I would like to see you try to replicate each one of the experiments which you think disprove all of those situations. A procedure would be nice,
something replicable in a laboratory or in the feild.
*sigh* Noahs Ark. Disproven by science. No need to 'replicate experiments'.
If Noahs Ark happened .. then this 80,000 year old tree colony wouldn't have survived.
PANDO Tree Colony
Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant, is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh
collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons), making it the heaviest known organism. The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old,
is among the oldest known living organisms.
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25. in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the
western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each
animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.
Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant
life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.
Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?
If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the
flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that
time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly
high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC –
usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.
(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a
mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to
Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to
animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon
contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related
post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)
(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were
true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the
three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human
beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in
the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to
accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.
AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.
Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you
Creationism vs Biodiversity
Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of
rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are
regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New
World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains
and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped
off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For
example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the
global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.
National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the
fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.
Noahs Ark Doesn't Float
Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have
certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the
floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in
Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.
Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If
these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would
have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would
exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting
examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.
Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of
the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s
crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water
would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.
We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require
sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain
indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints
within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of
geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our
Are you trying to troll or are you genuinely confused about the scientific method? You are content to assume many things, whereas I am only content to
assume one thing. GLORY BE TO GOD. However, you change the subject. If you cannot provide a procedure for your scientific assumptions, then you will
be shunned by a scientific community (or individual mind) UNLESS THAT MIND CAN FORGIVE YOU.
Thus far I'm willing to forgive you of many things - being rude to the OP (He didn't state his opinion, but merely is trying to analyze literature).
You have put words in my mouth, and cited wikipedia in a scientific discussion. You have assumed much, like that its impossible to fit 13.5 million
animals on a boat. The thing that got me upset a little was that you go about making your argument like science and the bible are mutually exclusive.
I want to teach uneducated Christians the ways of science, and uneducated "scientists" the ways of the Christians, so that we may further the
development of many ideas in an ethically pure way... Plants can survive floods, and the trees that you brought up have survived many great
I also am willing to forgive you for treating me like I am a child who needs to be taught the ways of the world - as if you know more than I.
My father is an astrophysicist for the U.S. Air Force - he created the BEST program in the world to model plasma fields upon reentry to the
atmosphere. Without it, many astronauts would have died due to gross miscalculations. There is no way to solve a hard problem other than admitting it
is hard, and hypothesising accordingly. There is no ideal solution, other than to follow the example of virtuous people before you. My point is that
he says without the virtue found in the Bible, he would never have been able to produce such a wonderful computer program (it turns out, modelling
plasma upon reentry is actually rather hard to do).
What accomplishments in your life do you attribute to faithlessness? I think that you lack conviction. You have an intellectual mind, but no example
from which to derive what you do not know. However, if you read the Bible, there are examples in it which show you which path to choose, no matter
where you are going, or are coming from. Science experiments rely on data, but the conclusions from that data rely on FAITH. What I argue, is that the
type of faith that you are willing to have is less than ideal. Even if God is not real, it would be necessary to make him up (or suffer in a state of
spiritual disunity for the rest of our lives, and considering the epistemological and metaphysical evidence around us - deny that our souls are
eternal....) I am not willing to bet in such a manner.
Stop making up timelines in your head, and start thinking logically about existence - GOD IS NOT DEAD, and he will always show you the way. "Ask and
you shall receive." That is another way of saying the same thing that science does: phrase the right hypothesises and then you will find the right
data which is relevant to your original scientific inquiry....
you neither phrase the right hypothesis nor indeed are looking at the right data. Stop indoctrinating, and start teaching. Through teaching you will
learn, and since what I am saying is the truth - there is a God - then you will understand when the time is right. No need to post on topics which
apparently enrage you. The secret to a good post is realizing that YOU actually are enraging you. Do not belittle those who seek the same answers as
you, for they are like your family. Put yourself into an ethical flowchart, and work your way around the circle, and you will see that Christianity is
CLEARLY the winning philosophy - it relates everything to everything else the best way. Under the glory of God.
In conclusion, you betray your true intentions. you are here neither to seek truth nor deny ignorance - but rather to indoctrinate through logical
fallacies. You reputation will precede you when it is time to face the music. Best of luck to you on whatever spiritual journey you are on. I,
however, have to continue my pursuit of knowledge in hopes of one day being an ETHICAL mechanical engineer.