30,000 feet of water?????

[Jimmy]

But what about the shallow meaning then; the actual, physical claims?
Why does the book make such fantastical and demonstrably wrong nuts-and bolts claims about physics, history, biology &al if it's trying to communicate philosophical precepts?

God couldn’t reveal the whole truth to humankind. It would’ve been too risky.

 

[blü 2]

God couldn’t reveal the whole truth to humankind. It would’ve been too risky.

Heh heh! Cute!

 

[Jimmy]

Heh heh! Cute!

Probably not as cute as your science book huh?

 

[Valjean]

God couldn’t reveal the whole truth to humankind. It would’ve been too risky.

So He invents fantastic tall tales? That's better? Haven't they resulted in 2,000 years of strife, oppression, and war?
I'm not suggesting an in-depth textbook, just a basic foundation of fact and reason; an investigative rather than faith-based approach to questions.

 

[1213]

You still haven't found that missing 1.1 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth so that you can cover the tops of the tallest mountains.

There is no water missing. It only looks like that, because ocean floors have gone down, which creates the illusion that more water would be needed.

You still can't point to that universal geological flood layer all over all continents and island and the sea floor.

No intelligent reason to expect universal flood layer. For example because from many areas it would have eroded and also because it was massive event that didn't cause just one layer.

You still can't point to genetic bottlenecks in all species of land animals, all of them dating to the same date as the flood layer.

there is no reason why there should be such, and also, even if there would be, people would not have any means to know it, because no way to compare what was actually before the flood.

 

[1213]

Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you have some argument with that?

 

[1213]

What about these do you think requires a global flood?

I don't think local flood would cause them, especially when they are all over the world. How would you explain local flood causing them?

 

[1213]

The first problem with trying to use polystrate fossils as evidence of a global flood is the fact that such fossil trees have intact root systems. You can't have huge amounts of earth being ripped up by the great floor (where else woudl all the material for the many sedimentary layers come from?) and having delicate and extensive root systems still in place. The second problem is that the polystrate tree fossils show signs of regenerative growth, that is after the tree is buried in sediment it continues to grow not something that would happen if buried under miles of water. We can observe this happening in many places that experience intermittent flooding like the Mississippi river delta.
the very process of how polystrate fossils are formed is evidence against a global flood.

I disagree with you. But, if we accept what you say, it also means the layers didn't require millions of years and are much younger than some people say.

 

[1213]

There are no polystrate fossils. That is a lie by creationists. They are all in one single stratum at the most.

The images tell a different story. But I understand that people should believe you rather than their own eyes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It works just fine as IMAGINED history. Which is what history actually is ... the imagined past. This obsession with facts (on both sides of the current argument) has to do with the erroneous idea that facts = truth. But they don't. Facts are just facts. We can learn from them, but we can and do also learn from fiction. From IMAGINED realities. And this foolish obsession with facts is blinding us to this other very important method of gaining both knowledge AND wisdom.

I kind of like facts. Especially when the point is to know what is actually true instead of merely imagined.

I don't think anyone should tell anyone how to interpret any story. But I do think it's very useful for us to share with each other how we interpret them, and even more-so, how our interpretations inform our experience of reality in the present. Because in doing that, we broaden each other's perceptions and intellectual possibilities, and we come to understand ourselves and reach other more.

But this isn't about that. This isn't about "what wisdom can we extract from this story". This is about what actually happened in the past, regardless if it teaches us a "moral of the story" or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no good reason to believe they are in motion.

Willfully ignorant?
It's actually measurable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no intelligent reason to expect similar flood layer as in a local small flood.

Floods of the past leave deposits behind which can be observed in the present.
It's what floods do.

It left vast amount of evidence:
1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.

Demonstrably not the result of a single flood.

2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.

Demonstrably not the result of a single flood.

3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.

Demonstrably not the result of a single flood

4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.

Demonstrably not the result of a single flood

5) The stories of it, in many cultures.

Demonstrably not referring to one single flood.


All 5 points fail miserably.

By what I know, bottlenecks exists.

Bottlenecks exist, yes. However, they don't exist in all species and they certainly don't all date to the same period.
So they don't support the silly flood myth.

The problem is only in how they are dated. I think the existence of bottlenecks are just wrongly dated and support the flood.

Yeah, you just assume anything that doesn't support your fantastical myth must be incorrect.
Here's the thing though.......... when the evidence of reality contradicts your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

I don't think you must believe it. I think you should understand it happened.

It demonstrably didn't.

 

[Argentbear]

I disagree with you. But, if we accept what you say, it also means the layers didn't require millions of years and are much younger than some people say.

Polystrate fossils only form in three types of sedimentary rocks glacial deposits, river delta and volcanic. In each case large amounts of successive layers of material are laid down in relatively short amounts of time, five or six a century
The fossils in Yellowstone are encased in layers of volcanic sedimentation, not surprising considering Yellowstone is a volcano. Geologists can measure the amount of time between layers by measuring the amount of vegetation at the boundary between layers. Yet another way polystrate fossils disprove the idea of a global flood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i think that is a silly belief that shows one doesn't understand the weight of the mountains.

Yeah, demonstrable natural processes are "silly beliefs", but tales of magic of physically impossible floods are a-ok.

1) Not having different continents
2) Not having gas, oli and coal fields
3) not having marine fossils on high mountain areas
4) Not having vast sediment formations.

Because none of those things could possible exist except through some magical physically impossible flood?



Not much point in arguing with a mind like that.

As the saying goes:

It's difficult to win an argument against a smart person. It's however utterly impossible to win an argument against a willfully ignorant person.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you believe anything he says?

Because what he says derives from independently verifiable demonstrable evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I estimate that there was about 3000 animals. (For example one pair of bears, which became the ancestors of all modern bears).

So you believe in a version of "evolution on steroids", where evolution occurs at rates so imaginably huge that there would be some 10 to 15 speciation events PER DAY.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In Biblical point of view:
1) Everything was good at the beginning.
2) God was rejected and degeneration begun.
3) In earlier time there was not as much mutations, gene pool was "perfect", without errors.
4) At the flood time situation was still relatively good, much better than now.
5) After the flood, DNA are has continued to get weaker, more and more errors in copying. And more other changes also, for example from one bear couple, all modern bears.

That is why you can't see any bottleneck. There simply is no good reason why there should really be one.

In other words, you have no clue what a genetic bottleneck actually is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you have some argument with that?

Did you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think local flood would cause them, especially when they are all over the world. How would you explain local flood causing them?

You didn't answer the question. You claimed they were evidence of a global flood.
How?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The images tell a different story. But I understand that people should believe you rather than their own eyes.

Post such an image and explain your claim.