Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen? (pope, Egyptian, America)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible does not take your lineage back to the chimpanzee. It only takes mine to a very intelligent man named Adam. It can't go beyond Adam because evolution only exists in the mind of the uninformed.
Nobody with any intelligence has claimed a lineage back to chimpanzee, but if that idea floats your boat, so be it. You would not be one of them. However, the question was:
Are there other lineages that go to someone other than Adam?
So, let me get this straight....the basis of this discussion has "evolved" so that all of humanity as we now know it can be traced back to Noah and his family, post flood?
And from Noah's family back to Adam and Eve?
I think Rifle had it right, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for all of the observed variations, let alone those unobserved.
Besides, if I remember my fairy tales correctly, Adam and Eve had Cain and Able. Cain killed Able. Cain was cast out of the garden, Cain wandered the lands. Adam and Eve had Seth. And then Cain found a wife...huh? where? Seth married...again..huh? Where did all these women come from if Adam and Eve are the beginning of the geneological line?
Man, just thinking about that has all kinds of bad connotations.......
That is simple to answer. The females were not listed in the genealogies of Adam. Adam and Eve had plenty of girls. Cain either married one of his sisters or married a sister of one of his other brothers who married one of Adam's daughters. Seth did likewise. See, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?
Q: Oh? What's outrageous about it? That I insist you prove your own statements with the equations you have suddenly found so very dependable and worthy of pointing out? Or that you stop pulling unproven and outrageous things out of thin air (like that all the food was Freeze-Dried by little OLD Noah pre-flood, along with the necessary H2O to reconstitute it? Or that he supplied enough facilities, containing the proper temp & salinity water, with sufficient room, for the thousands of whales dolphins, seals,sea-lions and porcupines that God mandated be in board?)
As well, you of course know that all the shark species require constant forward movement, they having no functioning buccal cavity pump like all the much more modern fishes, (and this key differential ability has now been traced back to a particular and exact break-point in their Evolutionary history, btw...) so that they must constantly force, by forward motion, salt water through, across and then out of their primitive gills in order to gather sufficient air on which to live.
Next Intro Bio Q: do you know the sole and limited function of "air" for most all living, breathing animals? Just curious, since this is such a simple & basic question...
So .. so... soooo... whatexactly, was so frickin' OUTRAGEOUS? Perhaps its you and your pesky and intolerantly stubborn mindset that fits that particular word, huh?
So... go on.. go ahead! Puh-Leeeze! Search, read, theorize, hypothesize and finally present to me/us... that Missing Link equation that proves we didn't evolve at all. That basic population dynamics can attribute it all to really hungry(if you get my drift..) teen hot-bods, all ripe & ready to "repro" the entire planet, but not with reproductive Barby Doll Clones!
No problem huh? Just find & point out the just slightly complex pop-dynamics equation in which several (not all of the insistent and unpredictable variables. But even if the equations contain just a few of the known variables, like weather, disease, desire & intent, politics, geography, climate changes that affected the availability of food [drought, downpours, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, snow storms, typhoons, tornados, invasion by other tribes who wanted what you happened to have...][/i], you've got quite the problem to deal with, mathematically. As in: such wildly over-enthusiastic and pie-in-the-sky population numbers are simply not reproducible. Just like in a classic Scientific Study: you put forth an hypothesis, you tested, and you have to accept that your hypothesis was completely wrong. It need refinement or complete rejection.
WELL.... Wow, huh? You get to feel the rejection that all of us honest scientists feel many times over! And yet, we still don't give up! "Onward Knowledge Soldiers, marching as to war, with the Book of Knowledge, holding as Before!" Catchy litle tune; I'm thinking you know it, so why not sing along next time?
All of these natural interruptions and disasters and implausibilities of yours, just hand-wavingly dismissed aas though tehy were just put on hold by your particular stubborn and arrogant (and Felony One murderous...) God? Apparently NOT, according to all the world history books you so also so fervently rely on.
NOTE: You really have to get all your stories straight and lined up, duck-like, Eusebius, else you are, do I have to say it? DOOMED on this one, to a totally ABJECT EPIC FAIL. I mean, factually, you already have already acheived this famous status, but still, why not cememnt it in place once & for all? So other scholars in the distant future can come to these archived posts and read a total transcript of how utterly thoughtless and structurally illogical some theists could be in the face of the final loss of their spiritual epicenters.
A bag with sooo many holes in it to boot... all that stuff he depends on is simultaneously leaking out the bottom!
Yeah; quite sad, actually. And yet, this guy is the dedicated spokes-model for Christianity. I'd have at least nominated someone with a functioning and not-so-egotistical brain.... or a brain that is engagable from time to time! This bit of frustration now on it's 1280th + post...... this is all too easy!
If you weren't drunk when you wrote that outrageous post then I really really think you need help and NOW. Please!
Some of those trees are up to 80 feet in length and the different sedimentary layers surround the trees. Trees don't grow through sedimentary layers.
This cannot be due to volcanic activity because such trees are found all over the world. This can only be due to a world-wide flood of Noah's day.
If this was true, there would only be ONE sedimentary layer put down by the "flood." Not multiple layers.
I note that you have rather shifted your ground here. My post #1110 showed that Mt St Helens was in no way comparable to the Grand Canyon and thus the Canyon and St Helens in no way support Biblical Flood erosion. To wchich you blandly replied "The St. Helen's volcanic action upon the river proves the world-wide flood of Noah's day."
So you lift a mention that trees were floating in the lake and that rather crummy creationist site links it with polystrates, for no reason that I can see other than that Sty Helens has been falsely previously linked with flood erosion -not with flood deposits.
If this was true, there would only be ONE sedimentary layer put down by the "flood." Not multiple layers.
That is incorrect. It has already been proven that different strata has different densities and the heavier densities settle first followed by the lighter dense material.
The polystrate trees prevent a uniformitarian cosmology of strata taking millions or billions of years.
Lake Baikal disproves everythning you have imagined...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
That is incorrect. It has already been proven that different strata has different densities and the heavier densities settle first followed by the lighter dense material.
The polystrate trees prevent a uniformitarian cosmology of strata taking millions or billions of years.
WRONG> CItation please. This has been categorically disproven, and it's no known how a waterlogged tree, with an obviously heavier root ball, can and will sink into any muddy strata, as some did after Mt. St. Helens?. As wel, you failed to answer my question: where are the polystrate tree forests?
As in: Why did your fantasy flood not simultaneously bury the entire coastal North American forests, for example, in that unitary sediment layer? In that solitary sediment layer you so oddly defend? Literally trillions of hardy evergreens, which should all be buried upright in sediment. And yet... none exist at all.
And as well, if it was all buried under that unit level of sediment, how could the plant life you so ardently insist sprang back up to support literally everything that ate plants actually survive? Do plants that were under 30,000 feet of salt water and cold mud suddenly spring up with new leaves? Try it on some of your house plants: I DARE you!
WTF, huh? Could it be that you are completely in error? [Oh Horrors No! OMG, PTL and whatever other silly-chanty things you can invent and blurt out here!)
Unfortunately for the geolgically and logically challenged, this does not explain how or why those annual micro-sedimentary levels, called varves (which sadly for the above author, he did not study, but I did...) contain ANNUAL sediment validators, like annual leaf drops [in the fall, Eusebius; in the fall!]...
And annual spore and pollen indicators, plus extinct ferns, etc., (noting that nothing fossilizes in just a few hundred or even a thousand years. It ewas, after all, the author here who pointed out some soft-tissued Mammoth remains from (if he's right...) 6000 yrs ago, or if we're right (through proven accurate radio-dating methods...) 13,000 to 18,000 years, but still, in either case, they were not fossilized when buried in soft cold mud.
So which is it, Eusebius? Which contradiction are you srticking to this afternoon?
And then waaayyyy the further down that we we core-sample drill, the older they get(various ans now irrefutable dating/aging techniques, coupled with simple morphological inspection under the good old electron microscope, something hat the biblical authors hadn't yet invented...) the more compressed the varve thickness is, as any logical person would understand), and sooner or later we get into extinct pollen forms. And then, if we go deep enough ,we find, darn it, nothing at all, or just the most simple primordial forms.
But one simple single sediment layer, about 1 - 3 feet deep or so? After all, that swirling sediment you prevously denied even existed post-flood? (You DO remember the un-muddied olive branch & leaf, right? "Who said it was all covered in mud?" you defensively asked.)
Please explain the Lake Baikal sediment layer they are still ardently drilling through having found 25+M years worth of varves, Eusebius?
"√ Its age is estimated at 25–30 million years, making it one of the most ancient lakes in geological history.
√ U.S. and Russian studies of core sediment in the 1990s provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years.
√ Longer and deeper sediment cores are expected in the near future. "
OK then: in light of your most recent geologically absolute claim just above here, please explain that to all of us, how that much mud could have just plopped itself down, but only in that one place, and not on the adjoining land, or any other lake nearby or anywhere else on the planet??
Hmmm?
This I gotz tah hear. (The gross and accumulating scientific nonsense and inaccuracies! It all just gets better and better! Selective Beliefs of Convenience; denial of one thing only to approve it in a later post!)
BTW, Eusebius, there's now a while SLEW of questions you have not yet answered on several other threads here. What's up with that? Is it true that you have, in fact, not one single credible explanation for, well... anything?
Well, let’s take a quicky fourth-grade math check, shall we?
4th grade The elevation on your sights are way off, for you are aiming way too high, going so far over their head that they didn't even hear it go past their head.
If you weren't drunk when you wrote that outrageous post then I really really think you need help and NOW. Please!
Ahh, the ad-hominem; last bastion of the uneducated, outwitted and intellectually outgunned. A creationist staple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lake Baikal disproves everythning you have imagined...
The elevation on your sights are way off, for you are aiming way too high, going so far over their head that they didn't even hear it go past their head.