reply to post by Methuselah
Well you have to remember that everything ate plants back in the day.
Evidence needed. No, bronze age myths don't count as evidence.
You cant just take one part and then throw in modern mechanics and go "Oh see it cant work". If you are going to assume that one part is true, you
have to assume the other even if you dont agree with it. after all you cant prove that animals cant eat plants because a lot of them do to stabilize
their stomach.
Yes, and they gain no caloric value from those plants. I'm not assuming anything here, I'm merely citing the fact that there is
absolutely no
evidence for a global flood and thus no reason to accept it as something within the realm of possibility...especially since there are
many
impossible elements.
also you gotta pay attention to the numbers that were brought on board.
You're acting as if this is a real story with that phrase, when it really isn't. But enlighten me, how many animals were on board the fictional
ark?
And the bottle neck theory is supported,
Again, evidence needed for this claim. Sure, we've seen some species bottleneck, but the bottlenecks occur at many, many different points except in
the cases of actual mass extinction events that are all well documented and linked to evidenced phenomenon.
it just has a different time period stamped on that theory. which could very well be from biased error.
Objection, idle speculation to support nothing more than ideological agenda.
That exactly what hydro-logic sorting would do is bury organisms alive and they would fossilize. kinda hard to not get fossils without events
like floods or landslides. IF an organism dies on the surface, it either rots, gets eaten... it will not fossilize with all that oxidation going on.
Hydrologic sorting? You mean that idea that somehow organisms magically sort out in a flood to match the fossil record even though there's not a
single reason that this should be physically possible?
Why do we not find bunnies in the precambrian?
Looking at this post, I can give you one suggestion:
Watch YouTube videos in response to user NephillimFree, because they all refute his
ideas.
uhm, when you find a boat in the place the bible says it landed you start to think twice about your assumptions...
Except that no boat has been found...and no specific place is mentioned. Ararat in mentioned, not a specific mountain. It's a region.
zero evidence? really?
Yes, zero evidence.
I've addressed all of the possible supporting evidence for a flood
here.
have you not noticed that the world is busted up like a cracked egg shell?
...not particularly. I mean, I've cracked an egg shell before and it doesn't form the tectonic gaps or anything resembling that...
plenty of evidence there to support the part of the bible that says that the fountains of the deep were broken up.
Except for all of the evidence that shows that the tectonic plates have been around a hell of a lot longer than human history....
we have oldest organisms and regions that do not exceed the dates given for the flood. (estimated dates).
How is that evidence for a flood? All that's evidence for is that organisms don't live all that damn long. And we have plenty of regions that predate
the supposed flood....by eons.
fossils (or rather, you geologic column) could very well have been formed by a flood.
Nope, it really couldn't. Lack of Cambrian triceratops.
poly-strata fossils directly support a flood,
Except that they don't.
Here's one of many great YouTube videos that respond to this and other creationist nonsense claims:
huge erosion marks in places like Iraq that indicate massive amounts of water flow support the flood.
No, they don't. Your lack of understand of even the most basic level of physics is highlighted by this claim. The water from the global flood should
have
turned Mt Everest to rubble, not merely carved a few slices in the ground.
Grand Canyon supports the flood.
This is why people laugh at creationists:
there are huge amounts of evidence for the flood. its just that people like to find ways to supposedly excuse them from this project we call science.
No, there's no evidence of the flood and only people with a laughably low level of understanding of science think that there is a single shred of
it.
edit on 7/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)
