Noah and the Flood

[peace4all]

what your creationist buddy leaves out, is teh fact that after a flood, some wouldnt get down deep into sediments, and then some be right up at top..

also, isnt it sort of amazing, how we can find remains that date back DIFFRENT then other close by remains? so what, one died, and just sat there for 200 years, then the flood hit, and another died near it?


Btw, the authors of the bible, said that they were inspired by god, to write it.

Your giving credit to someone who says that they were inspired by god, and that is why they are right.


What if a scientist said he was inspired by god? would you believe him? how would you know he wasnt, and paul, or john was?

 

[bibleberean]

I don't know Ken Ham personally so he isn't my "creationist buddy".

Try and phrase your posts where I can make sense of them.

I understand you have a problem but some of your posts are much clearer than others.

I can't answer your questions unless I can understand them...

Thanks,

Robert

 

[Lyric's Dad]

what your creationist buddy leaves out, is teh fact that after a flood, some wouldnt get down deep into sediments, and then some be right up at top..

I will ignore your condescension and address just this one post. This is quite an easy thing to figure out. Go and get a bucket of water, some sand, and a few things you want to bury then mix it together and swirl it around at a rate where the sand will slowly build up. You will see that things get buried at different rates. Really not that complex. Maybe you should spend more time thinking about this then trying to make disparaging remarks.

 

[peace4all]

yes, because there were thousands and thousands of feet of sediment


also, lets take what you are saying a step farther.


get pebbles and sand.. you spin it around, pebbles on bottom, sand on top.


how come the whole world doesnt have same stuff on top?

 

[Quath]

I will ignore your condescension and address just this one post. This is quite an easy thing to figure out. Go and get a bucket of water, some sand, and a few things you want to bury then mix it together and swirl it around at a rate where the sand will slowly build up. You will see that things get buried at different rates. Really not that complex. Maybe you should spend more time thinking about this then trying to make disparaging remarks.

So why are dinosaur bones on bottom and mammal bones on top when they have such a wide range of bones and masses? I would have expected for big bones of elephants to be with the big dinosaurs and the little bones of the rats to be with the small dinosaurs. However, that is not what we see when we study the earth.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

I think I see what peace4all was asking. Here is an article that may provide the answer.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp

Here is an excerpt...

What about the general pattern?

Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers. Consider the following factors:

Vertebrate fossils are exceedingly rare compared with invertebrate (without a backbone) sea creatures. The vast proportion of the fossil record is invertebrate sea creatures, and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even rarer.2

If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood12 and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometers of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil.

A global Flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures firstâ€â€many of these are immobile, or relatively so. They are also abundant and generally robust (for example, shellfish).13 As the waters rose to envelop the land, land creatures would be buried last.14 Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which, in turn would be buried before upland plants.

On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Further, the more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and mammals such as cattle, for example.15

Another factor is the sorting action of water. A coal seam at Yallourn in Victoria, Australia, has a 0.5 m thick layer of 50% pollen. The only way such a layer of pollen could be obtained is through the sorting action of water in a massive watery catastrophe that gathered the plant material from a large area and deposited it in a basin in the Yallourn area.

‘Cope’s Rule’ describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.16

See geologist Woodmorappe’s paper for an in-depth treatment of the fossil record of cephalopods (such as octopuses and squid) and how it concurs with Creation and the Flood."

BB concludes:

How could anyone possibly have all the answers?

There are just as many questions and puzzles that evolutionists can't answer. I would also urge Christians to read the following "question and answer section found here.

You will rewarded for your time if you have it to spend on this site...

Fossils Questions and Answers


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ossils.asp

 

[MrVersatile48]

As autologout looms...

I do and there are many great scholars that do as well. If you are looking for some further proof, check out this site....

http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/noah.htm

Or this one

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah-index.htm



I think finding the ark is one pretty tangible proof of the flood.

..do forgive any duplication, as I just have time to recommend "Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood" by hydrologist Dr Henry Morris, who says that the order of Earth's strata, from heaviest rocks at the bottom to lightest soils at the top, is entirely consistent with setllement @ abatement of the global flood, & that the very creation & preservation of fosils demanded the cataclysmic ptrdssures of a global flood

The 23 scientists who recently wrote "Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint" said the same

Must go!

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

As autologout looms...

I do and there are many great scholars that do as well. If you are looking for some further proof, check out this site....

http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/noah.htm

Or this one

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah-index.htm



I think finding the ark is one pretty tangible proof of the flood.

..do forgive any duplication, as I just have time to recommend "Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood" by hydrologist Dr Henry Morris, who says that the order of Earth's strata, from heaviest rocks at the bottom to lightest soils at the top, is entirely consistent with settlement @ abatement of the global flood, & that the very creation & preservation of fossils demanded the cataclysmic pressures of a global flood

The 23 scientists who recently wrote "Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint" said the same

Must go!

Ian

 

[Quath]

Re: As autologout looms...

..do forgive any duplication, as I just have time to recommend "Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood" by hydrologist Dr Henry Morris, who says that the order of Earth's strata, from heaviest rocks at the bottom to lightest soils at the top, is entirely consistent with settlement @ abatement of the global flood, & that the very creation & preservation of fossils demanded the cataclysmic pressures of a global flood

The 23 scientists who recently wrote "Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint" said the same

Do you want your science from religious people trying to justify their beliefs or from objective scientists looking for the best model of the world? If you want the former, you have found them. Every religion has them to justify their own faith. If you want real science, then the Global Flood is way too unlikely unless God hid the evidence.

If you are half way interested in objective science, check out Talkorigins website.

Quath

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Re: As autologout looms...

..do forgive any duplication, as I just have time to recommend "Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood" by hydrologist Dr Henry Morris, who says that the order of Earth's strata, from heaviest rocks at the bottom to lightest soils at the top, is entirely consistent with settlement @ abatement of the global flood, & that the very creation & preservation of fossils demanded the cataclysmic pressures of a global flood

The 23 scientists who recently wrote "Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint" said the same

Do you want your science from religious people trying to justify their beliefs or from objective scientists looking for the best model of the world? If you want the former, you have found them. Every religion has them to justify their own faith. If you want real science, then the Global Flood is way too unlikely unless God hid the evidence.

If you are half way interested in objective science, check out Talkorigins website.

Quath

Objective? Come on. Those people have much reason to try and discredit the flood. If they can "scientifically prove" the lack of a God, then they can live any way they wish and make themselves the higher intelligence. They are far from objective.

 

[Quath]

Re: As autologout looms...

Objective? Come on. Those people have much reason to try and discredit the flood. If they can "scientifically prove" the lack of a God, then they can live any way they wish and make themselves the higher intelligence. They are far from objective.

A lot of work on evolution and geology has been done by scientists that believe in god. Last poll I saw showed that 95% of all scientists believed in evolution while about half of them believed in god. So if anything, science would be biased towards proof of the Bible (and it has been in the past).

I think most scientists would like to find evidence of God. After all, if you could study the ways of God, you may find even more marvelous physics in the universe.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/ ... tists.html

Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution?
Excerpt:

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

"Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised."

http://www.christiananswers.net/creatio ... air-w.html

BB concludes:

It is important to remember that believing in a "higher power" or god is not the same as being a bible believer or Christian.

Also, most atheists who come to this forum are here to convince Christians that God does not exist and the bible is flawed.

Any atheist who says otherwise is totally dishonest.

Many are more than happy to share their testimony with you.

They will spend endless days and hours in a Christian forum defending their faith and telling you why they either used to be a Christian or how God didn't answer their prayers etc. etc.

These people are missionaries with an objective and purpose.

Noah's flood is a very central point in the bible. It is not a mythological story.

Jesus quotes Genesis and speaks of Noah and the flood.

To dismiss the flood and the story and call it a myth is to call Jesus stupid.

"They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:27

The atheist apologist is here to undermine the foundation of the bible and serve their god. The god of this world. They are not even aware enough to understand their plight.

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

You can trust God's word. Believe this...

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

I would urge Christians to go to the sites I and other Christians have presented and check them out.

The bible states that people who don't like to keep God in their hearts suffer from this condition...

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:22

Only a fool could believe that all we see in creation could come about without a Creator...

 

[<3Jesus<3]

i believe in Noah and the ark, but i have a question hat i'm puzzled with. where did all the water go that flooded everything?? that much water couldnt evaporate could it?

 

[bibleberean]

i believe in Noah and the ark, but i have a question hat i'm puzzled with. where did all the water go that flooded everything?? that much water couldnt evaporate could it?

Good question.

Here is an answer from one of the links I would encourage Christians to explore and read.

I found this answer simply by typing in the words "where did the waters go?, in the search browser in this link...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar ... lood12.asp

Noah's Floodâ€â€what about all that water?
By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

First published in The Revised & Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 12

Where did the waters go?


"The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters (see Chapter 10, Was the Flood global?), and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God’s command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5–6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11, note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.


Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19 We need to remember that about 70% of the earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins."