Posted on 03/09/2006 11:30:41 PM PST by Tim Long
Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant brontosaurus in the ark?
A. Getting a brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!
It's more like you don't have the knowledge to construct a remotely plausible model. However, if it's any consolation, there's no reason to think that such should be possible at any level of knowledge.
Every YEC model I've ever seen ignores away features of the real world which are better answered by a straightforward Occam's Razor approach. That is, the world looks old because IT IS old, we don't see the sediments of a world-wide flood because there WASN'T one, and we find evidence for common descent of organisms because common descent IS the nature of the relationship.
Because it is true and accurate. How can people take seriously the notion that we are all descended from primeval slime by way of the monkeys?
Abundant physical evidence.
Your failure to address a single one of the points I made, other than with a repeat of your original unevidenced assertion, is noted.
You need to thank the undercover workers from Darwin Central, those who bring dishonor and discredit to the opposition by posing as boobs.
Okay, looking at you, I can see the resemblance.
So was that a simulated olive branch with leaves that the dove returned with in her mouth? Maybe one of those nice plastic ones you can by at the Arts and Crafts store?
The sediments are the sedimentary rock layers all over the world.
The Evolution model requires various high lying areas like Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Africa, etc. (1 mile above sea level) to be covered in "shallow seas" in order to lay down the expansively enormous and deep sedementary layers that are readily apparent to the naked eye (Grand Canyon, Badlands, Great Rift Valley, Sideling Hill Cut, etc.).
There is another name for highlands being covered in shallow seas - Noah's Flood. Evolutionists just aren't honest enough to admit that their model requires the same sort of widespread flooding that the Biblical Noah account does.
ALL of them? There are all kinds of non-flood sediments. There's the normal slow accumulation of silt in swamplands. There is windblown dust and sand. There is slow silting of lake and sea bottoms. Many of these types of sedimentation leave fossilized signatures of tranquil surface conditions which cannot occur in flood sediments.
Now, we do see flood sediments in the geologic column. They have a certain signature. Most of the geologic column in any given place tends to be non-flood. And the floods we do see are regional events only.
That's the For Dummies summary. For a more comprehensive list of what's wrong with your hopelessly naive formulation, peruse Flood Predictions.
Beats me, but they don't spend all day caring for them.
How many keepers would it need if *everything* had to be done by hand?
Um, just about everything is done by hand.
No fresh water in pipes. No automatic removal of waste.
Why not? It was raining, so the ark could have a plumbing system fed by rains to bring in fresh water and swab the decks.
No trucks to drive food around. Dumb waiters to bring up straw and such from the hold would work, along with hand carts.
Just the 20,000,000 species aboard
Not every species in the world was aboard, only those that could not survive a temporarily aquatic environment - land animals and birds.
And your space figure doesn't allow for storage space for fresh food
Would have been in the hold below the decks.
and water
It was raining. All the water needed was readily available.
And since you brought fish up did Noah carry the freshwater fish on the ark or the saltwater fish?
The Bible does not include any fish upon the ark. It might be readily supposed that the freshwater fish at that time could live in either environment, as Salmon do today.
but in that case how long would it have been until the land was fertile after the water receded
The land was apparently fertile soon after, as the dove came back with an olive branch.
Why did God hide all the physical evidence that this event ever happened
The sedimentary rock layers around the world, which evolutionists say were laid down at high elevations by shallow seas, seem like pretty good evidence to me of widespread flooding. Similarly, the congregations of animal bones in caves at high elevations are pretty good evidence to me.
Once the animals landed every predation event for the first few months would represent an extinction, and carnivores need lots of prey to eat.
The fast breeding animals would have provided enough meat for the relatively few species of carnivores. However, perhaps what you say is a good explanation for why the carnivores like sabertooth tigers and the like went extinct at that time.
And all this so that God (an infinitely powerful being) could kill everyone-8 in the world in a moronic way that required millions of miracles,
There is nothing moronic about it. The event was not only to wipe out a sinful world, but to teach a symbol of the salvation now available by Baptism (the flood) in the one Church (the ark), where humanity is guided by the Dove (the Holy Spirit).
a way that just happens to match exactly the myths that you'd expect early hydraulic civilisations to tell.
So what sort of civilization then predicts the final destruction of the world as a conflagaration by fire?
How can people take this stuff seriously?
Because every people all the way around the world tells the same story??? Did they all make it up and coordinate it via telepathy? No, they clearly all experienced the trauma of the event.
300 cubits by 50 cubits @ 21" per cubit * 3 decks = ~138,000 sq. ft.
@ 15 cubits high = ~ 3,620,000 cu. ft.
One railway stock car = 10 ft. x 40 ft x 15 ft. = 6000 cu ft.
The Ark had a cubic space equal to 600 stock cars. Stock cars come with at least two decks to carry animals (unless they are small like chickens. Only two of every animal are needed. A typical stock car holds 240 sheep. If a sheep is the size of the average animal onboard, there was space for around 70,000 pairs of animals. Considering that there are only a few thousands species of birds, for example, and all are smaller than sheep, it seems as though all land animals could be readily accomodated, along with food.
First, the date of the global flood:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
Second, at that age we are not dealing with "sedimentary rock layers around the world." We are dealing with soils, common dirt.
Those soils contain a lot of evidence about what occurred while they were being laid down, starting with whether they was wind- or water-deposited.
The soils also contain a record of human occupation. That can be dated by multiple methods, including radiocarbon dating. That method has been shown to be quite accurate, and the claims made against it by young earthers have been shown to be inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating is supplemented by a variety of other methods.
In the western US, we have a continuous record of human occupation going back past 10,000 years. The faunal and floral record can be traced back much farther. There are no breaks in this record which would coincide with a global flood.
One telling piece of evidence is the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). There is a good record of Native American DNA from prior to 5,000 years, and after 4,000 years. The haplogroups and mutations match.
If there was a flood, then the groups in the western US would have been wiped out, and quickly replaced by other groups. The mtDNA would be distinctly different, before and after. This is not the case. The mtDNA can be traced from its origins in Africa to the New World, by multiple routes. There is no evidence at all that the entire sequence was terminated and replaced from a different source.
Now, there have been some good floods in the western US. The channeled scablands of eastern Washington state came from a series of late Ice Age floods. The boundaries of these events are known, as are the dates. They left a pretty clear signature in the soils. If a global flood had occurred, it would have left a huge signature in the soils, and the dullest of archaeological students would be able to see it. It would be in all the textbooks and in every back yard. There is no such evidence.
If you have any specific comments on this, please let me know. But don't bother with the creationist pages, as most of them are still hung up on fossils and the geological column, when what we are really dealing with are soils.
I don't know the size of a slave ship, but it probably wasn't bigger than a galleon, and it may have been much smaller. This slave ship could hold 600 slaves. The ark could hold 2,400 of them if it were four times as long. That's really packing them in, like the African captives. I don't know how Noah could have done it.
I think you are confusing flood sediments from a river, where there would obviously be current effects, with oceanic flooding, which would be much more like slow deposits. And as I pointed out, the evolutionist account also requires large seas spread over vast areas now 5000 ft. plus in evlevation to account for sedementary rock formation, so I fail to see how evolutionary theories of flooding upon the face of the earth really differ from the Genesis account other than in the timeframe.
I'm really not interested in debating you. You asked where all the record of flooing is and I said where to look.
The answers are in the Bible. If you don't want to believe the Bible, I'm certainly not going to convince you, and everywhere you look you will find reasons to doubt.
Your choice. Enjoy your secularist atheist alliance with Karl Marx and Co.
"Really, what is on Mt.Ararat that would be considered "classified"?"
Turkey is a NATO ally. It wouldn't look good for US spy photographs of Turkey to be released. If there is suppression, this is probably why.
The Evolution model requires various high lying areas like Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Africa, etc. (1 mile above sea level) to be covered in "shallow seas" in order to lay down the expansively enormous and deep sedementary layers that are readily apparent to the naked eye (Grand Canyon, Badlands, Great Rift Valley, Sideling Hill Cut, etc.).
For starters, it is geology, not evolution, which describes the layering of the geologic column. This is worth straightening out because many of you will say something like, "I love science, I just don't accept evolution." Then it turns out the speaker does not accept geology, astronomy, cosmology, nuclear chemistry, or anything else in science that is used to support an old Earth or an old universe.
Geology says that sedimentary layers do not get deposited on preexisting mountains. There is no way to do this and not just because it is impractical to cover the mountain with water. Even if you somehow deposit something on the mountain, it will just erode away. That's what mountains do. They wear down.
So you don't even understand what geology says about sediment layers on mountains. Well, sedimentary layers in mountains ARE the mountain. They used to lie flat and then they got warped. There are mountains that aren't sedimentary in character. They're called "volcanoes." They have a different structure entirely and they don't have any fossiliferous sediments on them. The sedimentary mountains are sediments to a great depth. When they were made, the layers crumpled both up AND DOWN. The lithosphere is thickened under mountains because the crushing displaces the warped crust in both directions. In fact, sort of like an iceberg, there's more below than above.
So you have two problems: 1) Your version is impossible, and 2) you have no understanding of the mainstream version.
See 258. You don't know what you are talking about.
I think you are confusing flood sediments from a river, where there would obviously be current effects, with oceanic flooding, which would be much more like slow deposits.
(Took that out of order, I know.) River floodplains are made of lots of little flood layers and you can tell it wasn't all one big flood. While I'm not familiar with "oceanic flooding," I have never seen a credible account of how it produces the geologic column.
I'm really not interested in debating you.
You're not interested in addressing the flood predictions versus reality problem. That doesn't give us much to discuss.
The answers are in the Bible.
I don't see it as that kind of a book.
Enjoy your secularist atheist alliance with Karl Marx and Co.
"Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home."
Civilization first begins to appear about 9-10,000 years ago if orthodox C14 dating is accepted. Human horticultural civilization has its origins in the Armenia-Assyria region that the flood posits as the landing of the Ark, and this also appears to approximate starting point for the spread of the Indo-European and Semitic language groups. Unsurprisingly, the first cities also appear in this region. The flood would have been some time before that 9-10,000 year mark.
I do not accept the chronologies of the Protestant Fundementalists like Morris. I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant fundementalist, and our perspective on these matters differs in a number of areas.
Please see: "The Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis" by Fr. O'Connell for a concise summary of the Catholic position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
