A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[leroy]

Not "some objections". Specific objections. Based on the current height of Mt Everest, it would have had to rain so strongly, that every living thing would have been dead in a week. The geologic fossils record would have no order or sequence. Just all dead things jumbled up. Dinosaurs and humans would have all been in the same soup that settled.




You didn't clarify anything. You asserted that all YECs believe Mt Everest grew rapidly after the flood.
The topic of the thread is the nonsense of the flood story. If YECs want to assert that big mountains grew after the flood, than they (you, in this case) have to come up with a plausible explanation for how that could have happened. That is not a herring of any color.

The best you could do was link to a nonsense "theory" of an engineer, a "former evolutionist", who claimed the continents moved at 45 miles per hour. Those moving apart caused the ocean basins. Those moving towards each other caused high mountains.

As I and others have pointed out there are immense problems with that concept:

• The rapid movement of the continents would have caused ocean waves of thousands of feet. Something that your ark could not have survived.
• The rapid crashing of the continents into each other would not have caused mountains, it would have caused immense piles of rubble. There ain't none.

Those points are not off topic. You just want to ignore them.

• Big mountains covered by extremely heavy rain = jumbled fossil strata and ark inhabitants drowned just trying to breathe.
• Little mountains growing after the flood = rubble piles instead of mountains and ark inhabitants drowned in a capsized ark.

Take your choice and support it. So far you haven't been able to support either.




If you don't disagree, why are you arguing against science?

Again, I don’t disagree with your objections, I don’t believe in a global flood I don’t believe in a young earth

All I am saying is that the fossil record doesn’t refute the flood, you might have other lines of evidence again the flood but not from the fossil record (I am just responding to poin2 in the OP)

if you disagree feel free to provide your arguments

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
Well if the conditions would have been adequate, why couldn’t mammals evolve 500 years ago (in the Cambrian?)

Who says they couldn't have?
l.

@Dan From Smithville @Subduction Zone @TagliatelliMonster and many other fanatic evolutionist from this forum are making the claim

 

[tas8831]

Nice.
Noah took produce on the ark.

Where is the picture of this?

 

[tas8831]

Maybe the flood was a tidal wave.

And maybe it was just made up.

 

[tas8831]

I like how they usually come back later, and say, "Scientists assumed...", and follow up with, "but we now know." So funny. Always knowing and never know.

Oh, so funny. And look at you - dismissing science because the graphic representation of a computer analysis is a diagram, and a synonym for diagram is 'drawing', and you think that such outputs are just drawings... Now THAT is funny.

We also see there is an underwater archaeologist - Robert Ballard, commited to what he considers evidence of the Biblical flood.

Thank you, nPeace the Christian - for providing a clear-cut example of what I have described as being a common antic for you and other creationists with no science background:
You google something, and run with the returns without bothering to read (or understand) the article you pompously assert supports your cause.

The 'biblical flood' evidence Ballard refers to, and HIS actual take on it is stated clearly in the article you linked but did not read or understand:

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

The theory goes on to suggest that the story of this traumatic event, seared into the collective memory of the survivors, was passed down from generation to generation and eventually inspired the biblical account of Noah..."​

However, we are not waiting on these to confirm what we know from a reliable source.

How can you possibly KNOW anything from millenia-old tall tales without pictures?

 

[Subduction Zone]

leroy said: ↑
Well if the conditions would have been adequate, why couldn’t mammals evolve 500 years ago (in the Cambrian?)


@Dan From Smithville @Subduction Zone @TagliatelliMonster and many other fanatic evolutionist from this forum are making the claim

Your question makes no sense. How could the conditions be "adequate"? What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

1 I said that in a flood clams would *die* before birds, this explains why do we usually find birds above clams in the fossil record.

This does not even compute. I can't even take it in. Eons separate the fossil layers. Not minutes or hours or days. We have dating methods. We have DNA decoding. Out of one side of their mouths, the Creationist tells us that we can't "trust" the fossil record because <insert claim>. But now we want to use the fossil record that can't be trusted to prove something that can't be proven. This does not even compute.

 

[leroy]

This does not even compute. I can't even take it in. Eons separate the fossil layers. Not minutes or hours or days. We have dating methods. We have DNA decoding. Out of one side of their mouths, the Creationist tells us that we can't "trust" the fossil record because <insert claim>. But now we want to use the fossil record that can't be trusted to prove something that can't be proven. This does not even compute.

Different layers are simply “different ecosystems” a global flood could easily drag many ecosystems within a few days and stack one on top of the other.

A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Different layers are simply “different ecosystems” a global flood could easily drag many ecosystems within a few days and stack one on top of the other.

A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid.

No. it is not possible for a flood to rapidly deposit such sediments.

And no, a global flood would not change radiometric dating methods. You would need to prove how that can be done.

 

[leroy]

Your question makes no sense. How could the conditions be "adequate"? What is that even supposed to mean?

1 If the environment would have been adecuate for mamlas to survive (oxygen, food, good climate etc.)

2 if there was selective preassure during the Cambrian to produce mammals

3 if they were lucky enough to get the correct random mutations in the same place

This is what I mean by adequate conditions

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 If the environment would have been adecuate for mamlas to survive (oxygen, food, good climate etc.)

2 if there was selective preassure during the Cambrian to produce mammals

3 if they were lucky enough to get the correct random mutations in the same place

This is what I mean by adequate conditions

Sorry, evolution does not work by magic. Your handwaving is rejected.

 

[leroy]

No. it is not possible for a flood to rapidly deposit such sediments.

And no, a global flood would not change radiometric dating methods. You would need to prove how that can be done.

No, no , give me an example of a layer that according to you was properly dated , provide a source that describes how the dating was done, an then I´ll tell you what the flaws are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, no , give me an example of a layer that according to you was properly dated , provide a source that describes how the dating was done, an then I´ll tell you what the flaws are.

No, you can Google it yourself for once. This is basic knowledge. You do not get to make hare brained hypotheses and then demand that people prove that they are wrong. You need to find some evidence for your claims. You won't find any.

 

[gnostic]

Well if the conditions would have been adequate, why couldn’t mammals evolve 500 years ago (in the Cambrian?)

Again, I don’t disagree with your objections, I don’t believe in a global flood I don’t believe in a young earth

All I am saying is that the fossil record doesn’t refute the flood, you might have other lines of evidence again the flood but not from the fossil record (I am just responding to poin2 in the OP)

if you disagree feel free to provide your arguments

Different layers are simply “different ecosystems” a global flood could easily drag many ecosystems within a few days and stack one on top of the other.

A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid.

All these quotes from your posts tell me the following:

1. You don’t understand the Cambrian period and you don’t understand where mammals fit in the timeline of evolutionary tree.
2. You don’t understand strata, layers of rocks, hence you don’t understand how biological evidence (eg fossils) fit in with those strata, hence you don’t understand biostratigraphy.
3. You don’t understand fossil records, and you don’t understand how fossilization occur (hence the processes), nor the when and where they would occur in the strata.
4. You don’t understand that something biologically would leave fossil evidence in the later half of Early Bronze Age (eg 2500 - 2000 BCE), because any life in that period wouldn’t have time for fossilization to occur, meaning there are no fossils that are less than 5000 years old.
5. You don’t understand how any types of massive floods would leave the types of evidence, not only in geological strata, but also where the flood archaeologically effect on cities or town.

In regarding to point 4, about the Early Bronze Age, the reason I bring up that point is because based on calculations of Genesis genealogy (eg Genesis 5 & 11, and the timeline of Abraham’s life) and other calculations from other books that provide years (eg Exodus 12:40-41, 1 Kings 6:1), it can be determine the possible year that the flood would have occurred (that if it did happen), to about 2340 BCE (with margin of errors plus-minus 100 years, depending on how you would interpret the passage of Exodus 12:40-41, as to the time spent in Egypt).

Based on 2340 BCE, you would look at the archaeological evidence of sites like cities that exist in the later half of Early Bronze Age (2500 - 2000 BCE), to find evidence of any flood damages that are consistent with floods.

Examples, cities such as Damascus, Jericho, Aleppo, Sidon, Uruk (Erech), Ur, Shuruppak, Susa (located in Elam), Abydos, Nekken, the Egyptian necropolises in Saqqara and Giza, Knossos in Crete, Argos & Pylos in Greece, etc, these are all cities that exist in the later half of Early Bronze Age.

None of these cities have evidence of flood to supposed 2340 BCE of the mythological Genesis Flood.

Points 2 & 3, are related to each other. My points are that fossilization of any life wouldn’t occur in less than 5000 years, so a Flood in the Early Bronze Age, wouldn’t leave fossils behind, because fossilization take a lot longer time than this imaginary flood. You definitely won’t find fossils of dinosaurs in the Bronze Age.

 

[F1fan]

How would that break the tree?

If there where mammals with feathers that would simply mean that feathers evolved before the 2 clades split………how would that “break” the tree?

Birds and mammals had a common ancestor, this common ancestor could have had feathers and I don’t see how would that break the tree?

The genes that allow feathers in an organism have to evolve before they can be expressed. Its not like all genes exist in all organisms at once and some are expressed and some aren't, and feathers can just occur in mammals. This is the trees. There has to be pressures in the environment where the mutations, adaptations, and genes evolved to become an advantage and expressed through many generations.

Its much like how we don't see the Germans develop jet fighters in 1916. They couldn't for another 26 years. There had to be an evolution in the knowledge of technology for jets to become a reality. Your speculation about feathers on mammals is like speculating if the German airforce of 1916 had jets. Cool, Imperial Germany had jets and won the war. There's just no functional way for it have happened. I don't see any way your obsession of this scenario serves any purpose.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No, no , give me an example of a layer that according to you was properly dated , provide a source that describes how the dating was done, an then I´ll tell you what the flaws are.

No, you would tell us what Christian apologists tell you what the flaws supposedly are and regurgitate misinformation. Christian apologists, like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, are not scientists.

Cripes, you guys think scientists are so stupid. That is utterly laughable and worthy of ridicule.

 

[leroy]

No, you can Google it yourself for once. This is basic knowledge. You do not get to make hare brained hypotheses and then demand that people prove that they are wrong. You need to find some evidence for your claims. You won't find any.

Ok you can't prove your assertion that layers are dated properly

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok you can't prove your assertion that layers are dated properly

Wrong again and you know it. Tell me why I should I try to help a denier? I gave you a video to watch, did you watch it?

 

[leroy]

Cripes, you guys think scientists are so stupid. That is utterly laughable and worthy of ridicule.

No scientists are not stupid . Only internet atheist are.

Scientist know that dating a layer is not an exact science. There are many assumptions, especulations and biases behind dating a sample.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No scientists are not stupid . Only internet atheist are.

Scientist know that dating a layer is not an exact science. There are many assumptions, especulations and biases behind dating a sample.

Oh my.

No.