a metre per hour. You would be able to see it happening visually.

Clearly, nowhere on the planet is there continental drift of such speed being measured, therefore I conclude that your arguments are pure bunkum!!!

 

[leonAzul]

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[/INDENT]

Et voilà:
La création et ses mystères dévoilés

I'll come back when I have a chance to discuss the translation with a native speaker.

Edited to add:
I just got through the preface and first two chapters. Unless there is a more specific citation somewhere, I would just as soon quit it. It makes Joseph Smith look like a rocket surgeon, IMHO.

 

[Craig B]

I just got through the preface and first two chapters. Unless there is a more specific citation somewhere, I would just as soon quit it. It makes Joseph Smith look like a rocket surgeon, IMHO.

I've had a look too. It seems to be complete drivel.

 

[DOC]

Problems with the Evolution theory.

...The current rate of continental drift is a measured 1cm to 10cm per year depending on which continent your are talking about...

Under present conditions yes, but present conditions would not have existed with the earth covered with water and fountains of the deep (as the bible calls them) shooting out water---possibly the same water that came from the previous time the earth was covered with water as some scientists mention here:

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

Also the fact that some scientists are now saying almost all of the earth was covered with water 2.5 billion years causes more problems for evolutionists because that reduces the time that the alleged evolution of millions and millions of highly diverse land species such as dinosaurs, land animals, birds, insects, land plants, humans, trees, ferns etc. had time to evolve. When you add to this that there are hardly any transitional specie fossils when they should be all over the place and evolution has some serious problems.

http://www.genesispark.org/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

Also, the scientists in the article said that not even fish had evolved yet 2.5 billion years ago.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Under present conditions yes, but present conditions would not have existed with the earth covered with water and fountains of the deep (as the bible calls them) shooting out water---possibly the same water that came from the previous time the earth was covered with water as some scientists mention here:

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

Also the fact that some scientists are now saying almost all of the earth was covered with water 2.5 billion years causes more problems for evolutionists because that reduces the time that the alleged evolution of millions and millions of highly diverse species such as dinosaurs, land animals, reptiles, birds, insects, land plants, humans, trees, ferns etc. had time to develop. When you add to this that there are hardly any transitional specie fossils when they should be all over the place and evolution has some serious problems.

Post #361 in this thread, DOC?

 

[sowhat]

I agree.

The story of Noah's Ark is likely to have been added "after the fact" i.e. people and animals patently survived this flood, and this would be one explanation that the biblical scribes made up to fit the facts as they saw them. It could even have been based on some actual accounts (or a conflation of several accounts) of people who were able to save their families and a few farm animals by getting onto a boat and riding out the flood; those few accounts exaggerated into the "Noah" fable at a later date.

This is of course pure speculation on my part, but it seems logical that people would use boats to survive flooding, they do so even today.

I have thought that myself. Local farmer saves his cow, a few chickens, and his family. Rides out one of the many Mesopotamian floods. Gets talked about by his neighbors. The story grows and becomes one of the first urban ( in this case, rural ) myths.

 

[Craig B]

Also, the scientists in the article said that not even fish had evolved yet 2.5 million years ago.

You mean billion. Yes at that early date, and for more than a billion years afterwards, only micro organisms existed. So what? You're saying that in those days plate tectonics operated many thousands of times faster than at the present time?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Under present conditions yes, but present conditions would not have existed with the earth covered with water and fountains of the deep (as the bible calls them) shooting out water---possibly the same water that came from the previous time the earth was covered with water as some scientists mention here:

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

How do we know the rate of continental drift? What scientific evidence tells us how long it took? (Clue: It's not based on current observed rates).

Unless you can answer such questions you are being intellectually dishonest.

Also the fact that some scientists are now saying almost all of the earth was covered with water 2.5 billion years causes more problems for evolutionists because that reduces the time that the alleged evolution of millions and millions of highly diverse species such as dinosaurs, land animals, reptiles, birds, insects, land plants, humans, trees, ferns etc. had time to develop. When you add to this that there are hardly any transitional specie fossils when they should be all over the place and evolution has some serious problems.

Also, the scientists in the article are saying that not even fish had evolved yet 2.5 million years ago.

That's 2.5 billion years ago. Easy mistake to make - did it myself earlier.

All the worlds animals disembarking in eastern Anatolia around 5,000 years ago and spreading out from there makes predictions that are falsified. The flood is contradicted by, among other things, Australia's unique diversity of flora and fauna. There was no global flood.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.

Do they have Shaquille O'Neal's?

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?)

But it's on the ICR website and spammed all over the Internet and their literature! It must be true.

 

[Rincewind]

That is laughable...

The current rate of continental drift is a measured 1cm to 10cm per year depending on which continent your are talking about. The continents took about 200 million years to get to their current positions.

If you are suggesting that this all happened since your claimed Noachean flood 4000 years ago, then in order for the continents to drift from Pangaea to their present positions, the rate of drift would need to be 50,000 times faster, or between 500m and 5km per year! i.e up to 13 metres per day or about half a metre per hour. You would be able to see it happening visually.

Clearly, nowhere on the planet is there continental drift of such speed being measured, therefore I conclude that your arguments are pure bunkum!!!

A question (or two)...

Wouldn't such speedy movement cause huge temperatures?

I'm thinking particularly of India crashing into Asia and pushing the Himalayas up - also wouldn't this cause massive geological disruption?

Thanks,

 

[zooterkin]

Under present conditions yes, but present conditions would not have existed with the earth covered with water and fountains of the deep (as the bible calls them) shooting out water---possibly the same water that came from the previous time the earth was covered with water as some scientists mention here:

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

Are you trying to have it both ways? Do you believe what those scientists are saying about the Earth being over 2.5 billion years old? If so, why do you not believe what they say about the flood, and Continental drift?

Also the fact that some scientists are now saying almost all of the earth was covered with water 2.5 billion years causes more problems for evolutionists because that reduces the time that the alleged evolution of millions and millions of highly diverse land species such as dinosaurs, land animals, birds, insects, land plants, humans, trees, ferns etc. had time to evolve.

Really? Do you know how long 2.5 billion years is? What do you mean "more problems"? You are aware that no one was proposing anything more than unicellular organisms were alive until 610 million years ago?

The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period. The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria

When you add to this that there are hardly any transitional specie fossils when they should be all over the place and evolution has some serious problems.

http://www.genesispark.org/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

What proportion of animals alive at any one time do you think become fossilised? Do you think representatives of every species will get fossilised? Do you understand that species are not rigidly defined, with transitions between one species and another, but are actually a continuum, with the set of animals alive at one time simply being a snapshot?

Also, the scientists in the article said that not even fish had evolved yet 2.5 billion years ago.

And?

 

[dafydd]

Argument by assertion.

No, argument by geology is the correct term.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What proportion of animals alive at any one time do you think become fossilised? Do you think representatives of every species will get fossilised? Do you understand that species are not rigidly defined, with transitions between one species and another, but are actually a continuum, with the set of animals alive at one time simply being a snapshot?

Two great examples problem for that particular Creationist argument occured very recently in North America. Passenger Pigeon flocks could consist of billions of individuals, with such numbers being observed in the 1860s. By the 1900s, they were extinct. American Bison are huge animals that roamed the plains in herds thousands strong in the 1800s. By the early 1900s they were nearly extinct and were saved only by preservation efforts.

Yet, one does not find passenger pigeon and bison bones lying around all over the place waiting to fossilize. There's hardly a trace of them anywhere.

I've yet to see a Creationist satisfactorally address this particular problem, and given DOC's track record, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

double post

 

[smartcooky]

A question (or two)...

Wouldn't such speedy movement cause huge temperatures?

I'm thinking particularly of India crashing into Asia and pushing the Himalayas up - also wouldn't this cause massive geological disruption?

Thanks,

Of course it would. I had already considered that as part of the equation. Plate tectonics with movement of the order half a metre per hour would generate rock-meltiing heat and massive continuous earthquakes.

I didn't mention it in my quoted post because I was feeding DOC some rope!!

 

[smartcooky]

All the worlds animals disembarking in eastern Anatolia around 5,000 years ago and spreading out from there makes predictions that are falsified. The flood is contradicted by, among other things, Australia's unique diversity of flora and fauna. There was no global flood.

Perhaps DOC doesn't understand the significance of this uniqueness and diverseness of Australia's fauna, and more importantly, how it is such a huge clue to the way the Australian continent became geologically isolated.

There are two major types of mammals world wide;

"Placental", which nourishes its embryo to term internally via a placenta and umbilical cord, resulting in fully developed live birth

"Marsupial", which bring their embryos to term outside the body, usually in a pouch.

Worldwide, placental species outnumber marsupial species by about 16:1 There are over 5300 species of placentals, compared with just 334 species of marsupials.

However, this is where Australia differs. Of the 334 species of marsupials, 235 are native to Australia, 99 are native to the Americas, and beyond that, there are no native marsupials anywhere else in the world.

Even more amazing, is that there are no native placental mammals in Australia (and before you say "what about the Dingo?", well the dingo did not evolve in Australia; its a direct, DNA proven descendant of the Asian wild dog, and it is thought that they were brought to Australia from the Asian sub-continent along with human migration about 30 to 80,000 years ago when Australia was connected to Asia by a land bridge).

All other placental mammals on the Australia mainland were either brought there by man, or migrated there less than 20 million years ago, e.g., Chiroptera (bats) and Rodentia (rats and mice). This means that Australia's marsupial mammals evolved in isolation from the rest of the planet.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Noah could have embarked over 10,500 mammals (5300 x 2) plus 20,000 birds (10,000 x 2) plus all the thousands of spiders, snakes, reptiles, insects and many hundreds of thousands of plant seeds, all on a boat with only 38,000 cubic metres of space.

It is even more ludicrous to suggest that he would then disembark all these living creature onto the side of a mountain somewhere in what we now call the Middle East, and somehow, ALL the marsupial mammals end up in Australia or the Americas, and nowhere else on the planet.

There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from this... that the Australian continent was completely isolated from the rest of Gondwanaland when mammals first started to "take over" after the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, and that fact, in itself, makes a nonsense of the biblical flood myth

 

[leonAzul]

I've had a look too. It seems to be complete drivel.

I pressed on into the third and fourth chapters, and I would temper my opinion. It is not completely unfounded, but rather very sloppy.

The most telling evidence is Snider's use of the phrase loi d'attraction (law of attraction). As he introduced it in the preface, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he was paraphrasing the ideas of Newton and Kepler concerning gravity and orbital mechanics in his own words. As he develops it, it becomes obvious that he is talking about the same magical "law of attraction" we hear today among pseudoscientists.

So if you want to characterize that as "drivel", I'll agree. But it is a bit more serious drivel than what Joseph Smith perpetrated.

 

[Akhenaten]

Under present conditions yes, but present conditions would not have existed with the earth covered with water and fountains of the deep (as the bible calls them) shooting out water

"Fountains of the Deep" is part of the fairytale for which you are desperately scrabbling to demonstrate scientific plausibility.

You don't get to use it as evidence.

---possibly the same water that came from the previous time the earth was covered with water as some scientists mention here:

It's already been explained to you that the water didn't go anywhere.

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.

Perhaps you should address that before you start making up new dreck.

Also the fact that some scientists are now saying almost all of the earth was covered with water 2.5 billion years causes more problems for evolutionists because that reduces the time that the alleged evolution of millions and millions of highly diverse land species such as dinosaurs, land animals, birds, insects, land plants, humans, trees, ferns etc. had time to evolve.

Why is this a problem, DOC?

What have your calculations revealed to be the minimum time for evolution to have reached its current state?

When you add to this that there are hardly any transitional specie fossils when they should be all over the place and evolution has some serious problems.

This garbage doesn't need to be added to anything.

All species are transitional, despite the lies that your apologetic websites tell you.

Also, the scientists in the article said that not even fish had evolved yet 2.5 billion years ago.

And?



When will you be responding to this, DOC:

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.

Wednesday?