Great Explanation of Global Flood Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not so, much of the contradictory evidence has been explained right here on sciforums. I'll reiterate just one, the fact that the genesis accounts have flowering plants appearing before animals, when in fact flowering plants did not appear until long after the animals.
 
Nutter said:
What is remarkable is that so far there is not one single piece of evidence that in any way falsifies the Biblical account of creation and increasing mountains of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Wow, Nutter, get your head out of your ass. This thread has nothing to do with the Genesis creation, and everything to do with IAC's Global Flood Model, as described in the link he posted. Keep in mind, the Global Flood Model presented in IAC's link contains ZERO evidence, only many assumptions which COULD be true (in fantasy land), but which in reality aren't.

So on this thread we are arguing about the age of the earth and whether or not a global flood occured. We are not discussing the Biblical account of creation, which I believe probably happened not in 7 literal days, but in 7 periods of time which lasted into the billions of years.

In any case, thanks for your baseless and useless comment though. :)
 
The geological evidence cited in the link is not "zero evidence," so pull your head out of your ass, get with the program, shake yourself, you can do it.
 
You call this evidence?

"Initiation

There has been considerable discussion -- both reasonable and fanciful -- about what event might have initiated the Flood. Considerations range from a) the direct hand of God [56-62,6-7]; b) the impact or near-miss of an astronomical objector objects such as asteroids [102], meteorites [74], a comet [116,75], a comet or Venus[11], Venus and Mars [109], Mars [76], Mars, Ceres and Jupiter [118], another moon of earth [9], and a star [10]; c) some purely terrestrial event or events, such as fracturing of the earth's crust due to drying [14] or radioactive heat buildup [36], rapid tilting of the earth due to gyro turbulence [71] or ice sheet buildup [54], and natural collapse of rings of ice [114,103]; or d) various combinations of these ideas. We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. We are, however, not ready at this time to speculate on what event or events might have initiated that subduction. We feel that considerable research is still needed to evaluate potential mechanisms in the light of how well they can produce global subduction."

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

Wow, that's just brilliant, IAC. The initiation is the most important part of your hypothesis since "runaway plate techtonics" cannot occur without something to start it up. Oh well.

Any other links to fairy tales for us?
 
Its a while since I've studied it, but from what I remember there seemed to be a lot more data suggesting the Black Sea was already filled to the brim with fresh water by the time sea level reconnected it with the Med than there did suggesting a deluge. I'll see if I can dig out my old notes some time.
 
The Old Black Sea basin infilled with saltwater when the Ice Age ended for sea level to rise a few hundred feet and breach the Bosporus, up the river which flowed down from the Old Black Sea to the Aegean.
 
That's one of the reasons why I think the Flood was global and that the Bible is recording history and not "stories" His story or....History. Some say that history is written by leaders and victors. In this case what perhaps is quite rare is similar to identical accounts...like an ancient new media...recording the same event. Thus despite what scientist say...the Flood has definitely reocorded history not fable.

Yes, the number of Global Deluge legends is probably closer to 500.
Click to expand...
FASCINATING... 500...
 
Saquist said:
That's one of the reasons why I think the Flood was global and that the Bible is recording history and not "stories" His story or....History. Some say that history is written by leaders and victors. In this case what perhaps is quite rare is similar to identical accounts...like an ancient new media...recording the same event. Thus despite what scientist say...the Flood has definitely reocorded history not fable.
Click to expand...

Saquist - don't you think this could be evidence of the power of the story rather than evidence that it happened. The scientific evidence of a global flood is non-existent! There are also many other problems:

  • Any 'Noah' would have to travel the world for millenia to get samples of every species. We are still finding new species today.
  • Salt water species would also be wiped out - unless it was sea water - in which case, most fresh water creatures would have died.
  • Most plants die after a lengthy flood - there would be an obvious lack of food until seeds could grow again (several weeks after the flood).
  • Carnivores would eat all the herbivores, and then starve without fresh meat.
  • The global distribution of species is not uniform. There are no penguins in the Arctic, or polar bears in the Antarctic, or kangaroos in the northern hemisphere, or red squirrels in the USA. How did all these species land up only in certain places if they all spread from a single Ark? Don't tell me the kangeroos all hopped to Australia before they had offspring.
  • Conversely, how did species that occur everywhere get all round the world (even between continents with no land bridges).

It is an allegory, a myth - and as such a very good one (as shown by the fact that it occurs in so many cultures). Allegorical truth is a form of truth (like the parables or myths - they express human truths without needing to be literally true).

To claim that Genesis is history just bucks the evidence, and all common sense!
 
Diogenes' Dog said:
Saquist - don't you think this could be evidence of the power of the story rather than evidence that it happened. The scientific evidence of a global flood is non-existent! There are also many other problems:

  • Any 'Noah' would have to travel the world for millenia to get samples of every species. We are still finding new species today.
  • Salt water species would also be wiped out - unless it was sea water - in which case, most fresh water creatures would have died.
  • Most plants die after a lengthy flood - there would be an obvious lack of food until seeds could grow again (several weeks after the flood).
  • Carnivores would eat all the herbivores, and then starve without fresh meat.
  • The global distribution of species is not uniform. There are no penguins in the Arctic, or polar bears in the Antarctic, or kangaroos in the northern hemisphere, or red squirrels in the USA. How did all these species land up only in certain places if they all spread from a single Ark? Don't tell me the kangeroos all hopped to Australia before they had offspring.
  • Conversely, how did species that occur everywhere get all round the world (even between continents with no land bridges).

It is an allegory, a myth - and as such a very good one (as shown by the fact that it occurs in so many cultures). Allegorical truth is a form of truth (like the parables or myths - they express human truths without needing to be literally true).

To claim that Genesis is history just bucks the evidence, and all common sense!
Click to expand...


It's no use dude. You wasted all that time typing your post for not. Debating with theists is just a little bit less productive than debating with, say a stump, or maybe a brick wall. The results are usually strkingly similar with each.
I've already brought up the point that if the sea level rose that much (which it never would because all the melted ice, etc. in the world would only cause the sea level to rise ~100ft), the change (i.e. drastic decrease) in salinity of the ocean would kill the salt water creatures).
Common sense eludes them. Reasoning eludes them. Logic eludes them. The only thing that doesn't elude them is the contents of a centuries old, contradicting, vague, supposedly inerrant book, that contains pretty much no scientific data whatsoever.
 
No, I want to know about the decorations, not the scientists. Were they colourful, dramatic, shiny? Did they dominate the room (and the scientists)? Can you buy replicas on e-bay? We deserve to know. We demand to know. You cannot ignore our humble needs. Tell us now.
 
No, no. Tell me, do. We all deserve to know about the decorations. Shiny, bright decorations. Woe is me. No decorations for Ophiolite. How sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top