Noah's Flood...

[Guest]

Probably containing remains of both marine and land animals

the question needs to be asked, would land and sea animals be deposited in the sediment layer given the action of the water upon receeding?

And to be found wherever you dig, anywhere on Earth - both on land and sea.

how deep though?

if you have 100 square miles of flood depoists, but nothing beyond the range, then logical says you've found evidence of a flood covering 100 sqaure miles

wouldn't some of the flood layer be destroyed by all the natural and man-made activities? you make a good point but logically wouldn't it make sense that that flood layer would be destroyed due to immediate activity after the fllod? noah planted a vineyard, wouldn't those plants go down into that layer and ruin the sterility of it?

I know you're quoting him out of context 'cos I've got the book

i amnot trying to quote himoutof context but sincei do not want to type in pages upon pages of text, i look for the best quotes possible. i never said he agre with him but this is what he says before he starts discussing the theory:

pg. 153 "Hapgood desrves credit on at least two grounds. For one, he was always a serious scholar,amanof remarkable intellctual integrity...

His second accomplishement was rescuing theidea of pole shifting from earlier writers like ...Velikovsky and...Browm."

so he may not believe it but he certainly doesn't put it in a bad light either.

if there was a Flood we have hundreds upon hundreds of inexplicables

science still has a use in creationism after all.

[Minimalist]

PWND is the next step above OWNED. It's a gamer's term. It means you got beat really bad. Doc, tone down the insults a little. You write some really good posts, but your attitude kinda sux. This isn't a contest.

Then I don't understand WTF he was talking about anyway. Perhaps he was stoned last night?

I thought I did a fair job dealing with Arch's questions. I doubt he will be able to come up with any evidence to answer them but it would not be for lack of trying. It would be because there is no such evidence to be found.

[Frank Harrist]

The depth would not be uniform for all parts of the globe. Some places have different factors to consider, such as volcanic ash, or very dry climates would have thick layers of dust. Detritus would build up more slowly on say a mountaintop as opposed to a low valley. There is no simple answer to this question. The first thing to do would be to look for evidence of said flood in ice cores from antarctica and greenland. That has been done and no such evidence has been found. I don't advoctae giving up simply because of that, but it don't look too good for the flood theory.

[Guest]

thought I did a fair job dealing with Arch's questions

did you read my response? with the interlopers running around here things get lost real quick. i thought i pointed out some weaknesses in your presentation. it was a good response but i thought it was too unrealistic in requiring that kind of evidence.

essan made a good response in which i asked some questions in return.

i am not saying i am going to produce evidence right away ,if at all. i just want to have an idea of what you are looking for since what i have presented wasn't good enough for you.

[Frank Harrist]

Another thought just occured to me. If there was such a flood and it didn't cover every mountain to the top, but just the mountains in the general vicinity of Noah and his clan, then there should be a "high water mark" on mountains which are higher. Just a thought.

[Minimalist]

thought I did a fair job dealing with Arch's questions

did you read my response? with the interlopers running around here things get lost real quick. i thought i pointed out some weaknesses in your presentation. it was a good response but i thought it was too unrealistic in requiring that kind of evidence.

essan made a good response in which i asked some questions in return.

i am not saying i am going to produce evidence right away ,if at all. i just want to have an idea of what you are looking for since what i have presented wasn't good enough for you.

Wait a minute. You asked what type of evidence would be needed to sustain the bible story. When the questions were answered you don't get to say its unreasonable. The evidence doesn't exist because the event never happened.

[Frank Harrist]

thought I did a fair job dealing with Arch's questions

did you read my response? with the interlopers running around here things get lost real quick. i thought i pointed out some weaknesses in your presentation. it was a good response but i thought it was too unrealistic in requiring that kind of evidence.

essan made a good response in which i asked some questions in return.

i am not saying i am going to produce evidence right away ,if at all. i just want to have an idea of what you are looking for since what i have presented wasn't good enough for you.

There are no interlopers here. No one owns any of these threads. Anyone is free to post pertinant information here. Stop whining, arch. Just because the new guys are asking questions you can't answer and making you look bad doesn't mean they're bad guys. Some of the jokes are pretty lame though.

[Guest]

Then I don't understand WTF he was talking about anyway.

All your base are belong to us.

You "cut 'n pasted" from someplace like BlueLetterBible the Flood Myths inadequately separated into their appropriate authors right after I had already done it properly and FABULOUSLY.

Somebody delivered up you the bomb.

--J.D.

[Guest]

Another thought just occured to me. If there was such a flood and it didn't cover every mountain to the top, but just the mountains in the general vicinity of Noah and his clan, then there should be a "high water mark" on mountains which are higher. Just a thought.

The highest mountain--if you wander back through the original calculations--in the region is Mt. Horeb. That demands an amount of water impossible given the evidence as described above.

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Guest]

When the questions were answered you don't get to say its unreasonable.

excuse me??? sure i do, if you are being unrealistic in what you expect then i will call you on it. though it gives me an idea i think you are beyond what one would expect to find.

[Guest]

If there was such a flood and it didn't cover every mountain to the top, but just the mountains in the general vicinity of Noah and his clan, then there should be a "high water mark" on mountains which are higher. Just a thought

except that then people would find a refuge from the storm, so that isn't possible.

Anyone is free to post pertinant information here. Stop whining, arch.

i am not whining, i see that they refuse to stay on topic or even post seriously. i also see that many posters have stopped coming here since you have let those three have free rein and run amok among the threads.

your bias is very well known and you like them because you think they are doing something to me, but they are not as i saw in the beginning that any serious response to them would be a waste of time, (minimalist is finding that out now) thus i ignore them and concentrate on the real posters to this website.

[Guest]

i see that they refuse to stay on topic or even post seriously.

You just cannot handle the evidence.

You are a waste of time.

--J.D.

[Guest]

i am tired of taking the lead and being criticised so i decided to post a series of articles for you to present your honest and serious opposition remarks. this one is a test and if it takes up too much space i will edit future ones.

feel free to honestly, scientifically, logically, concisely, and so on to present your rebuttals:

Fossils. The very name brings to mind images of untold ages past. . . dinosaurs roaming ancient swamps. . . slow but steady progression as simple sea life was transformed into today's complex variety. Is this an accurate reconstruction of the past of the past or is a worldwide flood the correct explanation of the fossil record?

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Fossils are the preserved evidence of past life. They are found in every part of the world, including the tops of the highest mountains. They may be as simple as a seashell which has left a permanent impression in sandstone or as grandiose as a giant plesiosaur whose bones have turned to rock after rapid burial. The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history. Many people have been led to believe that the existence of fossils proves that millions of years have passed. In reality, fossils can form quite rapidly. Heat and pressure from rapid burial can accelerate the fossilization process. Geologic conditions following a worldwide flood would have exceeded anything imaginable today and must have led to the rapid fossilization of the plants and animals on a massive scale.

Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions, but it is a rare event today. Yet there are mass burial sites throughout the world that are tightly packed with millions of fossils. Apparently, billions of organisms were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized. These massive and extensive fossil graveyards would be the predictable result of a worldwide flood, but would of a worldwide flood, but would hardly fit the slow accumulation model which continues to be taught as the primary explanation of the fossil record. Something dramatically different must have happened in the past to have caused the wide spread fossilization which we find all over our planet. Noah's flood would have been this event.

Geologists and paleontologists operating from a Christian worldview acknowledge the possibility that a worldwide catastrophe buried unimaginable amounts of plants and animals. This was the disaster documented in the first book of the Bible. It lasted at least one year and had reverberations which lasted for centuries. Sea creatures would have been buried first (the salinity and temperature of the oceans would have changed during the catastrophe, wiping out massive numbers of these sea creatures). Even after the flood, plant and animal extinction would have been common as many types of creatures failed to adapt to dramatically changing conditions.

Although any order of burial in a flood would be possible, the general tendency would be for sea life to be buried in the lower rock layers and land animals to be buried in different rock layers corresponding to their ecological niche. This tendency is generally found.

Creation geologists (and there are many of them) believe that the majority of the geologic record is a result of geologic activity during and subsequent to the year-long worldwide flood. This flood would have been an incredible complex event.

Geologist and paleontologists operating from an evolutionary world view acknowledge local catastrophes, but do not allow consideration of a worldwide flood. This would wipe out the "slow change over eons of time" interpretation of the fossils which is needed to continue believing in evolution.

Only one interpretation of the evidence can be correct and only one interpretation of the evidence agrees with what the Bible claims is the history of our planet.

[Guest]

Quote without citation is technically plagarism and, potentionally, actionable.

Should you cite it properly--and address properly cited material given to you--then maybe others will feel willing to do the same for you.

--J.D.

[Guest]

so any takers??