Let's not forget all the water-borne animals. The salinity change, whether it rained fresh water or for some reason salt water, would have disrupted the food chain if not killed fresh-/saltwater animals outright.
The epic story of Noah it great fun because on so many scientific levels it's dead, flat wrong.
And the Thumpers speed right past the point of the story: Brotherhood of Man, Steward of the Earth. Noah's sons venture off and allegedly become all the races of humans. (So he had a Asian son, an Native American son, an Aborgine son... did I say "dead, flat wrong"???). Did I read somewhere that someone seriously stated that the Flood was responible for the deaths of the "mythological animals" (i.e Dragons, Unicorns, etc.)
It is a great fable. A teaching story for the kids but...
Dead
Flat
Wrong
I took a Western Civilizations course. The professor kept segwaying into the Creationist, "Veritas" garbarge. Strict old bat, three lates and you failed the course. That of course set the tone where one couldn't tell her to "Shut the bloody fook up and show us the paintings and the pottery."
Why fire the teacher? No no no. Keep them alive. The dodo bird is extinct and it is a tragedy. We do not have to slaughter the slow-witted, we have higher purposes, like the pursuit of good comedy.
Leave the teacher alone, encourage him, even. Do not suppress voices!
ast3r3x:
Quote:
He said it wasn't rain really it was just the massive amounts of water falling from the sky that were shot up by the tremendous force of the crust on the water under it.
What is rain but water falling from the sky? A rose by any other name, my friend. :-)
The force of the falling water would be the same(ish) whether it came from a meteor splash, clouds or God's giant penis. So the insanely destructive force of the falling water remains regardless of the source.
Quote:
That is why you find mammoths frozen in such perfect condition because of how fast it came down.
That is interesting if you completely ignore the impact water falling that fast would have on the mammoth itself. Maybe God aimed the water so it only hit rocks? hey I think I'm on to something! :-)
So this teacher believes the earth's crust covered a pressurized water ocean until 5000 yrs ago?
Which sat on top of what we know to be a rotating molten iron core (hence earth's magnetic fields) ?
And despite perpetually boiling due to the internal heat and pressure, never escaped the crust ??
It's not like the innards of the earth ever do the volcano thing, or the geyser thing, or the earthquake thing and break through the crust, do they/have they ever ?
And pressurized steam never forces its way out openings in its containment, right ?
And fossils are all flash-boiled, except for the flash-frozen mammoths, and ice-men, right ?
Despite having evolved to their fossilized state in the absence of water other than "mist" ?
Cause that would tend to spoil his "theory" wouldn't it.
I walked into his room today and he had a box of books on the Grand Canyon and how it was formed his way and not from years and years of carving from the colorado.
Maybe I'll post some pictures if I have time.
He is kinda started to freak me out now. I mean he had a big box of 30 or so of these books. I asked him if they were for us, and he said they were for another class but I could have one...I wasn't sure if this meant I could look at one or keep one, so I grabbed one and that is why I have it. I'll probably give it back as I don't have a use for it really. I will say I'd rather just move on, nothing good can come of arguing over ones beliefs.
Learn whatever he teaches you. You don't have to accept it, of course, but always hear people out.
Keeping an open mind is a valuable trait.
Keeping a mind so open that your brain falls out is not.
Critical thinking is an *important skill*, and learning items that are obviously false is just plain a waste of time. Use that critical thinking. "Does this make any sense? If not, am I missing something? If not, why am I bothering listening to this nut?"
Ok, couple of things. There is nothing wrong with carbon dating. The relative levels of isotopes in the atmosphere overtime have been corrected for by looking at both ice deposites in the artic/antartic and stalgmite/tite formation.
There is a considerable amount of assumption when it comes to ice cores and stalgmite/tite formation. It's intellectually dishonest to not admit it.
Anyone remember the amount of ice covering the P-38's recovered in Greenland? 268 feet of ice in 50 years. Better than 5 feet a year.
There is a considerable amount of assumption when it comes to ice cores and stalgmite/tite formation. It's intellectually dishonest to not admit it.
Anyone remember the amount of ice covering the P-38's recovered in Greenland? 268 feet of ice in 50 years. Better than 5 feet a year.
Very Interesting.
You are a fundamentalist Christian so it will be impossible to convince you of the verifiable, quantifiable evidence that supports these (and other) 'assumptions' you dismiss, and it's very likely indeed that you'll be confused by what scientists mean by 'theory', and you'll end up saying that faith in scientific evidence is actually itself religious, and so I'm a hypocrite.
(Not being patronising: it's just that we've had dozens of threads like this, and besides I remember you from last year when you were called something else. )
All the same, I'll make a half-arsed stab here.
To deny that the mountain of cross-corroborating evidence such as dendochronology, ice cores, carbon 14 testing, archeology, mitochondrial DNA decay rates, calcification rates and the theories of erosion, tectonics and fossilisation offer an immeasurably better explanation of the age and formation of the planet than your sacred text of choice is not only the height, acme and quintessence of 'intellectual dishonesty' but is supremely, gloriously arrogant to boot.
No there is evidence. Assumptions aren't based upon.....horse shit.
Evidence bleached with faulty assumptions. Antarctica wasn't always frozen, neither was the Arctic.
No glaciation in the Siberian or Alaskan lowlands, very strange indeed. Animals living in what is now Tundra and Tiaga that can't live in those conditions.....Krakatau dropping the world wide tempatures 1.2 degrees celsius......
For a good overall view of the (possible) scientific evidence to back up a global flood (and the evidence against it), I highly recommend the website for the newsgroup talk.origins.
Comments
The epic story of Noah it great fun because on so many scientific levels it's dead, flat wrong.
And the Thumpers speed right past the point of the story: Brotherhood of Man, Steward of the Earth. Noah's sons venture off and allegedly become all the races of humans. (So he had a Asian son, an Native American son, an Aborgine son... did I say "dead, flat wrong"???). Did I read somewhere that someone seriously stated that the Flood was responible for the deaths of the "mythological animals" (i.e Dragons, Unicorns, etc.)
It is a great fable. A teaching story for the kids but...
Dead
Flat
Wrong
I took a Western Civilizations course. The professor kept segwaying into the Creationist, "Veritas" garbarge. Strict old bat, three lates and you failed the course. That of course set the tone where one couldn't tell her to "Shut the bloody fook up and show us the paintings and the pottery."
Screed
Leave the teacher alone, encourage him, even. Do not suppress voices!
ast3r3x:
He said it wasn't rain really it was just the massive amounts of water falling from the sky that were shot up by the tremendous force of the crust on the water under it.
What is rain but water falling from the sky? A rose by any other name, my friend. :-)
The force of the falling water would be the same(ish) whether it came from a meteor splash, clouds or God's giant penis. So the insanely destructive force of the falling water remains regardless of the source.
That is why you find mammoths frozen in such perfect condition because of how fast it came down.
That is interesting if you completely ignore the impact water falling that fast would have on the mammoth itself. Maybe God aimed the water so it only hit rocks? hey I think I'm on to something! :-)
The guy is comedy gold.
Heh heh, just having some fun...
Which sat on top of what we know to be a rotating molten iron core (hence earth's magnetic fields) ?
And despite perpetually boiling due to the internal heat and pressure, never escaped the crust ??
It's not like the innards of the earth ever do the volcano thing, or the geyser thing, or the earthquake thing and break through the crust, do they/have they ever ?
And pressurized steam never forces its way out openings in its containment, right ?
And fossils are all flash-boiled, except for the flash-frozen mammoths, and ice-men, right ?
Despite having evolved to their fossilized state in the absence of water other than "mist" ?
Cause that would tend to spoil his "theory" wouldn't it.
Riiiiight.
< /laughter> < /pity >
Maybe I'll post some pictures if I have time.
He is kinda started to freak me out now. I mean he had a big box of 30 or so of these books. I asked him if they were for us, and he said they were for another class but I could have one...I wasn't sure if this meant I could look at one or keep one, so I grabbed one and that is why I have it. I'll probably give it back as I don't have a use for it really. I will say I'd rather just move on, nothing good can come of arguing over ones beliefs.
What is the name of the book?
Originally posted by groverat
Learn whatever he teaches you. You don't have to accept it, of course, but always hear people out.
Keeping an open mind is a valuable trait.
Keeping a mind so open that your brain falls out is not.
Critical thinking is an *important skill*, and learning items that are obviously false is just plain a waste of time. Use that critical thinking. "Does this make any sense? If not, am I missing something? If not, why am I bothering listening to this nut?"
Originally posted by sCreeD
(So he had a Asian son, an Native American son, an Aborgine son... did I say "dead, flat wrong"???)
Screed
DNA is a bit more complicated than that. We already know we come from scientists that we have a common ancestor.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Ok, couple of things. There is nothing wrong with carbon dating. The relative levels of isotopes in the atmosphere overtime have been corrected for by looking at both ice deposites in the artic/antartic and stalgmite/tite formation.
There is a considerable amount of assumption when it comes to ice cores and stalgmite/tite formation. It's intellectually dishonest to not admit it.
Anyone remember the amount of ice covering the P-38's recovered in Greenland? 268 feet of ice in 50 years. Better than 5 feet a year.
Very Interesting.
Antartic ice is more accurate and also more generally used for these purposes...so your artic example is horse shit...
www.masterbooks.net is I guess the creators or printers.
More precise link
I'm going to read it now and tell ya what I think.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Antartic ice is more accurate........... horse shit...
These are asumptions. You should be more honest and less angry.
Originally posted by dmz
These are asumptions.
No there is evidence. Assumptions aren't based upon evidence.
And I wasn't angry. Your example is horse shit.
Originally posted by dmz
There is a considerable amount of assumption when it comes to ice cores and stalgmite/tite formation. It's intellectually dishonest to not admit it.
Anyone remember the amount of ice covering the P-38's recovered in Greenland? 268 feet of ice in 50 years. Better than 5 feet a year.
Very Interesting.
You are a fundamentalist Christian so it will be impossible to convince you of the verifiable, quantifiable evidence that supports these (and other) 'assumptions' you dismiss, and it's very likely indeed that you'll be confused by what scientists mean by 'theory', and you'll end up saying that faith in scientific evidence is actually itself religious, and so I'm a hypocrite.
(Not being patronising: it's just that we've had dozens of threads like this, and besides I remember you from last year when you were called something else.
All the same, I'll make a half-arsed stab here.
To deny that the mountain of cross-corroborating evidence such as dendochronology, ice cores, carbon 14 testing, archeology, mitochondrial DNA decay rates, calcification rates and the theories of erosion, tectonics and fossilisation offer an immeasurably better explanation of the age and formation of the planet than your sacred text of choice is not only the height, acme and quintessence of 'intellectual dishonesty' but is supremely, gloriously arrogant to boot.
Your go.
I don't think it will work...
but damn...
Originally posted by sillybobsky
No there is evidence. Assumptions aren't based upon.....horse shit.
Evidence bleached with faulty assumptions. Antarctica wasn't always frozen, neither was the Arctic.
No glaciation in the Siberian or Alaskan lowlands, very strange indeed. Animals living in what is now Tundra and Tiaga that can't live in those conditions.....Krakatau dropping the world wide tempatures 1.2 degrees celsius......
Curious.
Originally posted by dmz
DNA is a bit more complicated than that. We already know we come from scientists that we have a common ancestor.
So you are trying to use science as your proof against science.
Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology
There's also some good stuff in there on the issue of geological dating methods, too.
The Talk.Origins Archive: Age of the Earth FAQ's