Do you believe their was a worldwide flood?

Garbage in, garbage out. Just because you keep getting the same garbage out every time doesn't make the incomming garbage any less garbage.

Assumptions are assumptions because they're assumptions. It's an assumption that the ice layers havn't melted and that they form consistantly. You act like they could possibly know how old ice is and yet it is a fact that all of the ice caps could melt completely in just a few hundred years.

I'm going to give you an ice cube and I want you to tell me how old it is. Then I'm going to melt it, refreeze it and I want you to tell me how old it is again.

Then you're going to have to tell me how old the water is.

It's not my fault some scientists make stupid assumptions about how the world works.

 

That's a killer argument there kalvin....I am splitting my sides here....hahahahahahaha

 

Well, this time we, in different nations experienced floods in different ways. We must know that we are living in the end days. I hope you understood my point.

 

The last days is mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 (I think Aegist should pay particular attention to verse 3 ). Jesus mentioned a bit of it in Matthew 24:1-31.

Makes for an interesting read.

Col

 

Hey, stop imposing your own ignorance on the rest of the world. Just because you have no idea doesn't mean others are just as ignorant.

Obviously I have been going about this the wrong way. I was making the erroneous assumption that I could treat you like a sort of intellectual equal. As this has failed dismally, I will try to explain it to you as I would a child. Try to keep up now.


Scientists can count ice layers from ice cores based on seasonal variations in ice deposition. The formation of the ice layers is observed, measured, proven. We know how it works, and we know how to use it. Secondly, we can use these ice layers and compare the dating methods produced by the dating layers and compare it to other dating methods. For instance, if a meteor impacted near greenland and created a major dust fallout, then we can see evidence for that in the ice core (particular elements present in the layer for that year) as well as in tree rings (there might be less sunlight for trees in that year due to dust covering sunlight for a few months), as well as in the general geological record if it was long enough ago. So the dating method is figured out through direct observation and testing, and then subsequently supported with independent testing methods. Perhaps a better version is that they can see the increase in Carbon deposits in the ice associated with the industrial revolution etc. Things which we know happened in certain years, VERIFIED by the method of ice core dating.


So, we have a methodology which tells us how new ice deposits are made on glaciers and thus we can get a seasonal count. Then we take a core sample from antarctica or greenland, and what do we see? Seasons going back 40,000 years!

What does that mean for the flood? Well, it simply means it didn't happen. If a flood covered all of the land on earth, it would have covered greenland and antarctica. In doing that, it would have most likely floated the ice off the land masses, and thus there could not possibly be 40,000 years (or substantially more from antarctica)worth of ice deposition on Greenland. In fact, the climate in the last 10ky or so has been so warm that the icemass on Greenland would not have even formed. So it is substantially older than that even.



Or put another way, The fact that Ice can melt is not th point. It is the fact that deposition of ice is a slow and difficult process which DOES NOT happen over night. And since we do in fact have knowledge about what the climate has been like over the past 4000 years, we do in fact know that the antarctic and the greenland ice masses COULD NOT have possibly formed in that time frame.

Or to quote straight from the Article you still haven't read:
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.


So once again I say to you: Stop presuming your ignorance is representative of the rest of the world, and start finding out what professionals actually DO know about their own fields.

Arrogant ignorance is so ridiculous.

 

Me thinks someone has the hairs standing up on the back of their neck! The shackles are up, now let's get angry

Col

 

Yes I got angry. Yes I am sorry to everyone else. No I do not take back what I have said.

Ignorant arrogance is 10 times worse than intellectual arrogance. At least intellectual arrogance has a basis for arrogance. Ignorant arrogance is the complete opposite. "I don't know anything about that, therefore it can't be known about so you are an idiot for saying you know something about it".

Come On! That is tantamount to what KalvinB is saying. And yes, that sort of in your face arrogance about ignorance annoys the hell out of me.

 

Well. All I can say is this. "Sit back, think about the best possible response you can give without offending anyone, and then make it nicer."

If you apply this, people may even start to pay attention a bit more to what points you are getting across. They might even learn something.

Think back to school days. What teachers do you remembers the most and what do you remember them for? For the aggressive or angry teachers, did you actually learn anything? Probably not. If you did, then you are a rare specimen. It's not in our make-up to like being shouted at or even abused for that matter.

However, KalvinB might appear to apply a little sarcasm in his points, but, because he was calm about it, people will take those points in, instead of the points being rammed down their throats.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Tomorrow's lesson will be "How to walk the walk when talking the talk".

Sorry Had to add that in for a laugh!!

Col

 

hahaha you make me giggle. But seriously, lets try to play fair

 

I'm sorry but no matter how much some scientists want it to, ice doesn't work like tree rings. Tree rings don't melt and reform.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

Layers form, layers go away, layers form, layers go away and eventually the whole shebang is gone.

Add water, freeze, repeat. If the ice caps could completely melt in a few hundred years why couldn't they reform in that amount of time? Since when does ice freeze uniformally?

You're right. It doesn't happen over night. It takes about 6 months each way.

They used to think diamonds took large amounts of years to form as well.

At the Carlsbad caverns they'll tell you that the stalagmites take a very very long time to form. There's one they have to keep breaking off because it keeps getting in the way.

It's amazing how dumb "scientists" can be. Too much time spent in the lab where everything happens in a vacuum. Not enough time in the real world where things can vary drastically.

Every calculation is done with that assumption "at the current rate." Clue by four time: the "current rate" is not the rate that things have always occured.

 

I visited the Jellnolan Caves in the blue mountains near Sydney Australia. They say the same thing about the Limestone formations there - 10's to 100's of thousands of years. I found it particularly ironic that one of their pretty veils which is a size of a bed sheet has formed off the wiring to a light - put in about 1910 - so less than one hundred years old. So much for 10,000 years plus.

The argument is about gradual change versus catastrophic change. I know near Napier New Zealand a whole chunk of land was lifted up from the sea in less than ONE DAY. The airport is there now. Using traditional 'geology' land moving at a couple of centimeters a year this would take forever! Yet we know it happened less than a DAY. And did this rapid moving of the land produce unbearable heat - NO. During an earthquake the land becomes like liquid - during an earthquake (of which there are plenty in NZ) you can see the land rolling like an ocean during a shake. The fact is when in this 'liquid' state land can move with little heat generated.

As for the Flood it could of happened 10,000 years ago. The Bible does have a genealogy - but Jewish genealogies often leave out less important people.
Even between Chronicles genealogies and others there are disagreements. However the Bible is clear about a world wide flood that destroyed all mankind bar eight people.

Things that lead me to believe there was a world wide flood.

- the vast similarity of flood sagas found throughout the world - most having 8 people saved from a flood in a wooden boat. Some having just a husband and wife saved - Chinese call him "No Way" Noah?
- Nearly every place ever settled by man has required draining of the land (removal of water)
- Flying over Australia you can see what was a continent covered in water that is now a desert (this looks like a recent event - not something thats millions of years old otherwise wind erosion would have removed these marks)
- Walking in New Zealand near Palmerston North in the mountains I dug into the hills which was made out of sand and contain a large amount of shells and sea material which weren't fossilized they were relatively fresh - I can't believe these were Millions of years old
- unexplainable anomalies - complicated gears and metal mechanisms found in rock (evidence of a previous advanced civilization?)
- The sudden death of many mega fauna in man's history - Mammoths, numerous mega fauna in Australia - giant wombats, kangaroos, etc, etc - whenever man arrives they die - a more logical explanation in my mind is as man spread out from ararat and caught up with the various animals they quickly wiped out the mega fauna - whereas the other theory is that they coexisted for 10's of thousands of years.

When the Maori arrived in New Zealand is only took them a couple of hundred years to totally wipe out the Mao (Giant Flightless Bird).

- Obviously for there to have been a worldwide flood covering even the mountains were not as high as everest is today (there is not enough water) meaning many mountain chains were formed during or after the flood.

According to Geologists the Southern Alps in NZ are uplifted by about a meter a year - plenty of time for them to form even in a timeline of only 10,000 years or less. In fact large hills can be made in even less time - Rangitoto island in Auckland is a fare hill to climb yet it was formed 300 years ago in living memory of the Maori.

Rapid change can and does occur. Therefore we must be careful understand how this might impact on a slow gradual change theory.

 

You know, I don't know exactly, but then, i'm not a professional on the subject of ice deposition in arctic regions. You see, thats what pisses me off about creationists more than anything else. The fact that you so arrogantly continue to insist that you know more about 50 different topics than hundreds of thousands of people who actually study and know the topics. You assume they make assumptions, but you don't even know what those assumptions are. And the only reason you make those assumptions is because of 4 or 5 sentences in a book of dubious origin.

It is a joke. You are the laughing stock of the world. You have no basis for this argument, but you are dead certain you are right.

So I don't know the exact details of why the ice core depositions are known to work the way they do, but when scientists write articles explaining why they do, and those methodologies are verified through multiple methods, then I am prone to trust them - scientists do afterall produce every major advance we have ever had in the last 300 years. (unlike religion which has ruled for 10,000 years and produced nothing).

Typically though, the religious of our world happily take full advantage of everything great science does, then still vehemently denies the discoveries which contradict their little 'holy bible'.

It the biggest joke this globe has ever seen.

Thanks for your further assumptions about how 'scientists' work. As if you have a clue.

Carry on believeing that a book written by a small clan of the middle east knows more about how the world works then the people who are out studying it. Good luck.

Sounds like a reasonable initial assumption. That assumption is then extrapolated and checked against many other variables. Like I said before, an example would be the industrial revolution. We can test that initial assumption my measuring the CO2 content of the ice layers, and even get evidence of it out of tree rings.

You make assumptions about science and then assume you are right.

Scientists make assumptions, then rigorously test those assumptions in an attempt to prove them wrong. But you wouldn't know that, because you have no doubt assumed you are right.

 

See, now that would be interesting evidence. But I would also like to see it myself, rathar than just take your word for it. I can't find any mention of it online about it, which I thought would have been an interesting topic for geologists.

Therefore , Mt Everest was formed in a week.

So things 'can' happen fast. Fast is still incredibly bloody slow. The fact is, that 1 day change, is precisely what scientists mean by gradual change. The pressure build up, and then snap, it moves. Wow! Rapid change!...except you now need to wait another 50 - 100 - 500 years for the pressure to build up again.

Once again, i'm not a geologist, but I do inact trust their work. Not because I beleive they are saints, but because there are many hundreds of thousands of them all dedicating their life to studying this topic, and every one of them wants to find a new theory that will get them into the history books. It seems that only scientists understand this: If you can proce that a theory is wrong, then you are remembered forever. Scientists don't go around trying to ensure the big secret of rapid geological change, and the secret that we're lying about genetics, and the secret of rapid ice deposition etc are all kept under wraps. Wake up. Science is just a collection of people, who by the large part, are all obsessed with the truth.

The assumptions that they are stupid, ignroant or don't look at the fact, even if well founded in 80% of the cases, still don't change the fact that it only takes a few people to change everything (copernicus-galileo, darwin, Watson and Crick etc).

Yeah, as usual, the bible is vague and unclear - so we don't really know what it says, but we will defend what we WANT to believe it said to the death!

References? I don't believe it. (i mean all of it. I want flood stories from indians, aztec, incas, aborigines, maoris, chinese, bushmen, and papua new guineans)

What? Where do you get this from? I don't beleive sydney required a 'draining of the land'. And even in cases where it is, one word for you: "rain"

Thanks for you professional aero geological opinion. Do you have any evidence to back up this wild assertion other than 3 or 4 sentences in a book?

Ignorance is never a good argument for anything. Just because you can't believe it, doesn't serve as an argument to say it isn't true. *I* can't believe it's not butter...maybe I should sue that company for telling me it isn't!

And how can fossils be 'relatively fresh' anyway? Wtf does a fresh fossil look like compared to a non-fresh fossil?

Where, when, wtf?

But we'ren't all of the animals killed by the flood? And this is one of my major criticisms of the flood myth: Section 9 from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#survival

How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?

How were ecological interdependencies preserved as animals migrated from Ararat? Did the yucca an the yucca moth migrate together across the Atlantic? Were there, a few thousand years ago, unbroken giant sequoia forests between Ararat and California to allow indigenous bark and cone beetles to migrate?

Why are so many animals found only in limited ranges? Why are so many marsupials limited to Australia; why are there no wallabies in western Indonesia? Why are lemurs limited to Madagascar? The same argument applies to any number of groups of plants and animals.

Why is inbreeding depression not a problem in most species? Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?

So. Humans wipe out animals quickly. This isn't a new fact for us.

And yet creationists fail to provide ANY explanation which is consistent with the world as we know, as to how this could have happened.

We just have to take it on faith again, instead of actual reason.

Assuming this is true (and you didn't get it from a creationist website (renowned for making up stuff)), then this only goes to show that hot spots of geological activity can produce a lot of activity during times of increased activity. Nonetheless, even in this time of rapid activity, we can look at NZ over the past few hundred years and still see virtually no change. Extrapolate that back for a few thousand years, and it still doesn't explain the rest of the geography for the whole planet.

It is already part of the gradual change theory. It therefore impacts it not at all.

 

And while you consider that, consider this also (still from that one article, which clearly no one has bothered reading):


How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

 

It wasn't. As I mentioned before, sea creatures have been found fossilized on mountains. There are countless "out of order" fossils. There is out of order strata. Statements like yours are why I don't take you or evolutionists in general seriously. They simply can't be honest.

Seems to me that foot prints wouldn't do too well in a flood. There seems to be footprints lacking within days of human activity here today. I suppose that means that humans don't exist. I go camping, I take a walk, no footprints to be found. I guess it never happened and I don't exist. Brilliant!

Footprints! Footprints!

No they don't. They ignore the evidence that's contrary to their assumptions. As I mentioned, a stalagmite kept regrowing and getting in the way and yet they were convinced the rest of the stalagmites took "millions of years" to form.

The evidence to the contrary was literally right in their face.

You put way too much faith in people that think they can date ice cubes.

How is it that it takes hundreds of years for the poles to disappear but you assume it takes hundreds of thousands of years for it to freeze again?

How many people were alive at the time of the flood? You also assume that all the bones would be on the land we see today. Clue by four time: the land we see today is a result of the flood. Chances are, all those dead people are at the bottom of the ocean where the Bible says they are. Maybe a few landed on modern land.

I want one of your ice cube dating friends to go to one of the great lakes and see how many layers of ice they find during the winter.

I want them to count the layers every week from the first freeze until it's all gone.

 

Stop it!!! You are killing me here!!! hahahahaha....

People dating ice cubes takes on a whole new meaning. I mean, if you had a Cuban mother and a Father from Iceland...you as their offspring could be dated.....LOL

Col

 

OK, your delusion is too strong for me to penetrate. you are seriously mentally disturbed in your ability to ignore evidence and rely on the hearsay of a book.

I can't help every person on earth work through their own issues, so good luck with yours. I'm outta here before you drag me down into your own insanity.

 

I'm not the one that makes up exact figures for how many animals were on a boat while admitting that you don't have the information to make such a calculation.

That's insanity.

Making accusations about why Christians do things while admitting you don't know why they do what they do.

That's insanity.

Looking for footprints in places that have been disturbed for thousands of years when they can't be found in places that have been disturbed for a day.

That's insanity.

You simultaniously claim that science knows and doesn't know the same fact.

That's insanity.

You're not a well person. You can't discern assumptions and wishful thinking from facts and reality.

Christians know that it's faith that the flood and many other things happened.

It's a fact that there's nothing in this world to dispute that it could have happened.

Opinions and guesses don't "prove" anything.

 

Maybe we are all still in the ark and the flood outside has never ended. And the end of the world will be when we get a hole in our boat and go sinking down to the bottom of the world!

 

Yeah...Sinking all the way to the magma.....LOL

Col