Noahs Ark- What you should know.

[platos_cave]

Yes and i know that's baloney

Why?

If we take say a 100 foot thick and 1 mile wide chuck of sedimentary rock, that would take a lot of erosion to build that piece. where did the source come from, the original rock that was eroded? I say the flood caused massive erosion and deposited the layers. The layers are enough evidence to prove a flood.

Are you asking me where rocks come from, John? That seems a little elementary.

Why are layers enough evidence to prove a flood, John. You seem to have a very selective mindset.

Man lived though the flood and was able to record it.

Interesting, I guess the Egyptians and Chinese appeared not to notice.

We see cave paintings of man with dinos, i have a replica ica stone showing a man running away from a Trex.

Source your information please.

Hmmm these artists who drew those paintings were either really high or legit in there depiction. Aslo before the word dinosaur was invented they called them dragons, and almost every culture had reference to dragons.

Dinosaurs don't fly, breathe fire or hoard gold.

 

[Burke]

There are several pictographs of dino's, including a stegosaurus, and apatosaurs on a casket...

Is there a way to upload pics?

Either way, if an expedition discovered a sauropod in the Congo, do you think it would have any influence on evolutionary theory? of course not, it would just be "amazing".... The wollembi pine in Austrailia is basically the same as discovering a living T-rex, but since it is a plant, its a boring discovery.

All these "living fossils" are part of the most flexible, unassailable, unquestionable theory of all time... evolution. Things change, things don't change..no matter. Mutations are never observed adding new, unique features...no problem...just need a million years. No transitions between kinds of animals? well..fossils are rare. Coelocanth isn't a walking fish extinct 65 million years ago? Whatever...

The whole concept of a global flood is dismissed NOT based on the evidence, but based on the simple "That's impossible" presupposition.

Just because there is massive coal beds, oil fields, sedimentary layers laid down by water all over the earth, fossil sea creatures on mountains, etc.... Well... sorry.... that would involve the Bible being true, and we just can't have that.

 

[John]

Is there a way to upload pics?

Yes, when you make a post you can near the bottom see a link that says "upload an attachment"
Or
You can find a image host like photobucket and simply copy the url of your image here and add

 

[Sha'zar]

i have a question or two for both sides of this discussion.

JohnMuise, what Scriptural evidence are you using to support a global flood? a quick read of Genesis only says that everything on dry land died. is there any Biblical proof that Pangaea did NOT exist?

platos_cave, what scientific evidence are you using to deny the existence of a global flood? you have stated a global flood is impossible, why is it impossible?

 

[platos_cave]

There are several pictographs of dino's, including a stegosaurus, and apatosaurs on a casket...

Where?

Either way, if an expedition discovered a sauropod in the Congo, do you think it would have any influence on evolutionary theory? of course not, it would just be "amazing".... The wollembi pine in Austrailia is basically the same as discovering a living T-rex, but since it is a plant, its a boring discovery.

All these "living fossils" are part of the most flexible, unassailable, unquestionable theory of all time... evolution. Things change, things don't change..no matter. Mutations are never observed adding new, unique features...no problem...just need a million years. No transitions between kinds of animals? well..fossils are rare. Coelocanth isn't a walking fish extinct 65 million years ago? Whatever...

Your paragraph is incoherent nonsense.

There is no physical evidence indicating that dinosaurs and humans have co-existed. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that most dinosaur populations were destroyed in the K-T extinction event and that smaller populations which did survived developed into birds.

What things change? What things don't change?

Mutations do add new, unique features.

Plenty of fossils.

I don't even know what you're talking about with Coelacanth...

The whole concept of a global flood is dismissed NOT based on the evidence, but based on the simple "That's impossible" presupposition.

No, it's dismissed as impossible based on the evidence.

Just because there is massive coal beds, oil fields, sedimentary layers laid down by water all over the earth, fossil sea creatures on mountains, etc.... Well... sorry.... that would involve the Bible being true, and we just can't have that.

And yet you don't explain how exactly coal beds, oil fields and sedimentary layers, fossil oceanic creatures existing on mountains must necessarily BE explained by a global flood. Positing a global flood without considering the global repercussions and issues created by such a concept is ludicrous.

Simply pointing out "well there are a lot of dead things here, and sedimentary layers laid down by water, and sea creatures on mountains....it MUST be a global flood" isn't validating anything. You're taking isolated circumstances and creating an ad hoc net with which you filter out any evidence that might show a global flood to be a problem.

 

[platos_cave]

platos_cave, what scientific evidence are you using to deny the existence of a global flood? you have stated a global flood is impossible, why is it impossible?

One only needs to look at the White Cliffs of Dover to falsify the global flood.

These cliffs are composed of chalk in the form of tiny coccoliths.

The exposed portion of the cliff is roughly 300 feet high and were deposited during the Cretaceous era about 135-70 million years ago.

Ignoring the sheer biomass of all life being involved and focusing on the sheer biomass of just the coccoliths alone, not to mention the location of the coccoliths and the tidy deposition into one area stacked on top of each other in volatile water...doesn't exactly bode well for the concept of a global flood. These are delicate creatures, and they don't settle like heavy sediments would in such a situation as a global flood.

There have also been found fossilized dinosaur nests, termite nests, bird nests, wasp nests, rodent burrows, animal dung found in situ, trackways of land animals, raindrop imprints, fossilized mudcracks. All of these are inconsistent with a global flood which would have destroyed all of these instantly. The entire world was supposed to have been flooded. Fossilized remains that fossilize on dry land with no water are inconsistent.

There is a clear segregation of fossils that would not occur in a volatile situation as a global flood. We do not see creatures sorted by their weight, as would happen in any flood where settling occurs. We do not see a willy-nilly mix of creatures in a singular extinction event.

We also would not expect heavier sediments to be sorted above lighter sediments. But of course, we do see that. We see granite overlaid atop limestone, for instance.

Specimen Creek fossil forests in Yellowstone National Park. There are roughly fifty forests lying on top of each other with a layer of volcanic ash separating each forest. This clearly is inconsistent with a global flood.

This is evidence that discounts a global floods possibility. There are also issues associated with the actual event itself if we assume it occurred.