The YEC Hypothesis.

[ebal trace]

Well, Noah's ark is testable, isn't it, at least as testable as, say, the story of the Trojan horse? While one could never prove that there had never been a big boat at that time, one could find evidence that there was such a thing.

I can imagine what such a find might look like. Remember those silly documentaries from the 1970s showing fuzzy photographs of the ruins of the "ark" amongst the rocks of Mt. Ararat? Not exposed to the wind and weather like that, but perhaps one could find buried remains of a huge boat. With dendrochronology we would have a shot of dating the find down to the exact year. If it were accompanied by written records mentioning Noah and lists of "kinds", remains of foodstuffs, etc., it might be a slam dunk - at least for some elements of the ark story.

I have seen several of those TV shows that talk about the remains of Noah's Ark being found on Mt Ararat. But somehow, they can never get the conclusive evidence that the Ark is really there. The weather is bad, the political situation is bad, there is always a problem. I think that if the Ark where really up there they would have found it by now. It's just a big BS story.

Ebal Trace

 

[DoogieTalons]

Yeah there is. Every sedimentary rock worth its salt was deposited in water. That is evidence for a worldwide flood.

Stipe you're an idiot pure and simple the geology of this planet sedemntary rock and all does not support a world wide flood it supports evolution. Every single observed and measured piece of evidence supports evolution. You have read many many threads that refute the stupid idea of a worldwide flood yet you insist. Your religion has made you stupid.


HERES JUST ONE

If creation science was correct as we dig deeper and deeper beneath the earths, everything would be the same; we would find hand axes, clams and dinosaurs mixed together all the way down.


WE DON'T we don't find any evidence of man at all in the lower strata and we were supposed to have been around in cities like Nod since the begining.

There is no evidence at all that supports a world wide flood, the sedementary layers on this planet would have to be laid down at the rate of 100 per second ALL OVER THE WORLD AT THE SAME TIME for them to have happened in a 1 year flood.

Also the land would have been much when noah left the ark there would have been no time since noah for the rock to form. ROCK WILL NOT FORM UNDER WATER IN A YEAR.

1) If creation science is true, then the fossil record, from bottom to top would be mainly composed of gradually larger species. But there would be the occasional random mixture of species as well: trilobites with humans with dinosaurs with maples with Cycad trees. Species would be somewhat mixed. The very bottom layers would include signs of human habitation.

2) If the theory of evolution is true, then the fossil record, from bottom to top, would show gradually more complex, less primitive species. And certain species would be only found in certain layers; they would never be found in others. A trilobite would never be found with a dinosaur; a dinosaur would never be found with a human fossil. Species would be rigidly segregated. There would be no signs of human habitation in the lowest layers.

Source RT

Which is the observed state Stipe ? 1 or 2 ?

 

[fool]

it's impossible to date any object that's been affected by millions of gallons of water without understanding the affects that that much water has on any object.

I've seeen this from you several times now.
If you don't mind my asking, what the hell are you talking about?
I don't know what planet you're from but here on Earth mankind engineers and operates systems that handle billions of gallons of water /minute.
What do you think that "millions of gallons of water" do that the scientists and engineers are unaware of?

 

[ebal trace]

Yeah there is. Every sedimentary rock worth its salt was deposited in water. That is evidence for a worldwide flood.

Doogie, you are going to have to dig a little deeper than your own statements of faith to convince anyone one way or the other on matters science...

I saw a very interesting sedimentary rock. It looked like a fruitcake. The rock was composed of small pieces of many different pieces of rock all compressed together to make a new rock. The explanation for this interesting rock was that a vast area comprising many types of rocks, was eroded and the fragments all washed into an area where the numerous fragments were again covered and compressed to make this layer of fruitcake looking rock.

The erosion of the original different types of rocks, which contributed fragments to make the fruitcake rock, must have taken a very long time. Too long for a young earth.

Ebal Trace

 

[fool]

Yeah there is. Every sedimentary rock worth its salt was deposited in water. That is evidence for a worldwide flood.

OR it's evidence of puddles, brooks, creeks, ponds, lakes, rivers, seas, oceans, ect.

 

[ebal trace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conglomerate_(geology)

A conglomerate (IPA: /kɒnˈglɒmərət/) is a rock consisting of individual stones that have become cemented together. Conglomerates are sedimentary rocks consisting of rounded fragements and are thus differentiated from breccias, which consist of angular clasts.[1] Both conglomerates and breccias are characterized by clasts larger than sand (>2 mm).

Paraconglomerates consist of a matrix-supported rock that contains at least 15% sand-sized or smaller grains (<2 mm), the rest being larger grains of varying sizes.[2]

Orthoconglomerates are defined by texture. They are a grain-supported rock that consists primarily of gravel-sized grains (~256 mm), with less than 15% matrix of sand and finer particles.[3]

In rock types such as paraconglomerates and orthoconglomerates, were the matrix to be removed, the rock would collapse. This is because the larger grains are supported by the matrix and, without it, there is nothing to hold the grains together. Therefore, the higher the percentage of matrix, the more unstable the rock.

They differ to breccias in one main way, this is the round edges of the larger sediment/cobbles due to their being deposited in high to very high energy conditions. Possibly from the result of large storm activity when deposition seas allowed sedimentation.

A spectacular example of conglomerate can be seen at Montserrat, near Barcelona. Here erosion has created vertical channels giving the characteristic jagged shapes for which the mountain is named. (Montserrat literally means "jagged mountain.") The rock is strong enough to be used as a building material - see Montserrat abbey front at full resolution for detail of the rock structure.

Another spectacular example of conglomerate, the Crestone Conglomerate may be viewed in and near the town of Crestone, at the foot of the Sangre de Cristo Range in Colorado's San Luis Valley. The Crestone Conglomerate is a metamorphic rock stratum and consists of tiny to quite large rocks that appear to have been tumbled in an ancient river. Some of the rocks have hues of red and green.

Conglomerate may also be seen in the domed hills of Kata Tjuta, in Australia's Northern Territory.

 

[Stripe]

Apart from Desert Sandstone, for example. But, yes, most sedimentary rock was deposited in water, and it's nature, structure, fossils, extent and location all demonstrate that it wasn't laid down in a flood.

If you can show me how sand is turned into stone without water then I would be in your debt. Thanks :thumb:

Also if you could show me how normal water differs from flood water in its ability to deposit stuff that would also be nice. :up:

Stipe you're an idiot pure and simple the geology of this planet sedemntary rock and all does not support a world wide flood it supports evolution. Every single observed and measured piece of evidence supports evolution. You have read many many threads that refute the stupid idea of a worldwide flood yet you insist. Your religion has made you stupid.

There you go again making your word the determination of truth. The white cliffs of Dover are very thick deposits of limestone. The sorting action of a flood might be able to put all sorts of one kind of mineral in one place but evolutionary theory or standard geology has more trouble explaining why those deposits are not more intermingled with other sediments.

Now I know you will be able to post something to dismiss the evidence I've presented here, but nothing you can say will remove the fact that I just presented evidence. So, in the sake of fairness, could you please refrain from calling me an idiot and brainwashed when I have every resource to be able to hold my own in an honest debate of the issues. And might you also be honest enough to refrain from saying that there is no evidence for anything related to God?

I'll start if you like. I know there is evidence to support belief in evolution and I know there is evidence to support the atheist view. If you can accommodate me in a reciprocal fashion then perhaps we could get to the bottom of which set of evidence is more compelling...

 

[Stripe]

I saw a very interesting sedimentary rock. It looked like a fruitcake. The rock was composed of small pieces of many different pieces of rock all compressed together to make a new rock. The explanation for this interesting rock was that a vast area comprising many types of rocks, was eroded and the fragments all washed into an area where the numerous fragments were again covered and compressed to make this layer of fruitcake looking rock. The erosion of the original different types of rocks, which contributed fragments to make the fruitcake rock, must have taken a very long time. Too long for a young earth. Ebal Trace

Interesting ideas. I'm starting a new thread.

 

[Mr Jack]

If you can show me how sand is turned into stone without water then I would be in your debt. Thanks :thumb:

How is it you expect water to be involved?

Also if you could show me how normal water differs from flood water in its ability to deposit stuff that would also be nice. :up:

It isn't a question of flood vs. "normal" water, it's a question of what would be left by a single global flood vs. slow accumulation by on-going processes.

 

[ebal trace]

Much of the earth was once covered by glaciers in the ice age in the geological past. Scientists can figure how long this took and they can see the evidence of the movement of the glaciers from what was left behind when the ice retreated.

This all took too long to be explained by a young earth senario.

Ebal Trace

 

[Carico]

Interesting ideas. I'm starting a new thread.

Actually, Ebal's description of a sedimentary rock is the exact process that evolutionists use to determine what the skulls and bones they find are. The only difference is that they dress those skulls and bones up in Tarzan outfits and give them clubs. :kookoo:

 

[mojill]

Even if geologists and anthropologists and all the people who WOULD have the expertise to determine whether a global flood occured or not....what does that tell us?

(We know many ancient pre-biblical cultures talked about a global flood. But since they didn't really understand "GLOBE" it was probably just a LOT of flooding going on. )

But anyway - all that would prove is the flood. And it would imply that the writers of the bible believed in this great flood and so put it in their story.

It certainly doesn't prove the Noah's Ark myth.

 

[Carico]

Even if geologists and anthropologists and all the people who WOULD have the expertise to determine whether a global flood occured or not....what does that tell us?

(We know many ancient pre-biblical cultures talked about a global flood. But since they didn't really understand "GLOBE" it was probably just a LOT of flooding going on. )

But anyway - all that would prove is the flood. And it would imply that the writers of the bible believed in this great flood and so put it in their story.

It certainly doesn't prove the Noah's Ark myth.

If there was a flood, then there's no way to accurately date anything that was affected by the flood. Hence, no one can know anything before 3,000 years ago unless they read the bible and refer to accounts of people who lived before the flood.

 

[Jukia]

If there was a flood, then there's no way to accurately date anything that was affected by the flood. Hence, no one can know anything before 3,000 years ago unless they read the bible and refer to accounts of people who lived before the flood.

Well, then it is certainly a darn good thing there was no such flood, huh?

And did Noah have a library on his Ark? Were might we find these accounts of the people who lived before the Flood? How come they did not get all waterlogged????

 

[Mr Jack]

If there was a flood, then there's no way to accurately date anything that was affected by the flood. Hence, no one can know anything before 3,000 years ago unless they read the bible and refer to accounts of people who lived before the flood.

Really? What magic flood thing does that then?

 

[bob b]

Does everyone now understand what most YECs believe and that there is no compelling evidence to prove that history did not happen pretty much as I stated?

It is perfectly understandable that a few hundred years ago people started to believe in the ancient Greek idea of an old Earth and universe and so have worked very hard to interpret all evidence using this paradigm for the past couple of hundred years.

Too bad that recent scientific discoveries have eaten away at the foundation of their carefully interpreted evidence.

Multiple "kinds" of creatures in the recent past is still the best interpretation of the scientific evidence, and is looking better all the time as more and more scientific discoveries are being made about the "simple" cell (see sticky thread "Cell Trends Too" for details).

You see, cells started out in a state much better than they are today after 6000 years of deleterious random mutations. It is a tribute to the Master Designer that there are any genomes left that will not eventually fall victim to cancer and other dread diseases despite the best efforts of modern medicine. This will become even more obvious as time goes on.

 

[fool]

If there was a flood, then there's no way to accurately date anything that was affected by the flood.

Here you go again!
What are you talking about?

 

[ebal trace]

Originally Posted by Carico
If there was a flood, then there's no way to accurately date anything that was affected by the flood.

Here you go again!
What are you talking about?

Everybody knows that if you leave stuff where it can get wet it will be ruined and won't be good for anything.

Ebal Trace

 

[Jukia]

Does everyone now understand what most YECs believe and that there is no compelling evidence to prove that history did not happen pretty much as I stated?

It is perfectly understandable that a few hundred years ago people started to believe in the ancient Greek idea of an old Earth and universe and so have worked very hard to interpret all evidence using this paradigm for the past couple of hundred years.

Too bad that recent scientific discoveries have eaten away at the foundation of their carefully interpreted evidence.

Multiple "kinds" of creatures in the recent past is still the best interpretation of the scientific evidence, and is looking better all the time as more and more scientific discoveries are being made about the "simple" cell (see sticky thread "Cell Trends Too" for details).

You see, cells started out in a state much better than they are today after 6000 years of deleterious random mutations. It is a tribute to the Master Designer that there are any genomes left that will not eventually fall victim to cancer and other dread diseases despite the best efforts of modern medicine. This will become even more obvious as time goes on.

bob b, have you figured out yet that the rest of the world really does not care about your interpretation of the evidence based on your own level of personal incredulity. Repeating yourself does not make it so.

 

[fool]

Everybody knows that if you leave stuff where it can get wet it will be ruined and won't be good for anything.

Ebal Trace

:think:
Even a raincoat?