I’m sorry, Juan, I missed this post. I wasn’t dodging your questions.
army_of_juan wrote:
There would have to be enough water on the planet to flood it to begin with.
There is. It’s just been moved to a sunken part of the planet or frozen in ice caps, or suspended as clouds, where is more or less contained. First of all, 71% of the earth is still covered by water. The average depth is around 2 miles. The deepest is the Pacific Ocean, at 35,837 feet. This would cover the tallest mountain on earth by 6802 feet of water.
army_of_juan wrote:
We would find genetic bottlenecks in all species dating back about 6000 years. We would find a single global flood layer with a dense mixture of fossils of all the animals types.
That’s where the dating methods have skewed the evidence. Have you ever heard of the population explosion in the Cambrian era? Jeffrey S. Levinton, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York writes in a major science journal an article called, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution" :
"Cambrium explosion was characterized by the sudden and roughly simultaneous appearance of many diverse animal forms almost 600 million years ago. No other period in the history of animal life can match this remarkable burst of evolutionary creativity."
This is talking about an explosion of animals found in the earth’s layers. These are not animals suddenly evolving but animals suddenly dying. This means that there is evidence of a sudden death of a variety of animals. If the flood is true, what we would see is mass deaths and extinctions dating back to about 4000 years. This is what we have but it has been labeled at 600 million years ago.
army_of_juan wrote:
You'd have to explain how the animals swam across the oceans to get to countries like Australia and the Americas.
You'd have to explain how the animals ate after the waters receded (and where the receded to) since everything would be dead, plants and animals alike.
During what is mistakenly called the Ice ‘Age,’ there was more of the earth showing. If you will look at a map of the world, you can see that you can get to all the continents from the Mt Ararat area if you lowered the sea level. Animals that prefer the colder climates walked and swam to the arctic regions. They didn’t have to run. 4,000 years is a long, long time. Animals eat plants or other animals. Plants are very resilient. They float. They have seeds that float, stick to animal fur, blow for miles on the wind. If you destroy a tree, it will sprout up from the root. If you tear off a limb, a branch or a twig, it will sprout in wet ground. In a few months time, the plants in warmer climates would have already begun to flourish in the rich flood muck Animals who ate meat would have a vast supply of dead carcasses to feast on as they slowly thawed out of the receding glaciers. As the glaciers melted over the next few hundred years, the land bridges disappeared.
army_of_juan wrote:
Where did all the water come from and where did it go since it's no longer here?
As I said, it’s still here. It came from rain and from the ‘fountains of the deep,’ which were broken up. There were probably plenty of lakes and ponds where the subterranean waters came to the surface before the flood. Originally, three major rivers flowed around the earth. You probably can find the remains of these features in the Gulf Stream, Atlantic and Pacific Drifts, Equatorial Currents, etc. The Mid Atlantic Rift and other faults opened to draw off much of the water. Volcanic eruptions could have boiled off some into steam clouds that fell as snow, creating glaciers that extended down from the poles and also lifting up land masses from underneath the surface. There are many possible scenarios or combinations of events that could accomplish the desired results. Don’t forget that these are not random fortunate happenings for the Ark dwellers. God is in control and he is overseeing the entire operation.
army_of_juan wrote:
The problem is the layers these deposits are found in are too deep to have been made just 6000 years ago. Most cultures have flood stories because they tend to live near water which tends to flood pretty often. Also the flood stories don't match up, unless you are talking about The Epic of Galgamesh which Noah's flood story originated from.
How did people such as the Chinese and Egyptians not only exist during the flood, but didn't record any such events?
This is a misconception caused by dating errors. As civilizations grew from the three sons of Noah, they lost the story of the creation and the flood or what little of it that they retained was so polluted with fables that it is practically useless as history. Today, nations are so competitive, they want to claim to be the oldest, most advanced civilization. The easiest way is to make up a glorious past from your history fragments. The Chinese and Egyptians had several kings ruling in different provinces at the same time. These reigns were stretched to be successive instead of contemporary. Archeologists complicate the problem by adding their dating ‘estimates’ in a frenzy to discover the oldest artifacts and receive the biggest grants.
army_of_juan wrote:
This is 100% wrong. They don't give Nobel Prizes to conformists. Biologist have been trying to poke holes in the ToE for 150 years and to believe there is some kind of conspiracy is just plain paranoia. Evolution is accepted by 99% of biologist and 95% of all other scientist because it's solid, makes logical sense, and is the cornerstone of biology. I think if there was a problem someone would have found it by now.
Actually, you need to do some research for yourself on this. Your mind is pretty made up apparently, so you’re the one who has to change it. I would have to copy/paste half the internet to show you enough examples of this to make any impression. I started a file of frauds and academic prejudice but it got so big, I can hardly find the ones I use for examples here. LOL. Without the background info, they would be distrustfully unacceptable.
As for finding error, first of all, the current leaders of the scientific community don’t want it to be wrong. They spend all their time trying to prove it. Of course they aren’t going to admit it’s all a farce and give up their grants and prestigious positions of authority. It’s like having the attorney for the defense also being the judge and jury. When it seems like the press or some zealot from creationville is about to expose some error or fraud, then the admission is made in the best possible light with the evolutionist ‘discovering’ it. Down near the end of the article, you may read that for decades this error went unnoticed and several thousand or million years is going to have to be re evaluated because of it. LOL. Ooops. No problem, mon.
army_of_juan wrote:
Not really an accurate analogy and there are ways to verify dating methods, read up on them. For one thing there are mutilple unrelated dating methods that have to verify each other and mutilple labs to verify dates that are in doubt. The dating methods when used correctly (creationist like to misuse methods to try to show doubt) are extremely reliable.
You think I haven’t read up on this? Just because I don’t swallow their theories, doesn’t mean I don’t know them or understand them.
Now, please explain. Why isn’t it accurate? The method is painfully simple and the logic unbelievably warped. Once the half life is determined, it’s a simple count and mathematical equation. What is glaringly wrong is that no one can be sure that nothing contaminated the sample while it was in the ground. The remaining isotopes of carbon 14, C 12, lead or whatever element they are counting for the test, is what is left, sure. Do you know everything that can change that amount besides simple decay at a predictable rate?
As for multiple methods, if you are talking about lake varves, and tree rings, I’m not impressed. How old are the oldest living single trees, btw? Did you know that one of the oldest is just a juvenile? That means there should conceivably be trees much older than 5000 years. Yaku-shima Island in Japan has a stump of a tree said to be oldest by the islanders that was estimated to be 3000 years when it was cut in 1586 to be used for construction of a big temple in Kyoto. "El Gigante" near Oaxaca, Mexico was once thought to be 10,000 years old, but botanists now consider it to be a youngster of only 1,500 to 2,000 years. The oldest known living tree was cut down by a scientist in 1964 in order to get the age. (!) It was 4,950 years old according to the tree rings.
It is thought that some creosote bushes may be as old as 7,000 -11,000 years and a Huon Pine, indigenous to Tasmania, is claimed to be 2,000 - 20,000 years old but these trees actually keep regenerating so that they look like a small forest but are actually one organism. The age estimates do not take into account that these trees may have made the outside shoots shortly after the main trunk began. Apparently everywhere the branches touch the ground, they will root. It isn’t really logical to add the age of the branches to the age of the main tree, is it.
To get trees to co operate with geological ages, you can’t just count the rings of one tree, you have to do like the Chinese and Egyptians did. Trees living as contemporaries are instead said to live successively, one before the other or overlap their ages slightly. Neat ruse if you can pull it off. Apparently some people want to be fooled.
army_of_juan wrote:
All corrected by scientists and is getting rarer due to better technology and better communication between scientist worldwide to verify each other's claims. They love to show the other wrong when giving the opportunity.
It is well known that to challenge the ToE is to be the subject of intense ridicule by a majority of your peers. There is more to the saying, ‘to get a degree, you have to agree.’ Your view is actually sited as a myth by a prominent scientific source, “the journal devoted to the improvement of communication
between the scientific disciplines, and between scientists,
science educators, and science policy makers.â€Â
Here is an excerpt of the April 30, 1999 -- Vol. 3 Number 18 of SCIENCE-WEEK, “The Weekly Email Digest of the News of Science†:
A
1. ON FRAUD IN SCIENCE
There are two prevalent myths concerning scientific fraud: The
first myth states that since most scientific experiments are
replicated by other laboratories, science is self-correcting
because the discovery of fraud involving the fabrication of data
is inevitable.
The second myth is that scientific papers
involving fabrication of data are extremely rare, with only a few
fraudulent papers published in any one year. Concerning the first
myth, it is not true that all or even most published experiments
are sooner or later replicated. What is true is that research
results that are of apparent great significance will probably be
replicated, but not other research results. These days, in the
front lines of fast-moving fields in science, few laboratory
heads are inclined to waste precious manpower and funds simply
replicating the work of others: the most successful research
strategy is to assume the relevant published product of other
laboratories is honest and take the next step, or better yet the
step after that, in the push to solve a hot problem. Concerning
the second myth, the evidence that exists suggests the number of
scientific papers involving fabricated data published each year
may involve hundreds and perhaps thousands of publications.
This ended by saying that “some scientists fear that publicized cases are merely the tip of an iceberg.†The article appears to be written as a wake up call but it has an added snooze button. It asserts that although the bad news is that there are thousands of fabricated results, rest assured that there are far, far more that are not fabricated. Great.
army_of_juan wrote:
Your opinion. Sure there are frauds occasionally but it's not as widespread as you think and not nearly as bad as say some Televangelist.
I hope you took the time to read the above quote from Science Week. Televangelists are just another blight on a gullible society. Greed and pride walking hand in hand.
Sorry for the length. I bet you have nothing better to do either, huh? LOL.
: Actually, Juan, I think the part about 6,000 years is more on the topic of carbon dating than the science fakes subject but it‘s all inter-related.