For Genesis Deluge Doubters

About 2500 BC. to 2499 BC, or something like that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The most interesting post-ark problem Woodmorappe discusses concerns the genetic diversity. Unfortunately, Woodmorappe appeals to a period of rapid mutation after the flood to restore genetic diversity. Very little justification for this is given. Having rejected the accepted rates of molecular clocks Woodmorappe is forced to talk about "mutator genes" which cause mutations, radioactivity and the mutagenic effects of a stressful environment (citing a creationist source). He refers to a "burst of mutations among Noah's immediate post-Flood descendants". This appeal to phenomenon with no apparent cause occurs far too frequently."

http://www.answersincreation.org/noah_ark_feasibility_study.htm

"A period of rapid genetic mutation." Wow, IAC, I never knew you supported the idea of "punctuated equilibrium."

The bold section of the excerpt above really sums up IAC's Theory:

B]This appeal to phenomenon with no apparent cause occurs far too frequently.[/B]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Syngameons baby syngameons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Syngameons baby syngameons."

I wonder if it's a lack of response like the one above which makes no one believe your hypothesis?

So no response to the fossil problem?

 

Any extreme reduction in a breeding population would be reflected in the genome. There are indications that humanity was reduced to some 10-15K people at one point, but this is not universal among all creatures, and certainly not all at the same time, and certainly not around the time frame some suggest for a great extinction event around 2,000 BC.

 

Every so often I am reminded of why I skim that BS:

God's hand is nowhere so evident as in guiding the debris of an exploded planet into comet-like orbits. Praise !

Still no argument against my large slow ice comet improvement, which also explains the distribution of the animals on the continents and both the origin and fate of the water in the deluge - thereby cutting the number of impossibilities by at least three, immediately.

If we can get the impossibilities cut down to just four or five, and especially get them out of the realms of physics and geology and into the more easily long-conned fields of evolutionary biology and waterzoo maintenance, we have a chance to put this one over, I think.

btw: I missed something - how did we figure out that the ark floated around for a year or more?

 

iceaura, just out of curiosity. Does the water comet theory explain the fossil record?

 

Not yet, but one thing at a time, man. I'm just trying to get the impossibilities out of ridiculous physics and into ludicrous biology where the camo is better.

The water comet does explain the continental distros of the fossils, by how the continents were split apart as the earth swelled. So that's a start. And I think the enormous pounding rain can be imagined to have stirred up the dead beasties, and they would have settled large beastie first like coffee grounds in a stirred cup, so the layering with the dinos on the bottom is explained.

I think all the plants, pollen, seeds, algae, fungal spores, etc, can be ignored. That's traditional, and tradition comforts the mark. If anyone asks, we'll explain them by calling them syngameons.

So the major problem left might be all the people's skeletons. How's this: we know they lived in one area, all wicked together, so maybe that area hasn't been investigated yet - it's Antarctica, pushed to the South by the swelling earth and the site of the final collision with the remaining unmelted ice of the comet. They're all under the icecap of Antarctica.

Work for you?

 

LOL. Very nice. I love it.

 

Hey Laika, how do you like that information in the link which opens this thread, what do you have to say about all that water down there?

 

IAC the article you have brought to our attention states:"It [the water] doesn’t exist as a liquid ocean, but rather locked up as countless molecules of hydrogen and oxygen inside the crystals that make up rocks."

The Sun too contains molecules of hydrogen and oxygen, would you like to claim that as the source of water for the GF"M"!?

 

"Scientists have come to suspect that most of the Earth's water is actually deep below ground.....discovered that other minerals in the mantle are capable of storing water......Earth's mantle may hold up to five times the water as the oceans."

C'mon Benauld, get with the program.

 

Ok IAC, cite us some convincing evidence to demonstrate the change in the quantity of this stored water over time, since you use this concept in order to try and corroborate your idea...

P.S. You may want to look up the meaning of the word evidence prior to doing this.

 

They are estimating that there's five times the water of the oceans below the crust, so since so much magma has spilled out through the midoceanic ridges, composed of about 80% water by weight, the water content below the crust was probably about six times the amount of water in the oceans before the Deluge.

The compressed water below the crust is superheated to a temperature to be steam, but the pressure of confinement keeps it in a liquid but superheated state, so when it comes to the surface, the water expands forth as steam, magma released in water causes the released steam to become liquid water in the ocean water, the "fountains of the deep."

 

Once again IAC you are skillfully avoiding my question. What EVIDENCE not ASSUMPTION leads you to believe that there "was" 6 times more water, rather than 5, pre-flood?

 

The scientists are just scratching the surface about the conditions below the Earth's crust, but these days, they're estimating 5X below, and since volatiles (superheated water) tend to escape (ie Deluge), 6X is a reasonable estimate, as 5X is water they estimate today below.

Even without the Deluge, such escape would be expected over the alleged billions of years.

 

No. The deluge is the phenomenon you are attempting to explain it cannot simultaneously be the mechanism for it as well!

 

I never said it was!

 

Exactly. Good point Benauld.

 

Yes you did, re-read the dialogue above. Furthermore could you please divulge your source for magma comprising the fantastical figure of 80% water by weight!? From my reading around the average is actually around 2 – 10% by weight. By the way the wt% of water in any magma is dependent upon pressure anyway.