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.
Ok, here is something else to ponder. If there was a world wide flood why have'nt bones of whales and other other modern sea mammals and fish found in places that they should not be?
Given that efforts were made to prove that the fossils were mixed up foundered when it was shown that the strata got folded, tilted, slid over the top of later strata (which can be clearly shown to have occurred) and even inverted in a process taking millions of years, the result is that you do not get Pliocene fossils in Cretaceous strata, nor Jurassic fossils in Devonian strata. Stratification orders the chronological development of life just as archeological stratification orders the chronological development of cultures. And we have developed methods of dating both fossils and archaeological remains.
As I recall there was some attempt to explain stratification by suggesting that the 'earlier' fossils were heavier and so sunk first (maybe just died first or perhaps were in the sea already - they can have have that one without charge ) and were covered up with Devonian silt and then the slow sluggish ambibian Dimetrodons and Protosuchids that lived with man got caught by the flood and sunk in the Triassic silt and then the slightly faster dinosaurs that lived with man got caught as they all fled up the (lower than they are are today) mountains to escape the rising waters and the Dinos sunk into the Jurassic mud and finally the mammals who lived with man - Eohippus, Meryhippus and the rest of the fossil horses plus mammoth Dinotherium and elephant - and don't ask me which was the Baramin - who all lived with man and they all ended up in the final Miocene,Pliocene and Holcene mud layers.
Which raises a question. If the nimble men, woolly rhinos and 'early'elephants (oustripping the lumbering veloceraptors and Dromasaurs) managed to evade the flood so well, couldn't some of them have got hold of boats and nets and survived on as eafood diet? After all, according to our Pal Eusebius, the fish were so happy in the floodwaters that Noah didn't need to have samples on the Ark.
And another Q. Wouldn't all flying creatures, whether bird, feathered Dino or Pterosaus all be in the (so -called) 'Recent' strata?
If the Year -long flood and general extinction was true as per Genesis, that is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-29-2013 at 09:38 AM..
we basically don't know much about before
500 BC, then it gets even less clear to 3,000 BC,
virtually impercievable 3,000 BC - 6,000 BC,
almost nothing further than 6,000 BC.
Absolutely nothing past 9,000 BC except for
some archaeological sites with unestablished dating.
Considering that we still don't know much about our
own history as a race/species, I would say that
Noah's Ark is possible.
we basically don't know much about before
500 BC, then it gets even less clear to 3,000 BC,
virtually impercievable 3,000 BC - 6,000 BC,
almost nothing further than 6,000 BC.
Absolutely nothing past 9,000 BC except for
some archaeological sites with unestablished dating.
Considering that we still don't know much about our
own history as a race/species, I would say that
Noah's Ark is possible.
Aside from the contestable claim that we don't know much -because, yes, it gets a bit sparse before 2-300 BCE, Noah's Ark is not feasibly possible as described in the Bible because we 'know' a good deal about what the Bible claims and, compared with what we do know about archeology, palaeontology and geology, nothing really supports the Ark and Flood story as described in the Bible, though, yes, severe but global floods could well have left folk memories of Floods.
So everything we do know makes the Ark and Flood as described in the Bible unworkable or at least unfeasible. In the terms as described in the Bible 'possible' is so remote from what is feasible or plausible, despite the best that the Ark enthusiasts have been able to do, that to try to hang onto belief in it as true is an act of Faith, not of reason.
About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey.
• Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded.
It could not possibly have been the Noah story. Noah would not take 100 years to build an ark to save his family and animals if it was just a localized flood. He could have just taken his family and animals and waltzed over the valley to safety if it was just a local flood. Jesus and other writers of the New Testament attest to the historic fact that the flood of Noah's day destroyed the earth leaving only Noah and family and animals of the ark to survive. I would surely trust Jesus' words since He had not reason to lie and secondly, it was against their law to bear false witness.
That's not up to rifleman, Eusebius. You are the one making the claim that a world-wide flood occurred. It is YOUR JOB to figure out the details of saltwater salinity and, if you can't, you press it as a scientific mystery to be solved through rigor and investigation!.
Nope, sorry, it wasn't me who stated the salinity of the oceans would kill all the fish. rifleman made that statement. It truly is up to him to provide scientific proof as to how saline the oceans were prior to the flood and during the flood if he is going to make such statements.
Yes, but I think Eusebius' point was that a dilution of fresh rainwater wouldn't matter if the original sea was not very saline. Thus the sea fish would not be effected. Eusebius seems to have agreed that the salt mine deposits bespeak a saline sea - whether pre flood or prehistoric. It was saline, which rather supports Rifleman's position.
Obviously it didn't matter one way or the other as to how less saline the water became since the critters of the ocean survived the world-wide flood of Noah's day.
Nothing supports rifleman's position as to salinity. Unless he can provide scientific data as to how saline the waters were pre-flood and during the flood his idea that a world-wide flood would kill all the critters of the ocean such an argument he stated is completely bogus.
Also, he needs to scientifically provide the exact data of what the ocean's salinity was during the flood and see if sea critters such as whales etc. would die by reproducing the exact state the oceans were during the flood. Good luck with that rifleman.
You see readers of these posts, if you haven't noticed, the unbelievers of the Noahic flood make unproven statements trying to get you to think a world-wide flood was not possible. Just read through all the posts and you will see. And if they can't make scientifically provable statements all they are left with is put downs like rifleman posts in all his name calling and saying we are just idiots. That's a tell-tale sign they have painted themselves into a corner and can only strike out at those to know the facts of the world-wide flood.
Ok, here is something else to ponder. If there was a world wide flood why have'nt bones of whales and other other modern sea mammals and fish found in places that they should not be?
They do find the remains of sea creatures on top of Mt. Everest.
Now then, if these shells are the result of an uplift in the Himalayan mountain range taking millions of years, I seriously doubt you would find very nice, pristine shells which they still find today.
I harbor a faint hope (very faint) that Eusebius is just playing devil's advocate ad absurdum here and doesn't seriously entertain the intellectual absurdity that the Genesis stories are literal historical events AS DESCRIBED. I can understand believing there is SOME underlying reality that served as the stimulus for the stories. The embellishment of stories over time is a well-established feature of human story-telling . . . especially among primitive peoples. However, that hope is faint indeed . . . and regrettably likely to be squelched by Eusebius himself in answer to this post. I am flabbergasted that ANY intelligent human being would EVER seriously believe such absurdities in this day and age!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It could not possibly have been the Noah story. Noah would not take 100 years to build an ark to save his family and animals if it was just a localized flood. He could have just taken his family and animals and waltzed over the valley to safety if it was just a local flood. Jesus and other writers of the New Testament attest to the historic fact that the flood of Noah's day destroyed the earth leaving only Noah and family and animals of the ark to survive. I would surely trust Jesus' words since He had not reason to lie and secondly, it was against their law to bear false witness.
::Sigh:: QED! I am beyond flabbergasted by this dogmatic insistence on the absurd . . . apparently as a sign of Faith and trust in God!!! I fear that nothing can be done in the face of such unreasoning credulity. It is inexplicable. :Sigh:: However . . . I take comfort in the fact that none of it matters in the least to God. Peace and God Bless, my brother.
Then rifleman, thinking we are not very bright, (he's wrong about that too), thought if he posted this link Survival of aquatic species during the global flood - RationalWiki that we would think he proved his point that the sea animals could not survive a lessened saline ocean. But if you'll notice, the people or person who wrote that did not really give any scientific verifiable proof. It is just their say so. In other words, it proves rifleman is grasping at straws.
Then he posted this http://www.savethewhales.org/images-...rPoster_lg.jpg as if to prove Noah had to put these whales on his historic ark in order for them to survive. Yet he provides no proof Noah did so, no proof the whales would have all died off in a world-wide flood, no proof except a cute poster on whales.
Dear readers of these posts, I think you are beginning to see just how desparate rifleman is in trying to disprove the historic world-wide flood of Noah's day.
Obviously it didn't matter one way or the other as to how less saline the water became since the critters of the ocean survived the world-wide flood of Noah's day.
Nothing supports rifleman's position as to salinity. Unless he can provide scientific data as to how saline the waters were pre-flood and during the flood his idea that a world-wide flood would kill all the critters of the ocean such an argument he stated is completely bogus.
Also, he needs to scientifically provide the exact data of what the ocean's salinity was during the flood and see if sea critters such as whales etc. would die by reproducing the exact state the oceans were during the flood. Good luck with that rifleman.
You see readers of these posts, if you haven't noticed, the unbelievers of the Noahic flood make unproven statements trying to get you to think a world-wide flood was not possible. Just read through all the posts and you will see. And if they can't make scientifically provable statements all they are left with is put downs like rifleman posts in all his name calling and saying we are just idiots. That's a tell-tale sign they have painted themselves into a corner and can only strike out at those to know the facts of the world-wide flood.
I am sure that the readers of these posts (unless they are more inclined to cheer you on for your doughty defence of bible literalism than for making and sound arguments) will have noticed that you engage in Bait and switch in making a claim, when that is contested, demanding disproof and when that is forthcoming, demanding more and yet more and never ever presenting any evidence to support YOUR claim.
The evidence posted so far is overwhelming that a massive amount of salinity had to be in ancient seas and frankly, while there were several in the deep time scenario there was only one in the Bible - the pre - flood ocean, and the one after. Though you vaguely hint at one around the time of creation but where the salinity resulting from millions of years of sea -creatures would have come from at the start of the creation I will leave to you to explain.
The posters will also see that you are ignoring all the evidence posted and posing the staggering assertion that we have no 'scientifically provable' statements, and having got ourselves in a fix resort only to name - calling.
Eusebius, mate, don't ever leave us you are just great!
Clearly,your position is that it happened and objections are irrelevant. There is some explanation, even if far - fetched and since the world wide flood is true, contradictory evidence is false, like the Black sea flood (or the Burkle crater one). I at least have accepted that these may well have caused flood legends which answers that admittedly worrisome question rather nicely. But since it isn't the flood you want as it wouldn't give a feasible reason for Noah to make his Ark, they cannot be the 'Biblical' one.
Apart from that, I don't believe that you have addressed our questions at all. Blue whales on the ark? Really? Dinos NOT on the Ark? When their footprints are in (supposed) post flood deposits? Salinity or not, the catastrophic fish -extinction supposedly proving a global extinction Flood as demonstrated by piled of fish fossils (more likely millions of years of them, or a mass buried in a mudslide or left in a heap as lake dried up -take your choice) makes it necessary to have ALL the fossil species (even if only in spawn - add another 100 years to the job of getting the Ark ready ) on the ark in suitable tanks, so as to ensure that the fish -kind (and the sea mammals) did not go extinct.
My old chum, the more we discuss it, the worse it gets for you.
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.
) and were covered up with Devonian silt and then the slow sluggish ambibian Dimetrodons and Protosuchids that lived with man got caught by the flood and sunk in the Triassic silt and then the slightly faster dinosaurs that lived with man got caught as they all fled up the (lower than they are are today) mountains to escape the rising waters and the Dinos sunk into the Jurassic mud and finally the mammals who lived with man - Eohippus, Meryhippus and the rest of the fossil horses plus mammoth Dinotherium and elephant - and don't ask me which was the Baramin - who all lived with man and they all ended up in the final Miocene,Pliocene and Holcene mud layers. 
However . . . I take comfort in the fact that none of it matters in the least to God. Peace and God Bless, my brother.