Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I have some questions if I may, in reference to the flood, dinosaurs and other animals.
Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark? Its just with all the species that have lived on earth I don't get how Noah would have only needed to take between 2-3000. Even with mammals there are various subclasses like placental mammals, marsupials and monotremes. Which type were taken onto the ark? If it was placental mammals then how do we have marsupials and monotremes today.
I read earlier that no sea or freshwater creatures were taken on board the ark. How do you explain the amount of sealife and freshwater animals that we have today? There are more than 30,000 species of fish alone. The specific gravity change of saltwater and the temperature drop would have wiped out pretty much everything. And if the food chain was affected too much by plankton and zooplankton die off then that would have been catastrophic. Yet we have all these species today.
And onto the dinosaurs. When you say 'types' of dinosaurs what do you mean by type? Genera? Order? Class? Species? And the ones that survived or didn't survive would have an effect on the animals today. Without Sarchosuchus or Megalodon we wouldn't have the types of sharks or crocs that we have today.
It's a pointless question, if I may say so, since it never happened.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
Quote:Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark?
Not only is there no such list but their fucking bible cannot even agree on the numbers of each animals taken aboard. It's another one of those damned contradictions that they swear do not exist.
Quote:You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Gen. 6:19
Quote:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Gen 7 2-3
They can twist their scrotums into knots trying to explain how this contradiction is NOT a contradiction. Perhaps one of them will try for our amusement?
(November 2, 2010 at 9:03 pm)Linkacious Wrote: Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark?
Already asked Statler for this list but he didn't produce it. Just kept spouting that there were not as many as there are today and simply avoided the question.
Here is a more rational explanation of what animals may have been on the ark (presuming it existed at all). http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/animals.htm
Its a nice take which could be believable in that its a real story that got inflated beyond all proportion by the time it was added to the bible.
However, this description is an epic fail in terms of obeying gods command for two of every animal.
Here is some waffle on kinds vs species. Amazing how they propose that some desert tribesman could have built something so big, something that big wasn't built by us until the last century or so.... http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-n...imals.html
Its really funny how they talk about there being limited "kinds" when referring to land creatures, but then are happy to talk about there being thousands of species when talking about aquatic animals.
And can you imagine how he could have employed all the people necessary to build such a big ship?
Quote:Worker: So, you want us build a big ship for you Mr. Noah?
Noah: Yes, that's right. God gave me the specifications.
Worker: Yeah, right, whatever you say sir. As long as you have the money. I presume you have enough money for this project, i mean, you don't seem to be overloaded with Gold or precious gems... And anyway why do you need this ship?
Noah: Because God is going to send a big flood that will kill everything on this planet except for me, a few friends, and a whole bunch of animals i will put on board.
Worker: What? So you want us to build you this ship, then God is going to kill us all?
Noah: No, not all, me and my family and close friends get to live.
Worker: Screw you mister, build your own damn ship then. I'm off to build one for myself and my family. I'm also changing religion to worship Baal, Yahweh can go f**k himself.
Some Jewish take on it (scroll down to the inmates of the ark). http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj106.htm
According to this it was the animals who built the ark! You see, Christianity isn't the most insane religion in the world!!!
November 3, 2010 at 6:41 pm (This post was last modified: November 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
Quote: I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology. How about you? So what you are saying is that the current classifcation scheme which has been worked out by tens of thousands of scientists over the last 400 years (and accounts for variations within species as well as among different species) is wrong, but yours is right because it is based on a collection of books of questionable provenence written by nomadic people over 2,000 years ago. Sorry, I was assuming that you actually knew what you were talking about. You can be sure that I won't make that mistake again, particularly since you have yet to provide your list of 50 "kinds" of dinosaurs, and the fact that you've yet to explain why they went extinct.
Getting published in a journal that is reviewed by a bunch of like minded reviewers really is not all that impressive. You should try and get published in one where not everyone is pulling for your side sometime. Anyways, since you have been published I am surprised you are not aware that there are 59 families of Dinosaurs. So my statement that there are around 50 different kinds of dinosaurs is completely accurate, inspite of your claims to the contrary.
Wow Scientists have been classifying dinosaurs for the last 400 years? So they were classifying animals that would not be discovered for another 250 years? I take it all back, you guys really are good at what you do! :-P
Don't pretned for a second that you have any idea how the dinosaurs went extinct. Nobody on your side of the aisle can even remotely agree on that issue. It's a pretty simple question to answer on my side of the aisle. There was a great bottleneck at the flood. Dinosaurs were very rare after the flood due to a scarcity of their primary food.
Quote: Here is a common structure that indicates a common ancestry - DNA. Perhaps you've heard of it. Are you saying that even though every species on the planet has DNA as master blueprint, that we can throw that out as evidence that all species are related because DNA isn't mentioned in the Bible? Well, sir, this is exactly why you should not be attempting to use the Bible as a science book. It isn't a science book. It is a religious text, and was intended as a religious text. Your god of the gaps is going to have to do a lot better than this, if this is all you have. The fact is that in order to try to convince people that you are right, you have to throw out every single law of physics and hard-won scientific principle, and that, sir, is not how science is done. All that does is prove that you are just another crakpot. Congratulations.
Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor? That's a ridiculous argument and quite frankly is kind of sad you would even try and use it. A common designer would use common building blocks, pretty simple. DNA has essentially killed your theory, until you can show us a beneficial mutation that increases information and effects morphology you have no leg to stand on and your beloved theory becomes just a faith based system. I already have a faith, why would I ever need your's?
Crackpot huh? I like to look at the words of Gandhi when personal attacks are used, "First they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you win." Looks like I am well on my way to winning this discussion.
Quote: Dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. I do make the claim (and can back it up by massive volumes of data collected by myself and thousands of other geologists the world over) that the geologic database records the history of the Earth because it DOES record the history of the Earth, it's processes, and life forms. What do you think it records, dufus?
Archosaurs huh? What did they evolve from? How do you know dinosaurs evolved from them? Where are the intermidate fossils that are never in textbooks?
Dufus huh? I will just quote Gandhi again here. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Looks like you are well on your way to losing this debate.
Quote: Who said that plate tectonics includes no catastrophic events? Geologists aren't making this claim. Ever hear of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens?
Then why would you make the mistake of assuming that the layers of strata were layed down over long periods of time rather than very quickly like we observed with Mt. St. Helens? The evidence clearly points to catestrophic events rather than long gradual accumulation. Yet you ignore this evidence because you are either ignorant of it, or are not objectively seeking valid explainations to Earth's history.
Quote: You assume a global flood occurred with no evidence to support your claim. Plate teconics doesn't assume anything about whether or not a global flood ever occurred. That fairy tale was put to rest long before plate tectonics was ever conceived. Sorry dude, Santa Claus is still a fairy tale, and so is the Biblical flood.
Actually we have eye wittness acounts that the flood did occur. That alone is infinitely more evidence than you have since you have no direct obsrvation of your claims. To go along with the eye wittness account we actually have mountains of evidence that supports a global flood event. It just happens to be the same evidence you try to use to support your claims. Kind of funny how evidence requires interpretation huh? Figured you would have known this by now. We have observation, you don't.
Quote: According to the Biblical account, the flood proceeded until "until all the high mountains are covered fifteen cubits deep". Mt. Everest certainly is a high mountain, the highest, in fact, and so it must, according to the fairy tale, have been covered with at least 15 cubits of water. And that means that the flood would have been at least 29,029 feet above mean sea level (+ about 15 cubits). And if so, then there had to have been a crapload of water released (which no one can figure out from where it came, and to where it went). And so you also cannot claim, that the mountains were formed during the flood, because the Bible makes clear that the mountains already existed (not to mention that there is no evidence anywhere on the planet of "high mountains" or any other mountain forming in the past 10,000 years). The fact is that the only "evidence" you can claim is that "god did it", which is not evidence at all, since you can't even show that it ever happened at all.
Just because it says mountains were present before the flood doesn't mean that ALL the mountains were present. I am sure you are aware that mountains are formed in different ways. The mountains (including Everest) that were formed by Plate Tectonics would have been formed during flood- year. These mountains would have pushed the waters back into the oceans never to return again which is what is described in the Bible. Even your buddies on your side will admit that Everest was covered with water at some point in time because of the finding of Marine fossils on it. We both agree that these fossils were deposited before its upheaval. You just get your dates wrong, I don't blame you though considering all the methods you use don't take into account the flood. I would get my dates wrong too if I didn't account for it. The drastic plate tectonics would have also formed the deepest oceanic trenches to capture more water as it receded. Even Jacques Cousteau admitted that if you leveled out the highest mountains and the deepest trenches (which would have been just like pre-flood Earth) there is enough water in the Oceans to cover the Earth by 10,000 feet. So we have more than enough water.
Quote: Given a more "pure genome"? This sounds a lot like you believe that it takes racial purity to live a long live such as that which allegedly occurred in the bible. Wow, you and Adolf no doubt could have been great friends. Do point out on what professional publication on genetics lead you to this astounding conclusion. Whether or not the Chinese built large boats is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the Chinese or Chinese boats (which, at any rate, cannot hold two of every "kind" of animal that currently exists, much less two of ever kind thaqt existed at the time of the Noah fairy tale). Try to stay on topic.
Did your "B.S.-meter" go off while you were typing this? If it did not then maybe you need to get it looked at. Obviously genetics is not your strong point. Where did I say anything about races? Talk about strawman arguments.
You tell me to stay on topic and yet you bring in Adolf Hitler (A Darwinst btw)? I am sure you are aware that Darwin believed that Europeans were vastly superior to Blacks and he predicted the Blacks would be exterminated along with the other great apes right? So don't lecture me about racism, at least the Bible realized that all races are still humans and not different species like Darwin believed.
Anywways, back to my original point which you obviously didn't comprehend, so I will keep this very very simple for you. As humans genetic material replicates it does so with errors. It accumulates these errors over time. Outside events can also increase entropy and increase the rate at which these errors occur. Humans would have been created with a pure genome free of error. As more generations accumulate, these errors would also accumulate so our DNA is not a pure today as it would have been in the time of Noah. Pretty simple 7th grade stuff. Any geneticist will tell you that our genome today has more errors and harmful mutations in it than our great grandfather's would have. You should probably avoid genetics from now on.
If you still don't understand this I will use a really simple analogy for you. If you right a computer code for a software program, you can run that program for long periods of time without experiencing any problems. However, when you copy that program errors occur in the replication. So a copy of a copy of a copy of the original code will crash more often and experience far more problems than tthe original program because it was more "pure". Get it? Kind of funny though, since you are a Darwinist you actually believe that you could start off with a floppy of code and copy it enough times and end up with Windows Vista, just a side note haha.
So when someone says that "nobody could build a boat that large out of only wood!", and the fact that the Chinese did built a boat the same size out of wood is irrelevant? I see how you form your arguments now, ignore the evidence that refutes your claims. Nice.
[/hide]
(November 2, 2010 at 3:13 am)Chuck Wrote: The funny thing is he doesn't even know what plate tectonics is, since he says plate tectonics when he meant just tectonics, and has no idea that actual plate tectonics offers a direct explanation of why life widely separated by oceans can share genetic ancestry which mystify him. But he will no doubt strike out with yet another bullshit to obscure this gaff, nor let that stop him from sprouting more bullshit about "catastrophic plate tectonics".
The clown could hardly realize that if earth's atmosphere were to be filled with enough water vapor to rain out to cover the highest mountain top under 30 cubits, the mass of the atmosphere would increase 1000 times, and the atmosphere pressure at sea level would be nearly about 15000 psi, or about 4 times the pressure that would burst a scuba diving tank. But I will give him till his next post to pull something out of his ass to try to deflect this annoying fact. Perhaps the "pure genome" allows humans to survive pressure 10 times that of the venetian atmosphere? Perhaps the water came directly from god's bladder and was thus never in the atmosphere of earth? Perhaps conservation of mass or energy should be discarded when the first principle of biblical inerrancy is under threat? Perhaps something even more moronic?
[/hide]
Guess what! When I said Catestrophic Plate Tectonics I meant.....Catestrphic Plate Tectonics! Imagine that. Since Plate Tectonics is defined at the "large scale movement of the Earth's lithosphere", which was exactly what I was talking about. It's not my fault you can't understand that.
Maybe you should read the Biblical story of the flood before you try and argue against it. It never says all the water came from rain. It also never says that all the mountains that are present today were present during the flood, actually it talks of new mountains pushing the waters back to the oceans. So all of your hype about water vapor and pressure is irrelevant. That was easy.
(November 2, 2010 at 9:03 pm)Linkacious Wrote: I have some questions if I may, in reference to the flood, dinosaurs and other animals.
Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark? Its just with all the species that have lived on earth I don't get how Noah would have only needed to take between 2-3000. Even with mammals there are various subclasses like placental mammals, marsupials and monotremes. Which type were taken onto the ark? If it was placental mammals then how do we have marsupials and monotremes today.
I read earlier that no sea or freshwater creatures were taken on board the ark. How do you explain the amount of sealife and freshwater animals that we have today? There are more than 30,000 species of fish alone. The specific gravity change of saltwater and the temperature drop would have wiped out pretty much everything. And if the food chain was affected too much by plankton and zooplankton die off then that would have been catastrophic. Yet we have all these species today.
And onto the dinosaurs. When you say 'types' of dinosaurs what do you mean by type? Genera? Order? Class? Species? And the ones that survived or didn't survive would have an effect on the animals today. Without Sarchosuchus or Megalodon we wouldn't have the types of sharks or crocs that we have today.
Thanks for actually asking serious questions. This is a lot more interesting when people do that.
Well I know these answers will most likely not satisfy you but I will give you answers. The "kinds" of animals does not fall directly into any particular classification. It is different for different animals but it hovers right about the Genus and Family level. Even pretty liberal estimates of which animals would have been needed on the Ark puts the number around 5000, but more realistic estimates puts it about 2500. This includes dinosaurs and other extinct animals. Given the huge amount of space in the Ark, there would have been more than enough space for either estimate. Darwin actually helped Creationists out by popularizing an idea that was held by a few creationists even before him that speciation could occur by natural means. This means that Noah would not have to bring all 30 million species on the Ark.
Well the Ocean's salinity level is increasing (evidence for young oceans actually), a lot of the salt would have been deposited by the flood so many of the saltwater fish we see now would have been fresh water fish before the flood. This is not real difficult to imagine since Trout and Salmon are very similiar, the only big difference is what kind of water they live in. Some species of sharks can also survive in fresh water.
As for the Dinosaurs, the way we classify Dinosaurs is really ambiguous since we have not directly observed them. We do not know which ones could breed and still produce fertile offspring so it becomes even more of a guessing game than modern day classifying. There are 59 families of Dinosaurs so it is believed that this is about how many pairs of them would have been brought onto the ark. Dinosaurs would have been very rare after the flood because of the difference in climate. They most likely just gradually died off, even though there are still modern day accounts of people seeing what they believe are dinosaurs. So who really knows, people didn't believe the Coelacanth was still around either until 1938.
Animals that did become extinct due to the flood or shortly after would definitely have affect other animals, but these animals would have had to just adapt and survive right?
(November 3, 2010 at 1:02 am)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark?
Not only is there no such list but their fucking bible cannot even agree on the numbers of each animals taken aboard. It's another one of those damned contradictions that they swear do not exist.
Quote:You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Gen. 6:19
Quote:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Gen 7 2-3
They can twist their scrotums into knots trying to explain how this contradiction is NOT a contradiction. Perhaps one of them will try for our amusement?
You should probably take this up more with the people who translated the Bible into English, not the original inspired text (which was in Hebrew).
The Hebrew word used in the first verse that is translated as "creatures" means "unclean land animals". This word is translated that way in the second verse when it says to take two pairs of every 'unclean animal". Same word. So no problem here. Nice try though, at least you actually made an effort and not just a baseless assertion this time.
[
(November 3, 2010 at 3:12 am)Loki_999 Wrote:
(November 2, 2010 at 9:03 pm)Linkacious Wrote: Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark?
Already asked Statler for this list but he didn't produce it. Just kept spouting that there were not as many as there are today and simply avoided the question.
Here is a more rational explanation of what animals may have been on the ark (presuming it existed at all). http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/animals.htm
Its a nice take which could be believable in that its a real story that got inflated beyond all proportion by the time it was added to the bible.
However, this description is an epic fail in terms of obeying gods command for two of every animal.
Here is some waffle on kinds vs species. Amazing how they propose that some desert tribesman could have built something so big, something that big wasn't built by us until the last century or so.... http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-n...imals.html
Its really funny how they talk about there being limited "kinds" when referring to land creatures, but then are happy to talk about there being thousands of species when talking about aquatic animals.
And can you imagine how he could have employed all the people necessary to build such a big ship?
Quote:Worker: So, you want us build a big ship for you Mr. Noah?
Noah: Yes, that's right. God gave me the specifications.
Worker: Yeah, right, whatever you say sir. As long as you have the money. I presume you have enough money for this project, i mean, you don't seem to be overloaded with Gold or precious gems... And anyway why do you need this ship?
Noah: Because God is going to send a big flood that will kill everything on this planet except for me, a few friends, and a whole bunch of animals i will put on board.
Worker: What? So you want us to build you this ship, then God is going to kill us all?
Noah: No, not all, me and my family and close friends get to live.
Worker: Screw you mister, build your own damn ship then. I'm off to build one for myself and my family. I'm also changing religion to worship Baal, Yahweh can go f**k himself.
Some Jewish take on it (scroll down to the inmates of the ark). http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj106.htm
According to this it was the animals who built the ark! You see, Christianity isn't the most insane religion in the world!!!
Still, at the end of the day, no list to be found anywhere.
I never dodged your question, I gave you an answer. We don't know the exact number because scripture never gives it. Not sure why that is so hard to see.
You guys keep saying that boats that size were never built until last century but you must be clearly ignorant of your history. The Chinese built boats completely out of wood using the same technology that Noah would have had available. These boats not only floated (all Noah's would have had to do) but they sailed.
Give a man with centuries of construction experience 120 years and groups of workers and he can build a boat that size. This is way more likely than the Gilgamesh epic where he builds a cube shaped boat in six days. When it comes down to it, you don't believe the story becuse you don't want to, not because it couldn't happen. This is obvious considering everyone of you beleives in things that are way more unlikely than the Ark story (Common Descent, Abiogenesis).
(November 3, 2010 at 3:20 am)Chuck Wrote: How many pairs of each of over one million species of described insects?
We've already covered this, species does not equal "kind".
November 3, 2010 at 9:20 pm (This post was last modified: November 3, 2010 at 10:10 pm by orogenicman.)
Quote:Getting published in a journal that is reviewed by a bunch of like minded reviewers really is not all that impressive. You should try and get published in one where not everyone is pulling for your side sometime. Anyways, since you have been published I am surprised you are not aware that there are 59 families of Dinosaurs. So my statement that there are around 50 different kinds of dinosaurs is completely accurate, inspite of your claims to the contrary.
Certainly being published in the mostly widely respected journal on invertebrate paleontolotgy lends more weight to my arguments (and is far more impressive) than does the fact that you obviously have little, if any science training whatsoever. I might add that if you knew anything about publishing in such journals, then you would know how difficult it is to acheive publication regardless of your background. Even the most respected paleontologists have to wade through the backlog, and convince the peer reviewers of the validity of their arguments. Secondly, your argument that the biblical "kinds" of animals included on Noah's ark refer to the Linean "family" classification is simply ludicrous since it assumes that tribal peoples of the Middle East some 4,000 years ago had any concept of such a classification, when the fact of the matter is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support such an assumption. Third, you originally said there were only 50 kinds of dinosaurs, and now you are saying that there are 59. The problem, sir, is that it is arrogant of you to propose an ad hoc nomenclature scheme that no one in the scientific community accepts as valid, particularly since it is by and large meaningless for the purposes of biological classification. And finally, your argument is nothing but a diversion from the fact that there is simply no scientific evidence whatsoever that a global flood ever occurred, not in Noah's time or any other.
Quote:Wow Scientists have been classifying dinosaurs for the last 400 years? So they were classifying animals that would not be discovered for another 250 years? I take it all back, you guys really are good at what you do! :-P
That is not what I said. If you are having a problem reading the English language may I suggest the Harbrace Handbook?
Quote:Don't pretned for a second that you have any idea how the dinosaurs went extinct. Nobody on your side of the aisle can even remotely agree on that issue. It's a pretty simple question to answer on my side of the aisle. There was a great bottleneck at the flood. Dinosaurs were very rare after the flood due to a scarcity of their primary food.
Yes, I'm certain that it is quite easy for the rather simple minds in your camp to answer such a question when all you have to do is to pull one out of your ass. Unfortunately for you simpletons, science requires considerably more evidence than the circular argument that "god did it".
Quote:Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
Quote:So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor? That's a ridiculous argument and quite frankly is kind of sad you would even try and use it.
As a matter of fact, all microcomputers do have a common ancestry in that they are all descended from the IBM x86 format. That you haven't a clue in this regard comes as no surprise whatsoever. Do you deny that all life on Earth is DNA-based?
Quote:A common designer would use common building blocks, pretty simple. DNA has essentially killed your theory, until you can show us a beneficial mutation that increases information and effects morphology you have no leg to stand on and your beloved theory becomes just a faith based system. I already have a faith, why would I ever need your's?
First of all, I didn't originate the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you. Secondly, DNA is the very pinnacle of evolutionary theory. If you don't believe that DNA affects morphology, I suggest you pick up a book on genetics and read it, because, damn, that is just about the dumbest statement I've ever heard a creationist make. And that's saying a lot. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof. Religion is faith-based. Science is not, unless you are truly stupid enough to suggest that it takes an act of faith to understand the laws of physics. And finally, if you are so anti-science, why are you using it to post these absurd messages? If you truly want to portray yourself as a purist, why not sell everything you own that owes its existence to science (that'd be pretty much everything you own), and become truly pure (and leave the science to those of us who actually understand it)?
Quote:Crackpot huh?
I was being kind.
Quote:I like to look at the words of Gandhi when personal attacks are used, "First they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you win." Looks like I am well on my way to winning this discussion.
Tell me more about these delusions you've been having. I do enjoy fiction.
Quote:How do you know dinosaurs evolved from them?
Morphology. If this word is too big for you, buy a dictionary.
Quote:Where are the intermidate fossils that are never in textbooks?
They are in the textbooks. Clue- the Bible is not a science textbooks, so obviously you won't find them there.
Quote:Dufus huh?
Again, I was being kind.
Quote:Then why would you make the mistake of assuming that the layers of strata were layed down over long periods of time rather than very quickly like we observed with Mt. St. Helens?
It is not an assumption. All you have to do is meet me at the Creation museum for an afternoon geology field trip and all your questions can be answered. It is not an assumption. Not all layers of strata were laid down "like we observed with Mt. Sty. Helens". In fact, most were not laid down in such a fashion. Sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks are easily distinguichable and have unrelated origins. Secondly, we can measure the rate and modality of deposition in modern sediments and compare them to ancient sediments. This is called science, a notion that apparently escaped you.
Quote:The evidence clearly points to catestrophic events rather than long gradual accumulation.
What evidence, where? Are you saying that all lake sediments are deposited in catastrophic events? All ocean sediments are deposited in catastrophic events? If they were, we wouldn't see tens of thousands of feet of undisturbed sediments in nearly every corner of the globe. We would see highly disturbed strata. You do realize that the strata that Mt. St. Helens produced is chaotic and highly disturbed, right? of course you don't because you don't have a clue.
Undisturbed horizontal outcrop of sediments
Highly disturbed volcanic deposits
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
Quote:Actually we have eye wittness acounts that the flood did occur.
You might be able to push that lie on people in your camp. It isn't going to pass the smell test here, I'm afraid.
Quote:That alone is infinitely more evidence than you have since you have no direct obsrvation of your claims.
This is what passes for evidence in creationist circles? I've drill thousands of wells, logged thousands of feet of rock cores, and described hundreds of miles of rock outcrops in thirteen states. And I'm just one of thousands of geologists who have done the same. Got anything like that?
Quote:To go along with the eye wittness account we actually have mountains of evidence that supports a global flood event. It just happens to be the same evidence you try to use to support your claims. Kind of funny how evidence requires interpretation huh? Figured you would have known this by now. We have observation, you don't.
You have observation? Ha! You have about three pages of text from one ancient book of questionable provenence that was not written by any of your so-called eye witnesses, who, in fact, we don't know even existed. If you want to see all the evidence against your claims, I suggest you visit the geology section of the Library of Congress. Their collection is the largest on the planet, and were written by real people, many of whom are still alive. Or you could meet me at the Creation Museum and I can provide you with an entire afternoon of direct observation in the field.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
![[Image: fig10sm.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.kgs.ku.edu%2FGeophysics%2FOFR%2F2004%2FOFR04_41%2Fgifs%2Ffig10sm.jpg)
![[Image: 3406sar11.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.volcano.si.edu%2Fvolcanoes%2Fregion09%2Fkuril%2Fsarychev%2F3406sar11.jpg)
