• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

In 5½ years I don't recall DOC ever producing evidence in support of anything he's claimed.

That is why I find these threads a mixed bag. Entertaining but a little sad with lots of interesting info to learn. Not from DOC but those that respond to him.

Though really a lot of this stuff you don't really need to think that hard about to realize there is something fishy about it and it's not a flood causing it.
 
The author of Genesis is generally considered to be Moses.

From the article "In the Beginning God" By Dr. Hal Harless

"{Norman} Geisler explains the lines of evidence for this conclusion:

There are several lines of evidence to indicate that Moses, the
great lawgiver and deliverer of Israel who wrote the other four books of the
law, was the author of Genesis. (1) The earliest and continual tradition of
'the Jewish people, as recorded in the Talmud, attributes this book to
Moses. (2) Moses is the only person we know of from this early time peri
od who had the ability to write this book. The rest of the Israelites were a
nation of uneducated slaves, whereas Moses was a highly educated son
of the king (Acts 7:22). (3) Moses was the only one who had both the in
terest and information to write Genesis. Being Jewish Moses would havehad access to the family records of his ancestors (cf. Gen. 5:1; 10:1;
25:19; etc.) which were no doubt brought down to Egypt by Jacob (Gen.
46). Since Moses was bent on delivering his people from Egypt, it is nat
ural to assume that he was familiar with the promises of God passed down
by his forefathers that God would indeed deliver them (cf. Gen. 46:3–4;
Exod. 2:24). (4) Citations from Genesis show that the rest of the Old Test
ament regards it as part of the Law of Moses (Deut. 1:8; II Kings 13:23; I
Chron. 1:1ff.). Since Moses was the author of the other "books of Moses,"
as we will see later, it is reasonable to attribute the first book of Moses to
him as well..."

http://ffgreenville.org/notes/books/gen_2013/2013-01-27-gen-001-001.pdf

Hilited some of the problems.
 
This thread is not about my opinions.


If your opinion is that there wasn't a worldwide flood, then you are in disagreement with a literal reading of the Bible.

If your opinion is that there was a worldwide flood, then you are in disagreement with firm facts about the world.

If you are a Bible literalist, obfuscate for Jesus.
 
Do you know what person dated the strata; is there an article somewhere on that?

And if the actual fossils were not dated then they could very likely be younger than the strata if they were covered by the strata during a volcano or the churning up of the sea bed and the ground soil during a 150 day flood.

Do you know what person did the final edit on either one of the inherently contradictory Genesis creation myths*?

How about that chronology? I asked a loooong time ago...

*(...or name of the original collector or redactor of any one of the four separate source traditions, or the name of any of the original promulgators of any of the oral traditions so collected? Do note that I am not asking for your unsupported opinion--I want you to apply the same standards to your superstitions as reasonable peole apply to actual information...)
 
Last edited:
This thread is not about my opinions.

Not all opinions are created equal.

It's my professional opinion that that alluvial fans have a low paleontological sensitivity. This is based on extensive research, numerous field surveys, the definition of "high paleontological sensitivity" from multiple profesional and regulatory agencies, etc. However, it is still my opinion--and it's trivial to find those who disagree with my opinion. That said, my opinion is not simply pulled out of my back-side. I have evidence to support it.

It is my considered opinion that Shakespeare was not a good writer. I've done the research, and have had numerous discussions (including various degrees of violence) wiith literature professors on the topic; so my opinion has some basis in fact. However, I lack anything resembling expertise in this field, and I haven't done terribly extensive research here (meaning I've looked at his works and a number of critiques, but haven't made a full catelogue of criticisms the way some professors I know have).

It is my opinion that maille jewelry is more beautiful than normal jewelry. I can give some reasons for it, but when you get right down to it there's no other justification for my opinion other than "I feel that way". There CAN BE no other justification, either--opposing views are perfectly valid, after all.

It is my mere opinion that President Lincoln was a moron for not promoting Grant at the start of the war. I've done essentially no research, cannot cite valid sources, and have no data to support my claim. It is, in other words, nothing but an opinion.

The first two types of opinions certainly are the subject of this thread. You believe you are presenting either a professional or considered opinion. Opinions and mere opinions aren't the subject of this thread, but that's not what we are discussing.

And it's already been mentioned about the problems with carbon dating marine life and very old material.
Here's a fun little question I've found useful for dealing with statements like this: Who discovered the issues being presented? What you'll find is that Creationists have discovered NONE of the issues they claim disprove evolution. Every one of the valid "problems" (not all are) was discovered by a legitimate scientist, and the discoverers inevitably demonstrate that the "problem" isn't actually a problem.

Case in point: C14 dating. There are numerous potential pitfalls in this dating method. It's only really useful for Quaternary sediment, for example, and requires calibration. Then there's the fact that aquious organisms have biased results, and the fact that cosmogenic nucleotides are (well.....were, anyway) tied to solar cycles and supercycles. There are others as well. However, every single one of these "problems"--and more that Creationists never address--were discovered and addressed by scientists who accept the ancient age of the Earth. Young-Earth Creationists have not presenting a single problem with radiometric dating--or any other aspect of evolutionary theory--that is new to science. The problems that the old Creationists, who were legitimate scientists, presented regarding evolution have been addressed and are no longer problems (some turned out to be significant ways in which evolution does work).

One must ask one's self: If a source is so incompetant that they cannot identify any novel flaws in the methods they suppose so deeply flawed, and are so poorly-read that they are unaware of the answers to the identified pitfalls despite the fact that innumerable research articles have been written addressing them, exactly how much can one trust that source?
 
And then claim to have skimmed 30% of it, whilst at the same time misquoting the dust jacket blurb, repeatedly making reference to the same half-dozen pages that just coincidentally happen to be available in online reviews and asserting that the author, former skeptic Sir ___________ , is an atheist favourite and therefore cannot possibly be wrong when he says that goddidit.

I see what you did there...
 
Posted by DOC
This thread is not about my opinions.

It's exactly what the thread is about.

Your opinion that there's a relationship between the Biblical flood and the fish, squid and shrimp fossils found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru.

The thread title is a big giveaway.

No, the thread title is: Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru Reply to Thread

Question Marks are not opinions.

And Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils are found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
 
Last edited:
... And Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils are found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
See Answers in Genesis.
Long-age geology, big bang cosmology, secular archaeology, liberal theology, and philosophical attacks on miracles in the Bible have deceived many people.
It's a "long-age geology" fact!
 
In 5½ years I don't recall DOC ever producing evidence in support of anything he's claimed.
You still don't understand historical evidence. Why do you think Bart Ehrman gave the opinion that Jesus certainly existed. It's called "historical evidence".
 
Posted by DOC
This thread is not about my opinions.



No, the thread title is: Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru Reply to Thread

Question Marks are not opinions.

And Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils are found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

If we are talking about a global flood, why would fossils of marine animals be indicative, surely a layer of flood sediment would be full of terrestrial animals?
 
You still don't understand historical evidence. Why do you think Bart Ehrman gave the opinion that Jesus certainly existed. It's called "historical evidence".

Does Bart Ehrman have an opinion on the flood narrative?
 
If your opinion is that there wasn't a worldwide flood, then you are in disagreement with a literal reading of the Bible.
Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.
 
Last edited:
Posted by DOC
This thread is not about my opinions.

No, the thread title is: Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru Reply to Thread

Close, but no cigar--your editing and redaction skills rival those of the multiple, unidentified individuals who collected at least 4 different lines of oral traditions into at least two different sources--not to be surprised, like you, they had agenda that were more important than mere demonstrable, physical reality...

(In case that went over your head, the highlighted words are not part of the original title...)

Question Marks are not opinions.

And Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils are found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

And the fact that the fossils are much, much older than allowed for in a literal reading of either of the inherently contradictory creation myths found in Genesis led me to politely ask you for your opinion on the chronology, a question to which I have been waiting for an answer ever since.

It can't even be that you just have me on ignore--others (thank you, mighty Pharaoh! May you post forever!) have quoted the question in posts to which you have responded. Why are you reticent about demonstrating how you, personally, think that the age of the fossils in Peru, or the presence of the fossils atop the Himalayas, or the evidence of the time that has passed since the breakup of Pangea, can be reconciled with either of the inherently contradictory creation myths in Genesis?

Go on, address the issue. It won't hurt much...
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.
So the Bible has no more authority than "other ancient writings"?
 
Does Bart Ehrman have an opinion on the flood narrative?
I was simply responding to the personal attack of Akhenaten talking about 5 years of my posts which I have a right to do, since his personal attack dealt with other threads.
 
Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.

Ah, so the Bible isn't literal!

Which means Noah's flood was only a local event.

Which means you cannot assume it had any impact at all on Peruvian geology.

What, exactly, did you want to discuss?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom