"Does upheaval not counteract elevation changes caused by erosion to some extent..."
Based on the creationist article "Eroding Ages - by Tas Walker" - If uplift was (more or less) balancing erosion, then (assuming that the continents are in fact really old) we'd have very few really old sedimentary rocks left anymore, since erosion would be removing sedimentary rock layers relatively quickly. (ie. The continents are rising while erosion is shaving off surface layers.)
There is also an article "Continents Should Have Eroded Long Ago by Brian Thomas" that goes into a bit more detail, including erosion estimates based on the Beryllium 10 isotope and the difference between erosion rates on outcrops versus in drainage basins.
Another article argued that areas with high uplift rates, if old, ought to have very deep canyons in their upper sections...
Here is a quote from the 'Erosion of Rocks" article by Chui:
"For example, based on uniformitarian assumptions, part of New Guinea has been shown to have risen from sea level to 3000 m elevation since marine Pliocene sediments were laid down, possibly inferring a rate of rise of 1.5 m/1000 years.
(cont...) If river down-cutting works as rapidly as this present erosion experiment has shown, then we would expect to see canyons about 3000 m deep in the upper sections of
those New Guinea rivers. The fact is that we do not see canyons of that magnitude in the region. This implies that the uniformitarian assumptions are questionable and/or the time-frame of 2 million years is in error."
You said in the introductory notes: "I foresee multiple literalists coming at me with various Bible verses that only slightly, vaguely, LOOSELY suggest that somehow the Flood occurred when the topography of the Earth was much "flatter" than it is today."
So what is the main objection to this scenario? Something like Baumgardner's runaway thermal subduction could easily supply enough energy to build mountain ranges afterwards. (The driving gravitational potential energy being ~ 10^28 Joules).
"... there is no evidence of Noah's flood in the first place."
I disagree. Inselbergs supposedly tens of milions of years old wouldn't last 100,000 years based on current erosion and frost cracking rates, but they do look like erosional remnants of a huge flood that washed away the surroundings. The existenceof planation surfaces worldwide is explained by a recnt huge flood, but if millions of years old, would have been eroded into valleys by now...
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, No one said current erosion rates are the same over vast time spans. Noah's Flood can be disproven by chronostratigraphy, coral reef layers, bryozoan reef stratification, dendrochronology, electron-spin resonance, fossil indexes, geomagnatic dating, Lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, Mitochondrial DNA, ocean sediment cores, polar ice sheet cores, radiometric dating, rock patination, Y-chromosome dating, varve analysis...want more?
"No one said current erosion rates are the same over vast time spans."
So the present ISN'T the key to the past? Past AVERAGE erosion rates would have to be spectucularly lower than the present then, wouldn't they! And you're not taking into account the rates of erosion of the coasts into the oceans. I fail to see how those could ever be less by orders of magnitude since they depend on ocean erosion of the coasts, not on rainfall...
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, you ignored tectonic plate activity or deposition.
Also, Noah's Farce can be disproven many ways:oxidizable carbon ratio dating, oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy, tephrochronology, potassium-argon dating, the carbonate rock mass, aeolian sand deposits, glacial weathering, batholith formation, the lack of atmospheric oxygen in lower strata, the KT boundary, pollen fossil indexes, fossilized animal burrows, the biomass implied by the number of fossils...
@tubewatch59 Many are dating techniques that show no break in recent times. Others, like DNA, show no global bottlenecks a flood would produce. Some, like ice sheet cores, would show a global flood if one happened, but do not.
"Noah's Flood can be disproven by ... dendrochronology..."
The interesting thing there is that the very oldest actual standing trees date right back to around the time of the flood, about 4400 years ago. That seems a bit of a coincidence doesn't it? Counting tree rings of standing trees won't get you back any father than that. After that you have to start combining ring patterns, using carbon dating etc. The flood model also predicts old C14 dates (cont...)
The flood buried a LOT of biological material (ie. carbon). This had previously been at a certain equilibrium level with the production rate of C14 in the atmosphere. Since there was more carbon in the biosphere before the flood, the amount of C14 in the biosphere was thus much more dilute than it is now. Dating biocarbon samples that died before, during and for some time after the flood, would yield far 'older' C14 dates, if we just assumed today's C14 abundancies.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, C-14 is not used to date most geologic layers in the first place, that is a strawman. Other dating techniques in use include to date many different materials: chronostratigraphic dating, coral reef layering, electron-spin resonance, bryozoan stratification, fossil indexes, geomagnetic dating, lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, ice sheet cores, obsidian hydration analysis, ocean sediment cores, thermoluminescence, varves, rock patination....want more?
Water and wind gaps are rather well explaned by a large flood. The way that plains are cut straight through multiple rock layers of varying hardnesses also is explained by continental runoff from a large flood. The deposition profile of the continental shelves are explaned by a large flood that eroded sediments off of the continents as the waters flowed back into the oceans. Underwater canyons cut into the shelves are explained by the channelized erosion phase of same.
@tubewatch59 Pure nonsense, that does not explain why the geologic column has: varves, rain drops, river channels, the positions of stromatolites, wind-blown dunes, beaches, bryozoan reefs between other layers, glacial deposits, animal burrows, fossil stratification, coral reef stratification, dessication cracks, desert varnish, footprints, meteor craters, caves, or coprolites.
Much of the geologic column is better explained as being the result of a catastrophic flood of global extent, as are the fossils which indicate rapid catastrophic burial. Even the record of the fossils fits a flood, sea creatures buried first (nearer the bottom), land creatures buried later (nearer the top). The supposed order of evolution (sea to land) fits a flood burial pattern.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there are many places where sea creatures like coral are above land creatures in strata, and why are fish, trees, footprints, or animal burrows stratified, too? Why are the no humans in lower layers?
Also, the Bible claims over 1000 years passed before the Flood, where is that layer? Did the flood rebury all the bodies, or Enoch?
NO EVIDENCE!
Many strata are not formed by water, desert varnish by contact with air, tillite by ice, some sandstones by deserts.
"there are many places where sea creatures like coral are above land creatures in strata"
I never said they couldn't be. I said the general evolutionary order of life transitions is from the sea to the land, which also matches what we'd expect from the flood. Though a global flood would give land animals nearer tthe top, obviously there'd be sea creatures all through the fossils (which is what we see, as you pointed out).
"Many strata are not formed by water, desert varnish by contact with air, tillite by ice, some sandstones by deserts."
Not all the layers would have been formed by water. During and after the flood there are other mechanisms available - ie. volcanism and high energy 'hypercanes' (mega hurricane storms with tornado speed winds), which are hurricanes powered by volcanically heated regions of water in the ocean 50 Celsius and hotter. Land erosion would have been immense.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, the desert varnish is 300 years thick in places. What about tillite formed by glaciers? What about glacial deposits? Why are there coral or bryozoan reefs or forests BETWEEN other layers?
There is no evidence for excuses like hypercanes. And if you are citing the Bible flood, it clearly says the waters availed 150 days.
"Also, the Bible claims over 1000 years passed before the Flood, where is that layer? Did the flood rebury all the bodies, or Enoch?"
You'd have virtually no fossils formed in the period before the flood. You would have the original old earth rock layers, but there's be little in the way of mechanisms to form fossils. There might be some, but not too many. Are we forming much in the way of fossils today? Not really. (A few would be formed in tsunami's and floods).
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, if the flood did form fossils, obviously all the bones, stones, artifacts, metal, pottery, etc on the bottom would still be there, why not? It would not even need to fossilize.
If deep water makes fossils or rock in less than one year, why does the ocean make none each year now?
Finally, there's the evidence for the flood I mentioned originally, which you didn't counter. (But then again, I didn't counter all that much of your's either!)
To sum up, there is evidence for and against. You claimed there was none in support. That's demonstrably wrong, at least until you can demonstrate that the evidence I listed as being in support of the flood, doesn't support the flood.
"Nonsense, all the evidence you cited was explainred by forces like plate tectonics or rising and falling sea levels from Ice Ages."
Hmmm!!
I Guess you'd like them all to be explaned away that easily, right? Your problem is, that until such evidences for the flood actually are explained away, they remain as evidences for it. You actually do have to explain WHY they aren't valid evice for the flood.
I'm not saying that the evidences that you quoted as being against the flood aren't evidences against it. A more detailed investigation is required to determine if those evidences actually stand against the flood or not. In the meantime I'll take your word for it, until I can check them all out.
Until you show why the evidences I listed are not evidence for the Noahic flood, you'll have to live with the possibility that they might be.
@tubewatch59 I gave you list after list proving the Flood never happened, here are even more:
The Bible says that all pairs were "male and female" but many animals, which could not survive such a disaster, don't have 2 genders.
The inbreeding from 1 pair of each unclean, 7 pairs of each clean animal and 4 pairs of people would be massive and obvious, even fatal. DNA tests would prove these existed if they were real. The 1:4:7 ratio of Noah's animals is nowhere.
"I gave you list after list proving the Flood never happened..."
Really? You gave list after list of things that YOU SAY prove the flood never happenned. Then (as if you had just made an actual point) you say "want more?"
Just naming items doesn't PROVE the flood never happenned. It's an introductory basis for further discussions. I ceertainly don't claim that my list of evidences PROVE that the flood is real. It's merely a basis for further discussion.
"You gave nothing requiring one global flood in historic times at all, none."
Global planation surfaces (plains).
There's no mechanism producing them today. Today, plains are carved up and eroded away. But a global flood would be able to produce the neccessary current speeds over the required global extent, and then partially eroded away by the following "channelized" stage of the flood runoff, but much remains. Other catastrophes have also left their marks.
@tubewatch59 Plains can be formed by changes in sea level, rivers or lakes, lava fields, glaciers, etc.
Why would erosion always be greater than deposition?
Existing sedimentary layers cannot be formed by one big flood, due to the heat of formation. Limestone, for example releases 11,290 joules of energy per gram, the 5.6 octillion joules at once would vaporize the ocean.
Some strata like desert varnish are not formed by water.
Then there are coral reefs between strata, want more?
Not large planation surfaces. Lakes will only form in depressions (or small nearly flat depressions0. Even though they may lay down a flat sedimentary bottom, that's not the issue, because we're talking about flat surfaces of solid rock. You'd need speeds of water far in excess of normal rivers to do that. Planation surfaces may have tilted rocks of varying hardnesses that are equally planed off! These plains are often capped by water rounded boulders & cobbles.
"...and a flood would not tilt rock surfaces in the first place."
The catacyslm that caused a global flood as one sideffect could. Look up runaway thermal subduction. It's a good candidate. The gravitational potential energy that would have driven the process was on the order of 10E+25 kJ. Quite capable of building mountains & causing up to tens of km worth of vertical elevation changes in continents and sea floors, tilting rock surfaces AND causing a global flood.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, I proved the flood never happened with dozens of experiments and tests you never addressed (probably never understood), much less refuted.
Global planation surfaces or 'Large flat areas' as you call them, still manage to evade any convention al explanations. Read those quotes again.
Who am I going to believe, Mr. Internet (I only have 500 characters. so go and read science books) Dark Lord, or the actual science books, which tell us there aren't any well understood mechanisms capable of forming global planation surfaces? I'll go with the science books.
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, there are explanations of hoe plains form, you just cherry pick quotes without refuting anything that I said. I can prove it.
If you go with science books, they overwhelmingly say that Noah's Flood never happened, I gave you a long list of reasons found in books you failed to refute. Why the cherry picking?
Where are the explanations? You believe obvioulsy that such a 'simple thing' as the formation of global plains, must have a simple solution. But now you're realizing that there isn't any such solution as Crickmay and others have pointed out.
It's irrelevant whether people believe in the flood. What's relevant is whether they can offer good alternative explanations for things a global flood can easily achieve. It seems that they can't.
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, you use different standards of proof for Geology and Genesis. Geology uses rigorous science, the Bible uses Gullible Moron science. What is more scientifically plausible, my explainations or a talking snake, a talking donkey, seraphs, cherubs, a 969 year old man, a woman who turns into a pillar of salt, a chariot ride into heaven, a rib turning into a woman, a stick curing snakebite, a river turning into blood, witches..
@tubewatch59 All your arguments fail, because you never showed anything that requires one global flood instead of 1000 over billions of years. not one.
Meanwhile, the sedimentary layers can be over 10 miles thick, how could one flood do that? How deep was the water? Where did all that sediment even come from, even the Himalayas are not high enough.
You misunderstood the heat argument, nor did you refute it.
C.H. Crickmay in 'The Work of the River: A Critical Study of the Central Aspects of Geomorphology‘ says: "There is no reason to suppose that any kind of wasting ever planes an area to flatness: decrepitation always roughens; rain-wash, even on ground already flat and smooth, tends to furrow it."
These surfaces are supposedly very old. How is it that they have remained flat for hundreds of millions of years (and at high elevations in many cases)?
" ... there is erosion in places, but also deposition. River floods, for example."
Tsunami's aside perhaps, where does all of that river flood deposition come from? From higher up on the continent! It's yet another case of erosion removing material from the land into the sea. ie. helping to lower continents. Though some of it gets deposited by a river onto the land, it's still erosion thats moving material from higher to lower elevations & eventually into the sea.
"That explains how plains can form as land erodes lower. The highlands flatten, silt from floods or ponds fill in low areas."
No it doesn't. Highlands do not 'flatten'! Silt filling in low areas is NOT the type of plain I'm talking about. I already told you that. The global planation surfaces are cut into SOLID ROCK. Sometimes, tilted rock layers of varying hardnesses are all equally planed off! Crickmay and others admit they have no good solutions to this puzzle.
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, you apply the same double standard, science think, Bible brain death. Anything I said is still vastly more scientifically plausible than your jackass ideas: angel sex, talking snake, talking donkey, cherubs, seraphs, sticks that turn into snakes, a bronze stick that cures snakebite, flaming chariot rides into heaven, ravens delivering food, animal breeding by magic sticks, a river turning into blood, witches....what century do you live in?
A century of unsurpassed arrogance and stupidty, despite the best eduction that humanity has ever received! As theBible says: "... thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
@tubewatch59 If you oppose thinking, you are succeeding brilliantly. Why does the most advanced century in math, science and technology oppose your ideas the most?
Known erosion rates would reduce continents to sea level in tens of millions of years. And even if that were not a sufficient problem, there is the question of why large plains remain flat, rather than being dissected by erosion?
This is an issue for geologists.
For example, in Thomas, M.F. and Summerfield, M.A., Long-term landform development: key themes and research problems; Gardiner, V. (Ed.), International Geomorphology, Part II, pp. 936–956, 1986.
A global flood explains the profile of the continental shelves better than other mechanisms do. The extreme erosion that left behind the continental shelves as the erosional debris, likely took place at the conclusion of the flood when the continents were uplifted and the water covering them flowed down and into oceans, cutting a good deal (though certainly not all) of the landscape features we see today.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, geology books explained continental shelves, without violating the vast lists of reasons I gave you never refuted, addressed, or dare I say, understood?
"Plains are dissected by erosion, they are called rivers, which also can deposit silt, too."
So? Everyone knows that, but it doesn't help your case now does it.
A global flood explains the size and globalk extent of these features, and the global extent of the continental shelf profiles. You're not reading carefully or you'd have realized that in our last exchange. I'm having to repeat myself on some fairly basic points here.
"Understanding the long-term denudation of landscapes remains speculative, despite attempts to find bridges between theories and the evidence which supports them. The existence of planation surfaces is asserted by a host of writers, yet few attempt any serious explanation of their development. ... It is perplexing that after a century of argument and observation of the continents, no generally accepted mechanism for planation has been forthcoming."
The flood is a very good solution to these geological problems. If you have a better solution, tell us what it is. You can't simply say that the flood is nonsense. Well ... you can say that (and do), but that's not the scientific way. Creationists point to the flood to provide a solution to these issues. You should provide your side's solution to them. (Though the book seems to saying there aren't any good solutions).
@tubewatch59 I can read, you admitted "There was the main event, but many smaller ones have taken place since." and "quite a few regional megafloods." faced with my overwhelming evidence that the flood never happened, so that proves many smaller events shaped the land.
@tubewatch59 What is a "better solution": A. somebody lied, or B. a talking donkey, a talking snakes, a woman who turns into a a pillar of salt, sticks turning into snakes, breeding cattle with magic sticks, witches, flaming chariots, a 969 year old man, the sun stopping, a river turning into blood, seraphs, cherubs, a bronze staff curing snakebite, a 650 year old man building a 450 foot boat, ravens delivering food, making a rib into a woman..
You can poke fun at religion all you want. But those supernatual events aren't availablke to scientifically determine whether they actually took place or not.
The flood is open to scientific investigation though, because it has left massive evidence, and we can compare the explanatory power of the two models.
However, what do you dispute about Noah buildig the Ark? He would have hired people to do so, and he did have 120 years available to complete it.
"So why not posit a Magic Pink Elephant creating those things instead?"
A Pink Elephant is a device for scorning something you don't believe in. But why bother bringing it up? As I said, unverifiable accounts such as miracles (verifiable to eye witnesses only) are not open for scientific discussion in our time. They are a matter of personal belief (or not), but science can't help us with investigating that kind of thing.
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, the Flood story is full of refuted supernatural nonsense. The ancient Hebrews believed the circle of the earth rested on pillar or foundations above a void, which may have had water below. Above was a solid firmament, with water above it. So the flood myth says the "floodgates of heaven" were opened, and closed, in chapters 7 and 8.
@tubewatch59 ANY scientific solution is more plausible than the flood story. My favorite part is the Nephilim. Nothing says science more than believing in an invisible supernatural being who is angry over angel sex with humans. I'm just dying to hear your scientific solution! Explain angel reproduction. Do they use the missionary position?
"ANY scientific solution is more plausible than the flood story."
You can't say that AND be taken seriously unless you can provide some refutations.
I have merely said that each side has it's evidences for and against. You have gone much further and claimed that my side has NO evidence, while being unable to refute any of my listed evidences. You're trying to seem like a winner of arguments, without actually winning any arguments! Such cannot be taken seriously.
@tubewatch59 NO, you never gave me an ragument that could not be explained by ONE Global Flood. I gave you a battery of reasons none happened, like many sedimentary layers are not formed by water, which you never refuted.
Worse, you never gave me an argument why ONE flood, not one flood every 100,000 years for eons.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there are many religions, "Noah's Flood" can only have happened if it matches the Bible.
A Hindu could claim the Bible is false, but his flood myth is true. In fact, some Hindu schools are nontheistic, even an atheist could believe a different flood myth but call the Bible crock.
@tubewatch59 But Hey! I can give a more plausible than the Idiotic Flood myth! Genesis has at MANY supernatural stupidities: cherubs, Nephilim, a talking snake, etc, on and on!
So what if I propose a solution with only ONE supernatural stupidity? A Magic Pink Elephant created the plains with a flood! See? That is by definition more plausible than the Genesis Jackass stupidity.
"So what if I propose a solution with only ONE supernatural stupidity? A Magic Pink Elephant created the plains with a flood!"
Who's claiming a supernatural solution to the flood? Baumgardner's proposal (runaway thermal subduction) is based on the experimentally verified properties of rocks and how they deform under various regimes of temperatures and pressures. You may not realize it but Baumgardner's "Terra" program is the worlds most sophisticated mantle simulation.
@tubewatch59 If you are trying to model Genesis, you are still stuck with angel sex or a talking donkey. So why not drop them all? Why not use a Magic Pink Elephant instead? Also, which claims are supernatural? What about a 650 year old man?
"If you are trying to model Genesis, you are still stuck with angel sex or a talking donkey."
We don't attempt to scientifically model those things, any more than you would attempt to scientifically model Darwin's love life. Such things are not scientifically modelled!
@tubewatch59 You can model somebody's love life historians do it. Love lives have general explanations, but not seraphs, cherubs, witches, Nephilim, angel sex...
Well! That's more like it. We do know that the genome is deteriorating far more rapidly than was first suspected (yet another reason not to believe in evolution - it's heading in the wrong direction) so it's not that much of a stretch to figure that the aging of the first men (and likely animals as well) took mch longer. With very few mutations to a created genome, living creatures would be better back then than they are today.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there is no physical evidence of those lifespans, and a battery of DNA tests like Y-chromosome or Mitochondrial DNA prove you are way off base.
"Nonsense, this still gives no reason for ONE GLOBAL flood."
As before, you're not answering my objections! Just saying it's all 'nonsense' won't cut it, unless you back that up somehow. You know this, but because you have nothing to go on, you're kind of hoping you'll get away with it. But I can sympathize. As a 'Dark Lord', you've become accustomed to your authority over your subjects being absolute. You speak - So let it be Written - So shall it be Done! - etc.
"... cannot be formed by one big flood, due to the heat of formation. Limestone, for example releases 11,290 joules of energy per gram, the 5.6 octillion joules at once would vaporize the ocean."
What energy formation values are you using? What chemical reaction are you considering? Heat of formation? Formation from what? Looks to me like you're using the heat of formation of calcium carbonate from elemental calcium, carbon and oxygen!
"I was using a standard number for calcite hardening, blame science, not me."
I don't blame sciece.
I don't blame you, you're sufficiently ignorant not to have realized.
I do blame talk-origins! They should have known better than to have used the heat of formation of calcite from elemental ingredients to try and refute that limestone could have been formed in a flood event.
The heat of formation refers to the heat emitted or absorbed in the formation of the compound in question from the elemental forms of the constituents. But calcium metal cannot exist for long on the earth, because it's chemically reactive. NO ONE (save for you, talk origins, and the people who copied and pasted that argument) is proposing that earths limestone formed from it's elemental constituents!!! The heat of formation of calcite is irrelevant in this context.
"No, I cited the geologic heat generated by limestone, as it hardens,..."
Neither you or talk-origins cited the correct figure. You cited the 'heat of formation' which is an energy value far far larger than any heat relased from limestone formation as it would actually take place.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, I thought you understood which number I meant, and you never refuted the numbers I referred to when I corrected the misunderstanding.
"Add igneous rock and meteors, the water would vaporize."
What meteors? They aren't required for runaway thermal subduction.
As for igneous rock, it depends on a number of important details - how much of it has to be explained, and over what period.
A large quantity of igneous rock isn't a problem - IF - all that heat can be released gradually enough. In any case, the objection is certainly valid in principle, but it stands or falls on the quantitative details.
"Explain immense meteor craters or the KT boundary."
We can both explain those meteorites. The ones that hit earth certainly weren't large enough to boil away the oceans. Big? Yes, but not planet ending.
"And the vast amount of igneous rock ... would boil away the ocean"
Only if all of that heat was quickly dumped into the ocean. If the heat was released gradually, it wouldn't. You'd need to show the heat was dumped virtually all at once into the ocean.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, the vast seas of basalt in the earth's geologic layers in India or Siberia would turn the planet into a red hot sauna if both happened in one year. That is only 2 examples!
If ALL the meteors in those layers hit in one year, yes, they would end life.
Also, the tremors from impacts that size can be measured, and are quite obvious, to geologists. A much smaller impact on the moon, 1000 years ago, can still be measured at 250,000 miles today.
I looked up a table, 1207.6 kJ/mol, which sounds about right. A mole of CaCO3 is (40 + 12 + 3*32) grams = 40+12+96 grams = 148 grams. 1207600J/148grams = 8159.46 J/gram ~= 8.16 kJ/gram. That's a bit different from 11.29 J/gram, though it's in the ballpark.
That's a lot of energy! However, that applies only when forming limestone (Calcium carbonate) from Calcium metal, Oxygen gas, and solid Carbon! Of course that would release a lot of energy!! But who's claiming that?
No creationists (or any other scientists) are claiming that we had huge reservoirs of calcium metal, MEGA quantities of oxygen gas, and pure carbon sitting around waiting to be burnt to form limestone in the flood. We also have plenty of water as well, but no one is claiming we got all our water by burning huge quantities of hydrogen and oxygen!
Someone's fed you a bogus argument there. You'd better put that one into the "arguments flood denialists shouldn't use" pile.
"large concrete structures like Hoover Dam also generate heat."
Sure, but the amount of heat generated by concrete in setting, is orders of magnitude less than the heat of formation from the elemental constituents, isn't it! Please don't use that argument again (where you quoted the heat of formation of calcite) because it makes you seem a tad ignorant.
I found this 'argument' on talk origins (and many other sites):
"Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters."
Oh my! It seems talk origins isn't very carefully vetted is it!
How about you contact them about correcting this nonsense. You'll be a hero! Tell them they need to tidy up their 'heat of formation' concepts in regards to limestone formation in a flood (or anywhere). At the moment this argument is 'junk science' by any definition.
"Nonsense, those figures are huge underestimates, they fail to include volcanic activity or meteor impacts."
Meteors and igneous rock are separate arguments.
The 'heat of formation of calcite' argument is irrelevant to limestone formation on earth. 'Talk origins' should be aware of that!
The heat of formation argument you quoted also massively overestimates the energy that would need to be dissipated by any geologically relevant process of limestone formation.
@tubewatch59 I referred to the geologic, not chemical heat. That is relevant. Igneous rock and impacts would indeed vast amounts of heat, since they are found BETWEEN sedimentary layers you claim a flood created.
"The inbreeding from 1 pair of each unclean, 7 pairs of each clean animal and 4 pairs of people would be massive and obvious, even fatal."
I think there are evidences for population bottlenecks. But don't forget that much variation would have taken place since that time as well. But as far as humans go, we do have the evidence of genetic bottlenecks as we'd expect from that model.
By the way, those animals that don't have two genders, what's your point about that?
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, bottlenecks in a few animals like cheetahs can be discovered, and only a few thousand years since a bottleneck would be blatantly obvious in vast numbers of them. Also, tests like Mitochondrial DNA would show whether or not everyone was descended from one female.
Speaking of which, Noah's ark held "male and female" pairs but many animals do not have those genders in the first place.
"... and only a few thousand years since a bottleneck would be blatantly obvious in vast numbers of them."
I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you. The issue is that you're not demonstrating that there aren't such "obvious" remians of recent bottlenecks. Until we have some pretty solid scientific studies refuting such scenarios (not just your opinion) your're just giving us your opinion. We know your opinion. But can you demonstrate that your opinion is correct?
@tubewatch59 It has been refuted, genetic tests have already measured inbreeding, we now know Japan is more inbred than the USA. The tests for inbreeding were already done.
"The Bibles says the pairs were 'male and female.'"
So? It doesn't say that was ALL that Noah brought on board. You're trying to claim it allows for no exceptions. The Bible isn't giving us all of the many detailed events and special cases involved. It's a brief summary of what took place.
"... inbreeding ... would be massive and obvious, even fatal."
Yep. And that is what we observe. I doubt this was as problematic as you seem to assume, because there wouldn't have been enough time before the flood to build up as many deleterious mutations as we have now.
Still, some problems would have appeared due to that bottleneck, and we do observe many species in rather poor condition, heading towards extinction, and many many species have already gone extinct.
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, inbreeding can be detected at vastly lower rates, like comparing the Japanese to the Hispanic populations. Mitochondrial DNA and other such tests would also prove everyone descended from just 4 females that recently. Everything you are saying is pure hogwash.
@tubewatch59 Your website is hogwash. My numbers can be verified at archeological sites by: obsidian hydration dating, archeomagnetic dating, electron-spin resonance, dendronchronology, pollen indexes, lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, rock patination, tephrochronology, C-14 dating, thermoluminescence, Y-chromosome DNA, amino acid racemization, etc.
"DNA tests would prove these existed if they were real. The 1:4:7 ratio of Noah's animals is nowhere."
How do you know DNA tests actually do disprove the flood model? Have studies been done to show that the flood model of genetic origins is impossible?
It seems very short population bottlenecks are not as damaging to genetic diversity as long bottlenecks are (though I don't know the details on this). After the flood, populations expanded rapidly into an empty world!
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, slow breeders like elephants, compared to faster ones, would still show the bottlenecks anyway. Mitochondrial DNA would still show all those 1:4:7 bottlenecks, the patterns of genetic disease would still show those bottlenecks, dog breeds show inbreeding, again from larger bottlenecks than 1 pair of the Bible, etc.
"There is no evidence at all for one global flood, absolutely none!"
You're entitled to say such things. But until you demonstrate why you expect us to believe that, it's just your opinion.
Note that I haven't done any such thing. All I did was to quote a number of evidences in support of the flood. I didn't ever say anything like: 'there's no evidence at all against a global flood'.
You're the one making unsubstantiated statements and sweeping generalizations.
@tubewatch59 NO, you are making sweeping statements, since you are talking about the possibility of ONE GLOBAL flood, instead of 100 smaller ones over eons. You have no evidence of any such thing.
If someone claim all the car crash evidence, like skid marks on roads, might prove one national car crash, denying this absurdity would not be "unsubstantiated and sweeping" but simple common sense!
"...since you are talking about the possibility of ONE GLOBAL flood, instead of 100 smaller ones over eons."
You're making this an EITHER / OR proposition. There have been many other catastrophes. In our model they've taken place after the Genesis flood. We know there have been quite a few regional megafloods. We've also had the ice age, etc.
I'm not claiming there's only been ONE catastrophe. That was the main event, but many smaller ones have taken place since.
"How would we know which evidence was the global flood, which was not?"
We'd find that out from scientific investigation. We'd study the problems, and try to resolve what evidence was left by what events. Are you suggesting science couldn't do that? Probably not.
"If we can explain so much evidence without a single global flood, why assume the remaining evidence does?"
Big global patterns, would likely be evidence of a big global flood. Research will tell us.
@bushonomics - I've always been perversly cursious about this question. Thanks for answering it for me, though I would have used Mt. Ararat or Mount El’brus instead of Mt. Everest. Bible does say they landed on the tallest mountain, but a slightly less foaming-at-the-mouth Christian could assume there were taller mountains over the horizon, or it was a convient wording.
#2 The water did not come from below due to the core cooling, and causing steam (more heat, more peressure; less heat, less pressure!!!) The water came from space (Gensis 1:7). Therefore, the calculations, despite certain limits in his model, are essentially correct. And it begs the question (aside from requiring a revision of physics, archeology, anthropology, genetics, biology, microbiology, cosmology, meteorology, etc., etc.), where did the water go?
#1 @ Creationists - Read your bible. The continents did not mysteriously rise. Why would they? They are "floating" on the mantle, but so is the ocean floor. If anything, a global flood would cause them to be higher. Mountains formed through compression of rock over millions of years do not form faster because (or in spite of) rain. Or water.The continents did not "tip over" (wtf?!?).
Well this flood is much like the epic of Gilgamesh and numerous Egyptian accounts of a great flood, it is an ancient cultures understanding of how or why a massive flood that wiped out the Mediterranean region(their world) would occur.
I'm not a theist or anything.. But wouldn't a christian just argue that the all mighty god added a lot of water for 40 days and then just took it away again.. Not that I personally believe this or anything...
@kongotech2 yes, thiest always jump to GOD DID IT! of course thie equates to saying"the magic sky daddy use his magical powers and made the rain come, then made all water disapear(god is a great magician) it is the thiests trump "GODS MAGIC"
at 8:13 you said numbers do not lie but numbers can be doctored by people so the accuracy of your numbers may be questioned. Now I'm not trying to argue with you or stir the poop bowl as a matter of fact I'm putting together a new book and I'm in the process of gathering research. I find your video here to be very interesting.
One of the reasons I do my best to include all my sources is so that people can check the validity of my numbers for themselves.
In all the comments on this video, the ones that question my numbers do so in one of two ways: without citing a source at all, or citing a source so blatantly at odds with our understanding of earth sciences that it comes across as being desperate.
Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
Did none of you creotards even bother to actually READ your instruction playbook? This is one of the parts that can't be argued successfully. There is no "out of context" unless you take it out. There is no way this flood happened and for many other reasons than described here.
Sorry, don't be poor loser's.The bible does probably have a few good true stories but this is not one of them.
only a very,very,small percentage of knowledge came with noah and his family from the 'old times'like if 8 of our best minds suddenly got stranded on another planet,with jst what they had to carry,how muuch technical knowledge wold their new civilization have in a thousand years?not everyone knows everything about bilding,mechanics,science,tayloring,cooking,herding,farming,irrigation,etc. sch is the tech we have left from noah and his sons.the restw e are still relearning and wiil for centries!
Does upheaval not counteract elevation changes caused by erosion to some extent depending on location?
jacobreinvented 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jacobreinvented
"Does upheaval not counteract elevation changes caused by erosion to some extent..."
Based on the creationist article "Eroding Ages - by Tas Walker" - If uplift was (more or less) balancing erosion, then (assuming that the continents are in fact really old) we'd have very few really old sedimentary rocks left anymore, since erosion would be removing sedimentary rock layers relatively quickly. (ie. The continents are rising while erosion is shaving off surface layers.)
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@jacobreinvented
There is also an article "Continents Should Have Eroded Long Ago by Brian Thomas" that goes into a bit more detail, including erosion estimates based on the Beryllium 10 isotope and the difference between erosion rates on outcrops versus in drainage basins.
Another article argued that areas with high uplift rates, if old, ought to have very deep canyons in their upper sections...
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@jacobreinvented
Here is a quote from the 'Erosion of Rocks" article by Chui:
"For example, based on uniformitarian assumptions, part of New Guinea has been shown to have risen from sea level to 3000 m elevation since marine Pliocene sediments were laid down, possibly inferring a rate of rise of 1.5 m/1000 years.
(cont...)
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@jacobreinvented
(cont...) If river down-cutting works as rapidly as this present erosion experiment has shown, then we would expect to see canyons about 3000 m deep in the upper sections of
those New Guinea rivers. The fact is that we do not see canyons of that magnitude in the region. This implies that the uniformitarian assumptions are questionable and/or the time-frame of 2 million years is in error."
tubewatch59 2 days ago
You can't manifest the powers of god. Next your going to try to prove Moses couldn't scientifically part a sea.
arjunabey1 4 days ago
You said in the introductory notes: "I foresee multiple literalists coming at me with various Bible verses that only slightly, vaguely, LOOSELY suggest that somehow the Flood occurred when the topography of the Earth was much "flatter" than it is today."
So what is the main objection to this scenario? Something like Baumgardner's runaway thermal subduction could easily supply enough energy to build mountain ranges afterwards. (The driving gravitational potential energy being ~ 10^28 Joules).
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, there is no evidence of Noah's flood in the first place.
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@InternetDarkLord
"... there is no evidence of Noah's flood in the first place."
I disagree. Inselbergs supposedly tens of milions of years old wouldn't last 100,000 years based on current erosion and frost cracking rates, but they do look like erosional remnants of a huge flood that washed away the surroundings. The existenceof planation surfaces worldwide is explained by a recnt huge flood, but if millions of years old, would have been eroded into valleys by now...
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, No one said current erosion rates are the same over vast time spans. Noah's Flood can be disproven by chronostratigraphy, coral reef layers, bryozoan reef stratification, dendrochronology, electron-spin resonance, fossil indexes, geomagnatic dating, Lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, Mitochondrial DNA, ocean sediment cores, polar ice sheet cores, radiometric dating, rock patination, Y-chromosome dating, varve analysis...want more?
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"No one said current erosion rates are the same over vast time spans."
So the present ISN'T the key to the past? Past AVERAGE erosion rates would have to be spectucularly lower than the present then, wouldn't they! And you're not taking into account the rates of erosion of the coasts into the oceans. I fail to see how those could ever be less by orders of magnitude since they depend on ocean erosion of the coasts, not on rainfall...
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, you ignored tectonic plate activity or deposition.
Also, Noah's Farce can be disproven many ways:oxidizable carbon ratio dating, oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy, tephrochronology, potassium-argon dating, the carbonate rock mass, aeolian sand deposits, glacial weathering, batholith formation, the lack of atmospheric oxygen in lower strata, the KT boundary, pollen fossil indexes, fossilized animal burrows, the biomass implied by the number of fossils...
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
Noah's Flood can be disproven by chronostratigraphy, coral reef layers, bryozoan reef stratification, dendrochronology, electron-spin resonance, fossil indexes, geomagnatic dating, Lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, Mitochondrial DNA, ocean sediment cores, polar ice sheet cores, radiometric dating, rock patination, Y-chromosome dating, varve analysis...
Sounds like it could also be disproven by 'The cat in the Hat'! Perhaps you should point out WHY they all disprove it.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Many are dating techniques that show no break in recent times. Others, like DNA, show no global bottlenecks a flood would produce. Some, like ice sheet cores, would show a global flood if one happened, but do not.
READ science books.
InternetDarkLord 6 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"Noah's Flood can be disproven by ... dendrochronology..."
The interesting thing there is that the very oldest actual standing trees date right back to around the time of the flood, about 4400 years ago. That seems a bit of a coincidence doesn't it? Counting tree rings of standing trees won't get you back any father than that. After that you have to start combining ring patterns, using carbon dating etc. The flood model also predicts old C14 dates (cont...)
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, the oldest trees are not the upper limit of dendrochronology, so this is nonsense.
InternetDarkLord 6 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
The flood buried a LOT of biological material (ie. carbon). This had previously been at a certain equilibrium level with the production rate of C14 in the atmosphere. Since there was more carbon in the biosphere before the flood, the amount of C14 in the biosphere was thus much more dilute than it is now. Dating biocarbon samples that died before, during and for some time after the flood, would yield far 'older' C14 dates, if we just assumed today's C14 abundancies.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, C-14 is not used to date most geologic layers in the first place, that is a strawman. Other dating techniques in use include to date many different materials: chronostratigraphic dating, coral reef layering, electron-spin resonance, bryozoan stratification, fossil indexes, geomagnetic dating, lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, ice sheet cores, obsidian hydration analysis, ocean sediment cores, thermoluminescence, varves, rock patination....want more?
InternetDarkLord 6 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
Water and wind gaps are rather well explaned by a large flood. The way that plains are cut straight through multiple rock layers of varying hardnesses also is explained by continental runoff from a large flood. The deposition profile of the continental shelves are explaned by a large flood that eroded sediments off of the continents as the waters flowed back into the oceans. Underwater canyons cut into the shelves are explained by the channelized erosion phase of same.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Pure nonsense, that does not explain why the geologic column has: varves, rain drops, river channels, the positions of stromatolites, wind-blown dunes, beaches, bryozoan reefs between other layers, glacial deposits, animal burrows, fossil stratification, coral reef stratification, dessication cracks, desert varnish, footprints, meteor craters, caves, or coprolites.
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"[The flood] does not explain why the geologic column has: varves, rain drops, river channels, the positions of stromatolites, wind-blown dunes, beaches, bryozoan reefs between other layers, glacial deposits, animal burrows, fossil stratification, coral reef stratification, dessication cracks, desert varnish, footprints, meteor craters, caves, or coprolites...."
We'd have to go through them to see. But do these evidences really counter the flood? I doubt it.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 You never explained any thus far.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
Much of the geologic column is better explained as being the result of a catastrophic flood of global extent, as are the fossils which indicate rapid catastrophic burial. Even the record of the fossils fits a flood, sea creatures buried first (nearer the bottom), land creatures buried later (nearer the top). The supposed order of evolution (sea to land) fits a flood burial pattern.
No evidence of Noah's flood?
You don't WANT to notice the evidence for it.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there are many places where sea creatures like coral are above land creatures in strata, and why are fish, trees, footprints, or animal burrows stratified, too? Why are the no humans in lower layers?
Also, the Bible claims over 1000 years passed before the Flood, where is that layer? Did the flood rebury all the bodies, or Enoch?
NO EVIDENCE!
Many strata are not formed by water, desert varnish by contact with air, tillite by ice, some sandstones by deserts.
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord
"there are many places where sea creatures like coral are above land creatures in strata"
I never said they couldn't be. I said the general evolutionary order of life transitions is from the sea to the land, which also matches what we'd expect from the flood. Though a global flood would give land animals nearer tthe top, obviously there'd be sea creatures all through the fossils (which is what we see, as you pointed out).
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 NONSENSE, there would be a mixed PREFLOOD layer at the bottom, including Enoch, where is that layer?
How could a flood stratify fossils in the first place? Why would sea animals die before land ones? Where are the people who died?
How did a flood stratify trees, fish, footprints, animal burrows, stromatolites, bryozoans, coral reefs, biomes, mollusks, wind-blown dunes, human artifacts, glacial deposits...want more?
InternetDarkLord 6 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"Many strata are not formed by water, desert varnish by contact with air, tillite by ice, some sandstones by deserts."
Not all the layers would have been formed by water. During and after the flood there are other mechanisms available - ie. volcanism and high energy 'hypercanes' (mega hurricane storms with tornado speed winds), which are hurricanes powered by volcanically heated regions of water in the ocean 50 Celsius and hotter. Land erosion would have been immense.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, the desert varnish is 300 years thick in places. What about tillite formed by glaciers? What about glacial deposits? Why are there coral or bryozoan reefs or forests BETWEEN other layers?
There is no evidence for excuses like hypercanes. And if you are citing the Bible flood, it clearly says the waters availed 150 days.
InternetDarkLord 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"Also, the Bible claims over 1000 years passed before the Flood, where is that layer? Did the flood rebury all the bodies, or Enoch?"
You'd have virtually no fossils formed in the period before the flood. You would have the original old earth rock layers, but there's be little in the way of mechanisms to form fossils. There might be some, but not too many. Are we forming much in the way of fossils today? Not really. (A few would be formed in tsunami's and floods).
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, if the flood did form fossils, obviously all the bones, stones, artifacts, metal, pottery, etc on the bottom would still be there, why not? It would not even need to fossilize.
If deep water makes fossils or rock in less than one year, why does the ocean make none each year now?
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
Finally, there's the evidence for the flood I mentioned originally, which you didn't counter. (But then again, I didn't counter all that much of your's either!)
To sum up, there is evidence for and against. You claimed there was none in support. That's demonstrably wrong, at least until you can demonstrate that the evidence I listed as being in support of the flood, doesn't support the flood.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, all the evidence you cited was explainred by forces like plate tectonics or rising and falling sea levels from Ice Ages.
Nothing you cited requires ONE GLOBAL flood, any more than evidence for fires requires one global fire, or car crashes require one nationwide crash.
There is no evidence at all for one global flood, absolutely none!
InternetDarkLord 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"Nonsense, all the evidence you cited was explainred by forces like plate tectonics or rising and falling sea levels from Ice Ages."
Hmmm!!
I Guess you'd like them all to be explaned away that easily, right? Your problem is, that until such evidences for the flood actually are explained away, they remain as evidences for it. You actually do have to explain WHY they aren't valid evice for the flood.
tubewatch59 6 days ago
@tubewatch59 They don't require ONE GLOBAL flood.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
Note well:
I'm not saying that the evidences that you quoted as being against the flood aren't evidences against it. A more detailed investigation is required to determine if those evidences actually stand against the flood or not. In the meantime I'll take your word for it, until I can check them all out.
Until you show why the evidences I listed are not evidence for the Noahic flood, you'll have to live with the possibility that they might be.
tubewatch59 6 days ago
@tubewatch59 I gave you list after list proving the Flood never happened, here are even more:
The Bible says that all pairs were "male and female" but many animals, which could not survive such a disaster, don't have 2 genders.
The inbreeding from 1 pair of each unclean, 7 pairs of each clean animal and 4 pairs of people would be massive and obvious, even fatal. DNA tests would prove these existed if they were real. The 1:4:7 ratio of Noah's animals is nowhere.
Want more?
InternetDarkLord 5 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"I gave you list after list proving the Flood never happened..."
Really? You gave list after list of things that YOU SAY prove the flood never happenned. Then (as if you had just made an actual point) you say "want more?"
Just naming items doesn't PROVE the flood never happenned. It's an introductory basis for further discussions. I ceertainly don't claim that my list of evidences PROVE that the flood is real. It's merely a basis for further discussion.
tubewatch59 5 days ago
@tubewatch59 I only have 500 characters, read science books.
You gave nothing requiring one global flood in historic times at all, none. There is none to give.
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"You gave nothing requiring one global flood in historic times at all, none."
Global planation surfaces (plains).
There's no mechanism producing them today. Today, plains are carved up and eroded away. But a global flood would be able to produce the neccessary current speeds over the required global extent, and then partially eroded away by the following "channelized" stage of the flood runoff, but much remains. Other catastrophes have also left their marks.
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Plains do not require floods to form, much less one global one. There is no evidence for one global flood.
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
How do plains form? And why are plains still here are millions of years of erosional processes that would have long since carved them up?
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Plains can be formed by changes in sea level, rivers or lakes, lava fields, glaciers, etc.
Why would erosion always be greater than deposition?
Existing sedimentary layers cannot be formed by one big flood, due to the heat of formation. Limestone, for example releases 11,290 joules of energy per gram, the 5.6 octillion joules at once would vaporize the ocean.
Some strata like desert varnish are not formed by water.
Then there are coral reefs between strata, want more?
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
Not large planation surfaces. Lakes will only form in depressions (or small nearly flat depressions0. Even though they may lay down a flat sedimentary bottom, that's not the issue, because we're talking about flat surfaces of solid rock. You'd need speeds of water far in excess of normal rivers to do that. Planation surfaces may have tilted rocks of varying hardnesses that are equally planed off! These plains are often capped by water rounded boulders & cobbles.
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, plains are merely large flat areas, and a flood would not tilt rock surfaces in the first place.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"...and a flood would not tilt rock surfaces in the first place."
The catacyslm that caused a global flood as one sideffect could. Look up runaway thermal subduction. It's a good candidate. The gravitational potential energy that would have driven the process was on the order of 10E+25 kJ. Quite capable of building mountains & causing up to tens of km worth of vertical elevation changes in continents and sea floors, tilting rock surfaces AND causing a global flood.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, I proved the flood never happened with dozens of experiments and tests you never addressed (probably never understood), much less refuted.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@tubewatch59
"Nonsense, plains are merely large flat areas..."
Global planation surfaces or 'Large flat areas' as you call them, still manage to evade any convention al explanations. Read those quotes again.
Who am I going to believe, Mr. Internet (I only have 500 characters. so go and read science books) Dark Lord, or the actual science books, which tell us there aren't any well understood mechanisms capable of forming global planation surfaces? I'll go with the science books.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, there are explanations of hoe plains form, you just cherry pick quotes without refuting anything that I said. I can prove it.
If you go with science books, they overwhelmingly say that Noah's Flood never happened, I gave you a long list of reasons found in books you failed to refute. Why the cherry picking?
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
Where are the explanations? You believe obvioulsy that such a 'simple thing' as the formation of global plains, must have a simple solution. But now you're realizing that there isn't any such solution as Crickmay and others have pointed out.
It's irrelevant whether people believe in the flood. What's relevant is whether they can offer good alternative explanations for things a global flood can easily achieve. It seems that they can't.
Noah's flood SCORES again!
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, you use different standards of proof for Geology and Genesis. Geology uses rigorous science, the Bible uses Gullible Moron science. What is more scientifically plausible, my explainations or a talking snake, a talking donkey, seraphs, cherubs, a 969 year old man, a woman who turns into a pillar of salt, a chariot ride into heaven, a rib turning into a woman, a stick curing snakebite, a river turning into blood, witches..
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
"I gave you a long list of reasons found in books you failed to refute. Why the cherry picking?"
I haven't yet looked into all of those. I may still do so. But something needs to be made clear:
I never claimed ALL of your objections to the flood were bogus. I don't know if they are or not. (Though your 'heat of formation' argument sure is!)
However, you claimed ALL the evidences I listed for the flood were bogus. You claim that, but you can't demonstrate how.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 All your arguments fail, because you never showed anything that requires one global flood instead of 1000 over billions of years. not one.
Meanwhile, the sedimentary layers can be over 10 miles thick, how could one flood do that? How deep was the water? Where did all that sediment even come from, even the Himalayas are not high enough.
You misunderstood the heat argument, nor did you refute it.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
Crickmay6 comments:
C.H. Crickmay in 'The Work of the River: A Critical Study of the Central Aspects of Geomorphology‘ says: "There is no reason to suppose that any kind of wasting ever planes an area to flatness: decrepitation always roughens; rain-wash, even on ground already flat and smooth, tends to furrow it."
These surfaces are supposedly very old. How is it that they have remained flat for hundreds of millions of years (and at high elevations in many cases)?
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there is erosion in places, but also deposition. River floods, for example. And none of this requires ONE Global flood at all.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
" ... there is erosion in places, but also deposition. River floods, for example."
Tsunami's aside perhaps, where does all of that river flood deposition come from? From higher up on the continent! It's yet another case of erosion removing material from the land into the sea. ie. helping to lower continents. Though some of it gets deposited by a river onto the land, it's still erosion thats moving material from higher to lower elevations & eventually into the sea.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 That explains how plains can form as land erodes lower. The highlands flatten, silt from floods or ponds fill in low areas.
You also STILL gave no reason one global flood is required, not 1000 over eons.
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"That explains how plains can form as land erodes lower. The highlands flatten, silt from floods or ponds fill in low areas."
No it doesn't. Highlands do not 'flatten'! Silt filling in low areas is NOT the type of plain I'm talking about. I already told you that. The global planation surfaces are cut into SOLID ROCK. Sometimes, tilted rock layers of varying hardnesses are all equally planed off! Crickmay and others admit they have no good solutions to this puzzle.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, you apply the same double standard, science think, Bible brain death. Anything I said is still vastly more scientifically plausible than your jackass ideas: angel sex, talking snake, talking donkey, cherubs, seraphs, sticks that turn into snakes, a bronze stick that cures snakebite, flaming chariot rides into heaven, ravens delivering food, animal breeding by magic sticks, a river turning into blood, witches....what century do you live in?
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
" ... what century do you live in?"
A century of unsurpassed arrogance and stupidty, despite the best eduction that humanity has ever received! As theBible says: "... thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 If you oppose thinking, you are succeeding brilliantly. Why does the most advanced century in math, science and technology oppose your ideas the most?
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
Known erosion rates would reduce continents to sea level in tens of millions of years. And even if that were not a sufficient problem, there is the question of why large plains remain flat, rather than being dissected by erosion?
This is an issue for geologists.
For example, in Thomas, M.F. and Summerfield, M.A., Long-term landform development: key themes and research problems; Gardiner, V. (Ed.), International Geomorphology, Part II, pp. 936–956, 1986.
(cont...)
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Plains are dissected by erosion, they are called rivers, which also can deposit silt, too.
You still do not need ONE GLOBAL flood anyway.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"You still do not need ONE GLOBAL flood anyway."
A global flood explains the profile of the continental shelves better than other mechanisms do. The extreme erosion that left behind the continental shelves as the erosional debris, likely took place at the conclusion of the flood when the continents were uplifted and the water covering them flowed down and into oceans, cutting a good deal (though certainly not all) of the landscape features we see today.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, that does not even require a global flood, a mere mile or 2 of change in sea level would suffice. You fail again.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, geology books explained continental shelves, without violating the vast lists of reasons I gave you never refuted, addressed, or dare I say, understood?
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"Plains are dissected by erosion, they are called rivers, which also can deposit silt, too."
So? Everyone knows that, but it doesn't help your case now does it.
A global flood explains the size and globalk extent of these features, and the global extent of the continental shelf profiles. You're not reading carefully or you'd have realized that in our last exchange. I'm having to repeat myself on some fairly basic points here.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, that still does not require one global flood.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
(cont...) they say:
"Understanding the long-term denudation of landscapes remains speculative, despite attempts to find bridges between theories and the evidence which supports them. The existence of planation surfaces is asserted by a host of writers, yet few attempt any serious explanation of their development. ... It is perplexing that after a century of argument and observation of the continents, no generally accepted mechanism for planation has been forthcoming."
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, this still gives no reason for ONE GLOBAL flood.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"Nonsense, this still gives no reason for ..."
The flood is a very good solution to these geological problems. If you have a better solution, tell us what it is. You can't simply say that the flood is nonsense. Well ... you can say that (and do), but that's not the scientific way. Creationists point to the flood to provide a solution to these issues. You should provide your side's solution to them. (Though the book seems to saying there aren't any good solutions).
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 BULL SHIT, I pointed out a battery of reasons why that flood is impossible, you never even tried to refute half.
You never proved one single reason why there should be ONE GLOBAL flood over 1000 smaller ones.
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"I pointed out a battery of reasons why that flood is impossible, you never even tried to refute half."
I haven't gotten around to it. Maybe I will, but I do expect you to list each one and ALSO explain WHY each one of those is an objection.
But you haven't been able to successfully refute even one of the evidences I listed, despite claiming that NONE of my evidences were valid.
Why would you claim such a thing? You're likely trying a 'confidence bluff' on me!
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 You never named anything requiring one global flood, not 1000 over billions of years.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
"You never named anything requiring one global flood ..."
You can't read.
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 I can read, you admitted "There was the main event, but many smaller ones have taken place since." and "quite a few regional megafloods." faced with my overwhelming evidence that the flood never happened, so that proves many smaller events shaped the land.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@tubewatch59 What is a "better solution": A. somebody lied, or B. a talking donkey, a talking snakes, a woman who turns into a a pillar of salt, sticks turning into snakes, breeding cattle with magic sticks, witches, flaming chariots, a 969 year old man, the sun stopping, a river turning into blood, seraphs, cherubs, a bronze staff curing snakebite, a 650 year old man building a 450 foot boat, ravens delivering food, making a rib into a woman..
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
You can poke fun at religion all you want. But those supernatual events aren't availablke to scientifically determine whether they actually took place or not.
The flood is open to scientific investigation though, because it has left massive evidence, and we can compare the explanatory power of the two models.
However, what do you dispute about Noah buildig the Ark? He would have hired people to do so, and he did have 120 years available to complete it.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 All the argument "supernatural events aren't available to scientifically determine" proves is that you believe bull shit.
So why not posit a Magic Pink Elephant creating those things instead? The same argument applies.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"So why not posit a Magic Pink Elephant creating those things instead?"
A Pink Elephant is a device for scorning something you don't believe in. But why bother bringing it up? As I said, unverifiable accounts such as miracles (verifiable to eye witnesses only) are not open for scientific discussion in our time. They are a matter of personal belief (or not), but science can't help us with investigating that kind of thing.
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, the Flood story is full of refuted supernatural nonsense. The ancient Hebrews believed the circle of the earth rested on pillar or foundations above a void, which may have had water below. Above was a solid firmament, with water above it. So the flood myth says the "floodgates of heaven" were opened, and closed, in chapters 7 and 8.
In modern science that is pure insanity!
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@tubewatch59 ANY scientific solution is more plausible than the flood story. My favorite part is the Nephilim. Nothing says science more than believing in an invisible supernatural being who is angry over angel sex with humans. I'm just dying to hear your scientific solution! Explain angel reproduction. Do they use the missionary position?
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"ANY scientific solution is more plausible than the flood story."
You can't say that AND be taken seriously unless you can provide some refutations.
I have merely said that each side has it's evidences for and against. You have gone much further and claimed that my side has NO evidence, while being unable to refute any of my listed evidences. You're trying to seem like a winner of arguments, without actually winning any arguments! Such cannot be taken seriously.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 NO, you never gave me an ragument that could not be explained by ONE Global Flood. I gave you a battery of reasons none happened, like many sedimentary layers are not formed by water, which you never refuted.
Worse, you never gave me an argument why ONE flood, not one flood every 100,000 years for eons.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there are many religions, "Noah's Flood" can only have happened if it matches the Bible.
A Hindu could claim the Bible is false, but his flood myth is true. In fact, some Hindu schools are nontheistic, even an atheist could believe a different flood myth but call the Bible crock.
So it is a good thing it never happened.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@tubewatch59 But Hey! I can give a more plausible than the Idiotic Flood myth! Genesis has at MANY supernatural stupidities: cherubs, Nephilim, a talking snake, etc, on and on!
So what if I propose a solution with only ONE supernatural stupidity? A Magic Pink Elephant created the plains with a flood! See? That is by definition more plausible than the Genesis Jackass stupidity.
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"So what if I propose a solution with only ONE supernatural stupidity? A Magic Pink Elephant created the plains with a flood!"
Who's claiming a supernatural solution to the flood? Baumgardner's proposal (runaway thermal subduction) is based on the experimentally verified properties of rocks and how they deform under various regimes of temperatures and pressures. You may not realize it but Baumgardner's "Terra" program is the worlds most sophisticated mantle simulation.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 If you are trying to model Genesis, you are still stuck with angel sex or a talking donkey. So why not drop them all? Why not use a Magic Pink Elephant instead? Also, which claims are supernatural? What about a 650 year old man?
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
Comment removed
tubewatch59 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"If you are trying to model Genesis, you are still stuck with angel sex or a talking donkey."
We don't attempt to scientifically model those things, any more than you would attempt to scientifically model Darwin's love life. Such things are not scientifically modelled!
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 You can model somebody's love life historians do it. Love lives have general explanations, but not seraphs, cherubs, witches, Nephilim, angel sex...
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"What about a 650 year old man?"
Well! That's more like it. We do know that the genome is deteriorating far more rapidly than was first suspected (yet another reason not to believe in evolution - it's heading in the wrong direction) so it's not that much of a stretch to figure that the aging of the first men (and likely animals as well) took mch longer. With very few mutations to a created genome, living creatures would be better back then than they are today.
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, there is no physical evidence of those lifespans, and a battery of DNA tests like Y-chromosome or Mitochondrial DNA prove you are way off base.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"Nonsense, this still gives no reason for ONE GLOBAL flood."
As before, you're not answering my objections! Just saying it's all 'nonsense' won't cut it, unless you back that up somehow. You know this, but because you have nothing to go on, you're kind of hoping you'll get away with it. But I can sympathize. As a 'Dark Lord', you've become accustomed to your authority over your subjects being absolute. You speak - So let it be Written - So shall it be Done! - etc.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, you still cannot name anything requiring ONE GLOBAL Flood.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
"... cannot be formed by one big flood, due to the heat of formation. Limestone, for example releases 11,290 joules of energy per gram, the 5.6 octillion joules at once would vaporize the ocean."
What energy formation values are you using? What chemical reaction are you considering? Heat of formation? Formation from what? Looks to me like you're using the heat of formation of calcium carbonate from elemental calcium, carbon and oxygen!
Let's look it up and see...
tubewatch59 4 days ago
Comment removed
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, I am refering to calcite, the stuff limestone is made of. Lava layers and meteorite craters would add vastly more than that.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"Nonsense, I am refering to calcite, the stuff limestone is made of."
So am I. 'Calcite' is made up mosly of calcium carbonate.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 So what is the problem? That is a standard value for calcite formation. Add igneous rock and meteors, the water would vaporize.
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"So what is the problem? That is a standard value for calcite formation."
You really are pretty ignorant of basic science aren't you. Let me spell it out in detail...
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 I was using a standard number for calcite hardening, blame science, not me.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"I was using a standard number for calcite hardening, blame science, not me."
I don't blame sciece.
I don't blame you, you're sufficiently ignorant not to have realized.
I do blame talk-origins! They should have known better than to have used the heat of formation of calcite from elemental ingredients to try and refute that limestone could have been formed in a flood event.
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 No, you cited the number, then somebody deleted your post. I wonder who? Then you dropped trying to refute my numbers.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
The heat of formation refers to the heat emitted or absorbed in the formation of the compound in question from the elemental forms of the constituents. But calcium metal cannot exist for long on the earth, because it's chemically reactive. NO ONE (save for you, talk origins, and the people who copied and pasted that argument) is proposing that earths limestone formed from it's elemental constituents!!! The heat of formation of calcite is irrelevant in this context.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 No, I cited the geologic heat generated by limestone, as it hardens, read a geology book.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
"No, I cited the geologic heat generated by limestone, as it hardens,..."
Neither you or talk-origins cited the correct figure. You cited the 'heat of formation' which is an energy value far far larger than any heat relased from limestone formation as it would actually take place.
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, I thought you understood which number I meant, and you never refuted the numbers I referred to when I corrected the misunderstanding.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
"Add igneous rock and meteors, the water would vaporize."
What meteors? They aren't required for runaway thermal subduction.
As for igneous rock, it depends on a number of important details - how much of it has to be explained, and over what period.
A large quantity of igneous rock isn't a problem - IF - all that heat can be released gradually enough. In any case, the objection is certainly valid in principle, but it stands or falls on the quantitative details.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 Explain immense meteor craters or the KT boundary. And the vast amount of igneous rock or limestone would boil away the ocean.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"Explain immense meteor craters or the KT boundary."
We can both explain those meteorites. The ones that hit earth certainly weren't large enough to boil away the oceans. Big? Yes, but not planet ending.
"And the vast amount of igneous rock ... would boil away the ocean"
Only if all of that heat was quickly dumped into the ocean. If the heat was released gradually, it wouldn't. You'd need to show the heat was dumped virtually all at once into the ocean.
tubewatch59 1 day ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, the vast seas of basalt in the earth's geologic layers in India or Siberia would turn the planet into a red hot sauna if both happened in one year. That is only 2 examples!
If ALL the meteors in those layers hit in one year, yes, they would end life.
Also, the tremors from impacts that size can be measured, and are quite obvious, to geologists. A much smaller impact on the moon, 1000 years ago, can still be measured at 250,000 miles today.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
I looked up a table, 1207.6 kJ/mol, which sounds about right. A mole of CaCO3 is (40 + 12 + 3*32) grams = 40+12+96 grams = 148 grams. 1207600J/148grams = 8159.46 J/gram ~= 8.16 kJ/gram. That's a bit different from 11.29 J/gram, though it's in the ballpark.
That's a lot of energy! However, that applies only when forming limestone (Calcium carbonate) from Calcium metal, Oxygen gas, and solid Carbon! Of course that would release a lot of energy!! But who's claiming that?
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 A. I think you mean, -1207.6
B. That is at standard pressure, meaning it does not apply under deep water.
C. That is the enthalpy of formation, not geologic heat of formation. So I did not claim that.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
No creationists (or any other scientists) are claiming that we had huge reservoirs of calcium metal, MEGA quantities of oxygen gas, and pure carbon sitting around waiting to be burnt to form limestone in the flood. We also have plenty of water as well, but no one is claiming we got all our water by burning huge quantities of hydrogen and oxygen!
Someone's fed you a bogus argument there. You'd better put that one into the "arguments flood denialists shouldn't use" pile.
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Bull Shit, large concrete structures like Hoover Dam also generate heat. It still happens today.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"large concrete structures like Hoover Dam also generate heat."
Sure, but the amount of heat generated by concrete in setting, is orders of magnitude less than the heat of formation from the elemental constituents, isn't it! Please don't use that argument again (where you quoted the heat of formation of calcite) because it makes you seem a tad ignorant.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 That is not what the argument, which you quoted said.
InternetDarkLord 5 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
I found this 'argument' on talk origins (and many other sites):
"Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters."
Oh my! It seems talk origins isn't very carefully vetted is it!
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 What is your point? All you did was quote. Then again, that is all you ever do!
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
How about you contact them about correcting this nonsense. You'll be a hero! Tell them they need to tidy up their 'heat of formation' concepts in regards to limestone formation in a flood (or anywhere). At the moment this argument is 'junk science' by any definition.
tubewatch59 3 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, those figures are huge underestimates, they fail to include volcanic activity or meteor impacts.
You still have no reason for ONE GLOBAL flood over 1000 over eons, none.
InternetDarkLord 2 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"Nonsense, those figures are huge underestimates, they fail to include volcanic activity or meteor impacts."
Meteors and igneous rock are separate arguments.
The 'heat of formation of calcite' argument is irrelevant to limestone formation on earth. 'Talk origins' should be aware of that!
The heat of formation argument you quoted also massively overestimates the energy that would need to be dissipated by any geologically relevant process of limestone formation.
tubewatch59 2 days ago
@tubewatch59 I referred to the geologic, not chemical heat. That is relevant. Igneous rock and impacts would indeed vast amounts of heat, since they are found BETWEEN sedimentary layers you claim a flood created.
Read a real geology book.
InternetDarkLord 1 day ago
@InternetDarkLord
"The inbreeding from 1 pair of each unclean, 7 pairs of each clean animal and 4 pairs of people would be massive and obvious, even fatal."
I think there are evidences for population bottlenecks. But don't forget that much variation would have taken place since that time as well. But as far as humans go, we do have the evidence of genetic bottlenecks as we'd expect from that model.
By the way, those animals that don't have two genders, what's your point about that?
tubewatch59 5 days ago
@tubewatch59 Hogwash, bottlenecks in a few animals like cheetahs can be discovered, and only a few thousand years since a bottleneck would be blatantly obvious in vast numbers of them. Also, tests like Mitochondrial DNA would show whether or not everyone was descended from one female.
Speaking of which, Noah's ark held "male and female" pairs but many animals do not have those genders in the first place.
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"... and only a few thousand years since a bottleneck would be blatantly obvious in vast numbers of them."
I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you. The issue is that you're not demonstrating that there aren't such "obvious" remians of recent bottlenecks. Until we have some pretty solid scientific studies refuting such scenarios (not just your opinion) your're just giving us your opinion. We know your opinion. But can you demonstrate that your opinion is correct?
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 It has been refuted, genetic tests have already measured inbreeding, we now know Japan is more inbred than the USA. The tests for inbreeding were already done.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
"...but many animals do not have those genders in the first place."
I don't see the difficulty here. Noah would have brought those single sex animals onto the ark as well. What is your objection?
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 The Bibles says the pairs were "male and female."
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"The Bibles says the pairs were 'male and female.'"
So? It doesn't say that was ALL that Noah brought on board. You're trying to claim it allows for no exceptions. The Bible isn't giving us all of the many detailed events and special cases involved. It's a brief summary of what took place.
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 No, it says all pairs male and female.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
"... inbreeding ... would be massive and obvious, even fatal."
Yep. And that is what we observe. I doubt this was as problematic as you seem to assume, because there wouldn't have been enough time before the flood to build up as many deleterious mutations as we have now.
Still, some problems would have appeared due to that bottleneck, and we do observe many species in rather poor condition, heading towards extinction, and many many species have already gone extinct.
tubewatch59 5 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, inbreeding can be detected at vastly lower rates, like comparing the Japanese to the Hispanic populations. Mitochondrial DNA and other such tests would also prove everyone descended from just 4 females that recently. Everything you are saying is pure hogwash.
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"Mitochondrial DNA and other such tests would also prove everyone descended from just 4 females that recently."
Mitochondrial DNA data does show that.
Have a read of the article:
'Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics by Dr Robert W. Carter'.
It's on the creation(dot)com website from 2010.
"Everything you are saying is pure hogwash."
I'm speaking the 'wash of truth' to the 'hog' of evolutionary misconceptions = 'Hogwash' :-)
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Your website is hogwash. My numbers can be verified at archeological sites by: obsidian hydration dating, archeomagnetic dating, electron-spin resonance, dendronchronology, pollen indexes, lichenometry, Milankovitch cycles, rock patination, tephrochronology, C-14 dating, thermoluminescence, Y-chromosome DNA, amino acid racemization, etc.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
@InternetDarkLord
"DNA tests would prove these existed if they were real. The 1:4:7 ratio of Noah's animals is nowhere."
How do you know DNA tests actually do disprove the flood model? Have studies been done to show that the flood model of genetic origins is impossible?
It seems very short population bottlenecks are not as damaging to genetic diversity as long bottlenecks are (though I don't know the details on this). After the flood, populations expanded rapidly into an empty world!
tubewatch59 5 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, slow breeders like elephants, compared to faster ones, would still show the bottlenecks anyway. Mitochondrial DNA would still show all those 1:4:7 bottlenecks, the patterns of genetic disease would still show those bottlenecks, dog breeds show inbreeding, again from larger bottlenecks than 1 pair of the Bible, etc.
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"There is no evidence at all for one global flood, absolutely none!"
You're entitled to say such things. But until you demonstrate why you expect us to believe that, it's just your opinion.
Note that I haven't done any such thing. All I did was to quote a number of evidences in support of the flood. I didn't ever say anything like: 'there's no evidence at all against a global flood'.
You're the one making unsubstantiated statements and sweeping generalizations.
tubewatch59 6 days ago
@tubewatch59 NO, you are making sweeping statements, since you are talking about the possibility of ONE GLOBAL flood, instead of 100 smaller ones over eons. You have no evidence of any such thing.
If someone claim all the car crash evidence, like skid marks on roads, might prove one national car crash, denying this absurdity would not be "unsubstantiated and sweeping" but simple common sense!
InternetDarkLord 5 days ago
@InternetDarkLord
"...since you are talking about the possibility of ONE GLOBAL flood, instead of 100 smaller ones over eons."
You're making this an EITHER / OR proposition. There have been many other catastrophes. In our model they've taken place after the Genesis flood. We know there have been quite a few regional megafloods. We've also had the ice age, etc.
I'm not claiming there's only been ONE catastrophe. That was the main event, but many smaller ones have taken place since.
tubewatch59 5 days ago
@tubewatch59 Nonsense, again, I could claim there was one national car crash or one global forest fire on the same grounds!
How would we know which evidence was the global flood, which was not?
If we can explain so much evidence without a single global flood, why assume the remaining evidence does?
You have no evidence of one global flood at all!
InternetDarkLord 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InternetDarkLord
"How would we know which evidence was the global flood, which was not?"
We'd find that out from scientific investigation. We'd study the problems, and try to resolve what evidence was left by what events. Are you suggesting science couldn't do that? Probably not.
"If we can explain so much evidence without a single global flood, why assume the remaining evidence does?"
Big global patterns, would likely be evidence of a big global flood. Research will tell us.
tubewatch59 4 days ago
@tubewatch59 Your reasoning is absurd, because there is evidence of fires or car crashes all over the world, but not a global fire or car crash.
Also, you provided no method to tell which event caused what. Name the scientific methods.
InternetDarkLord 4 hours ago
i remember when i was christian...now that i see this it looks ludicrous...
kkevin369 2 weeks ago
@bushonomics - I've always been perversly cursious about this question. Thanks for answering it for me, though I would have used Mt. Ararat or Mount El’brus instead of Mt. Everest. Bible does say they landed on the tallest mountain, but a slightly less foaming-at-the-mouth Christian could assume there were taller mountains over the horizon, or it was a convient wording.
MrRoguetech 1 month ago
#2 The water did not come from below due to the core cooling, and causing steam (more heat, more peressure; less heat, less pressure!!!) The water came from space (Gensis 1:7). Therefore, the calculations, despite certain limits in his model, are essentially correct. And it begs the question (aside from requiring a revision of physics, archeology, anthropology, genetics, biology, microbiology, cosmology, meteorology, etc., etc.), where did the water go?
MrRoguetech 1 month ago
#1 @ Creationists - Read your bible. The continents did not mysteriously rise. Why would they? They are "floating" on the mantle, but so is the ocean floor. If anything, a global flood would cause them to be higher. Mountains formed through compression of rock over millions of years do not form faster because (or in spite of) rain. Or water.The continents did not "tip over" (wtf?!?).
MrRoguetech 1 month ago
Well this flood is much like the epic of Gilgamesh and numerous Egyptian accounts of a great flood, it is an ancient cultures understanding of how or why a massive flood that wiped out the Mediterranean region(their world) would occur.
Ronoc039 1 month ago
I'm not a theist or anything.. But wouldn't a christian just argue that the all mighty god added a lot of water for 40 days and then just took it away again.. Not that I personally believe this or anything...
kongotech2 1 month ago
@kongotech2 yes, thiest always jump to GOD DID IT! of course thie equates to saying"the magic sky daddy use his magical powers and made the rain come, then made all water disapear(god is a great magician) it is the thiests trump "GODS MAGIC"
mandrillx 1 month ago
at 8:13 you said numbers do not lie but numbers can be doctored by people so the accuracy of your numbers may be questioned. Now I'm not trying to argue with you or stir the poop bowl as a matter of fact I'm putting together a new book and I'm in the process of gathering research. I find your video here to be very interesting.
MrBrownstone423 1 month ago
@MrBrownstone423 I'm glad you liked it!
One of the reasons I do my best to include all my sources is so that people can check the validity of my numbers for themselves.
In all the comments on this video, the ones that question my numbers do so in one of two ways: without citing a source at all, or citing a source so blatantly at odds with our understanding of earth sciences that it comes across as being desperate.
Thank you again!
bushonomics 1 month ago
Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
Did none of you creotards even bother to actually READ your instruction playbook? This is one of the parts that can't be argued successfully. There is no "out of context" unless you take it out. There is no way this flood happened and for many other reasons than described here.
Sorry, don't be poor loser's.The bible does probably have a few good true stories but this is not one of them.
pumpstations 1 month ago
God could have spoken the water in and out of existence :).
jnoort 1 month ago
only a very,very,small percentage of knowledge came with noah and his family from the 'old times'like if 8 of our best minds suddenly got stranded on another planet,with jst what they had to carry,how muuch technical knowledge wold their new civilization have in a thousand years?not everyone knows everything about bilding,mechanics,science,tayloring,cooking,herding,farming,irrigation,etc. sch is the tech we have left from noah and his sons.the restw e are still relearning and wiil for centries!
irishbreakfast 1 month ago
@irishbreakfast How do you know?
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago