[QUOTE=CalvaryCougar;524585]Didn't want to leave off without answering you questions.
This is exactly right. The combo of so many questions to answer, and I only wanted to answer things that I am more familiar with, it would be unfair for me to answer topics I have no idea about. Thats why for most debate questions I have given links to those who are more knowledgeable and creditable than me.
I more hope that you spend some time learning about them than answering them if I'm honest.
Im not familiar with dendrology so I cannot answer questions in that regard but I will probably look it up and read about it in the next couple days.
will only take a few minutes to read.
A slightly more balanced view can be found on wikipedia Flood geology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy, and the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience."
You may see
this (I sometime see
faces in clouds!) but the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. Unfortunately the examples you posted contain a just a handful of arguments that either do zero to prove the earth's age and which all have much more plausible explanations and or no real significance.
The way fossils are formed can be argued for a flood with rapid burial being apparent in some cases. You must not look at the flood as just rain that filled the earth.
As posted before I personally don't particularly doubt a catastrophic flood of some kind in the earths history.
The story of noah in the bible is derived from the earlier Babylonian myth of Gilgamesh. The flood myth itself is a fairly global
one. The latter doesn't make it automatically true but i'm inclined to think there is some basis in truth. As posted previously, far from adding weight to the biblical version of events it significantly erodes the authenticity of any single version.
And perhaps you might recognise the fallibility and problems of the other versions, if not your own?
However it could not have covered the earths surface entirely and is likely to be much older. There are many hypothesis for example Zanclean flood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and we may never know. Do some research if you want to form your own opinion on this.
What we do know, is that the earth categorically was not covered water 6000 years ago this can be verified in many different ways. Such as evidence that there were trees growing unaffected by such a flood at any point you can name in the last 11,000 years.
I'm also curious as to what all noah's animals would have eaten had they returned to a land devoid of plant life if that were true. And how the ones sensitive to climate or with specialised habitat requirements survived and returned to their homes across the planet. (A point raised by Dawkins in an earlier video). Assuming that the ark was indeed large enough to hold all 8.7 million know species (and the estimated additional 80% more we have yet to discover) in the first place. The beetle room alone must have been something with all 400,000 different species, I bet they took a long time to round up if nothing else
Check out these fossils that suppose rapid burial Caption from Answers in Genesis
"Figure 12—Many fish were buried alive and fossilized quickly, such as this fish “caught in the act” of eating its last meal. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling."
Caption from Answers in Genesis
"Figure 13—This female ichthyosaur, a marine reptile, was found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby. Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling."
Ok what does this actually tell us? Only that these creatures died just before or as a result of being covered in sediment. Does it tell us anything about the circumstances of the time? No. What could explain it? Well there is no reason to suppose these creatures didn't die as a result of the actives with which they are engaged. However in themselves they are in no way proof of a global flood, or even a likely indication. They tell us something but not everything and certainly not enough to base a judgement on. You have to look far and wide for that. Thus far credible support had not been produced, yet an overwhelming amount contradicting it has.
But like I said I'm probably done, because I see this going on for a while, if you still would like to chat please pm me.
Thanks for you're offer but I don't wish to pursue this over pm from my side, I don't feel any need to do so. I will however continue to challenge any assertions and information you choose to continue posting. Along with do my best to answer any questions you have (either here or on pm if you would prefer).