Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
God did....

And there it is, no actual proof just god did it.

I omitted the part I said that the parts I did not say got confounded by your trickery

There is no trickery. You are clearly saying a "superior race" were the only ones that could have advanced mankind and that it had to be a descendent of someone who got off the ark.

That is why I mentioned flood stories from other places, they can each just be talking about local floods and people in different places and at different times learned to farm and raise animals, maybe even organized different civilizations?

You can't have that if you believe those 8 people are the only ones left to repopulate. It's one or the other and you haven't proven the later.

originally posted by: cooperton

No you're misunderstanding what I am saying because you aren't trained in the sciences.

And what is your training in the sciences?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Imagine that

If you must.

Merry Christmas Eve everyone.

All the best for the coming days.

I'm off to bed now good night.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
God did....

And there it is, no actual proof just god did it.

I omitted the part I said that the parts I did not say got confounded by your trickery

There is no trickery. You are clearly saying a "superior race" were the only ones that could have advanced mankind and that it had to be someone who got off the ark.

That is why I mentioned flood stories from other places, they can each just be talking about local floods and people in different places and at different times learned to farm and raise animals, maybe even organized different civilizations?

You can't have that if you believe those 8 people are the only ones left to repopulate. It's one or the other and you haven't proven the later.

No, you said that.
You are confused because you did not look at the anthropology I provided that showed there was 1 group that went into every culture and society and civilized them by introducing horses and domesticated livestock to establish agricultural practices.
I am still saying the same things providing the same anthropological proofs I did the 1st time but you refuse to look.
Instead you keep drawing faulty conclusions of what you say you think I was trying to say.
And the DNA hapligroups support it all.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
No, you said that.
You are confused because you did not look at the anthropology I provided that showed there was 1 group that went into every culture and society and civilized them by introducing horses and domesticated livestock to establish agricultural practices.

Yeah, that is what I said you said, thank you for confirming.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I will take a stab at it.
Shem, ab-
Noah A-
Naamah O+
A wive or 2 b-
Ham o-
Japheth a- or maybe b-.

From there what is the diversity you are looking for?

I must have missed the part in the bible that lists all of Gods 'special' people's blood group??
Do you fancy posting it for me??
Loved the added "A wife or 2". So now it's ok to just add anything to the bible off hand, to try and strengthen your rediculous premise. You can just make it up as you go, can't you?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain


The water is not in a liquid form h2o is used to create crystals.It is locked inside the molecular structure of minerals called ringwoodite and wadsleyite in mantle rock that possesses the remarkable ability to absorb water like a sponge.this crystal converts water into its structure . The ringwoodite is 1.5 percent water, present not as a liquid but as hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen molecules bound together).It doesn't get released until you destroy the crystal.

So no there isn't vast amounts of water to cause a flood.

It is not in liquid form, It's in the form of a supercritical fluid. At the temperature and pressure exhibited in the mantle of the earth, water would be in the supercritical fluid state.



The supercritical state is quite amazing, it behaves both like a liquid and a gas, able to permeate through semi-porous geology:

"A supercritical fluid (SCF), at a temperature and pressure above its critical point... can effuse through porous solids like a gas. SCFs can be used as solvents in various industrial and laboratory processes."

This is the state of the water we are referring to in this layer.

a reply to: cooperton

you keep getting this wrong. The 'water' is part of the rock structure. Do you dare link the site you're getting most of your info from?

Supercritical fluids can occur in nature. For example, in places like underwater volcanoes, specifically those located deep beneath the ocean's surface, supercritical water is formed because of the immense pressure due to the depth and the intense heat from the vents of the volcano.

But most volcanoes are caused by plate tectonic, which you don't believe in.

volcanoes of Japan, Iceland, Indonesia, and numerous other places occur on the margins of the massive solid rocky plates that make up Earth’s surface. When one plate slides under another, water trapped in the subducted, sinking plate is squeezed out of it by enormous pressure, which produces enough heat to melt nearby rock, forming magma. Since the magma is more buoyant than the surrounding rock, it rises, and it may collect in chambers nearer to the surface. As a chamber fills up, the pressure inside may increase.

I also see you haven't replied to this!!

God told the patriarch to coat the ark, both inside and out, all 229,500 square feet of it, with pitch, and, in fact, this was a common practice in ancient times. But when Noah hurried to the corner hardware store, the shelf was bare, for pitch is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon similar to petroleum (Rosenfeld, p. 126), and we know that oil, tar, and coal deposits were formed when organic matter was buried and subjected to extreme pressure during the flood

Considering your thread title "Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers". and that 'oil' didn't excist before the flood, I think you should answer this?

Women aren'tmentioned much in the Bible.
I jave to assume you know that.
Moreso in the NT but very very seldom in the OT.
If they are mentioned there is a significant reason.
Thought you knew this.

If you have a better understanding of how there is no genetic inbreeding problems tell us other than claiming inbreeding would create genetic flaws.

And then look at the anthropologyto identify blood types.
The dna hapligroups tell this story from cultures.
We now have this ability unless you do as daskakik and ignore looking at it just to further ignorance as an excuse for continuing faulty logic.

We know Naamah came from Cains geneology and thus Samael.
That would be O+/-.
We know the shemites are ab-. We know Noah was purebred elohim.
We know Adam was 1st.
We know Ham was from Naamah.
We know the cultures they fathered.
We know a lot.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I will take a stab at it.
Shem, ab-
Noah A-
Naamah O+
A wive or 2 b-
Ham o-
Japheth a- or maybe b-.

From there what is the diversity you are looking for?

I must have missed the part in the bible that lists all of Gods 'special' people's blood group??
Do you fancy posting it for me??
Loved the added "A wife or 2". So now it's ok to just add anything to the bible off hand, to try and strengthen your rediculous premise. You can just make it up as you go, can't you?

You are another one that never looked at the anthropology I provided already?
I guess that makes it easier to deny it.


For instance.
We know that the native American Indians in N. America have almost no A-blood types.
Almost all O and B.
Anthropology answers these questions as to why.
DNA hapligroups are studied.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I jave to assume you know that

All throughout this thread you've made assumptions about pretty much the whole flood myth.

Begin challenging your own assumptions. Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in awhile, or the light won't come in.
Alan Alda

Educate yourself and stop making assumptions and expect us to believe them too...

In reality the ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time. The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic (Bodner and Cavalli-Sforzi, p. 589), and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties (p. 589), would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.

If creationists allowed beneficial mutations to produce the thirty different antigens of the A and B series in the HLA region, it would still not solve their problem. Individuals are only heterozygous at a fairly low percentage of loci (5 to 20 percent), while the population could be polymorphic at nearly half the loci. It's questionable how viable an individual would be with a high percentage of heterozygosity (Dobzhansky,

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I jave to assume you know that

All throughout this thread you've made assumptions about pretty much the whole flood myth.

Begin challenging your own assumptions. Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in awhile, or the light won't come in.

Alan Alda

Educate yourself and stop making assumptions and expect us to believe them too...

In reality the ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time. The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic (Bodner and Cavalli-Sforzi, p. 589), and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties (p. 589), would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.

If creationists allowed beneficial mutations to produce the thirty different antigens of the A and B series in the HLA region, it would still not solve their problem. Individuals are only heterozygous at a fairly low percentage of loci (5 to 20 percent), while the population could be polymorphic at nearly half the loci. It's questionable how viable an individual would be with a high percentage of heterozygosity (Dobzhansky,

Back atcha.
I have provided enough for you not to be ignorant of what I presented.
If you refuse to look at the anthropology just to hold tight to your presuppositions, I understand

We know Naamah was Noahs 2nd, probably third wife.
Not Shem or Japheths mother.
Hams mother. They inbred.
We do not have to assume Shem and Japheth had the same mother.
We do not know the wives lineage because we do not know the names.
We know Seth's daughter was semiramis and married nimrod.
We now have the technological ability to study and identify haplitypes and hapligroups.
You guys are avoiding the Neanderthal never, not at any point not ever having the rhesus gene.
Absolutely never is it there.
There are very few reasons this can be so.
And we know it came from the Caucusus region, to upper Iran, and out.
We know them as Aryans and Indo European

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You haven't presented anything other than your own assumptions that aren't spoke about in the bible. "Oh, there were a few extra women on the Ark because I said so". Thats just dumb and pure conformation bias...

www.thetech.org...

originally posted by: Degradation33

I highlighted the depths for a reason. We are talking about upper mantle. After it get hydrated into minerals, like olivine (2% water), it continues its deep-water cycle, and undergoes polymorphic change into ringwoodite (1% water) as depth increase.

originally posted by: Kurokage

you keep getting this wrong. The 'water' is part of the rock structure. Do you dare link the site you're getting most of your info from?

It is only 2% water or 1% water when it precipitates out of the supercritical fluid solution. For it to be in a supercritical fluid solution this means it is immersed in water. The ringwoodite itself is melted at those temperatures and pressures, and is likely "dissolved", for lack of a better word, in the supercritical fluid water.

Check the temperatures of the mantle and ringwoodite's melting point if you dont believe me.

The "supercritical water" is mostly absorbed into crystal form and your god flooded the world with peridot.

No it's not, at that depth the minerals are beyond their melting point and exist as a liquid, whereas water is in its supercritical fluid form. They are not crystals in the depths of the mantle, they are only crystalized when they are spewed onto earth's surface and exposed to regular pressure and temperatures

a reply to: cooperton

but the supercritical fluid can't excist can it? It's caused by tectonic plate movement which you say doesn't happen, I see you choose to ignore this...

Also any water is part of the structure of wadsleyite and ringwoodite in this layer of the crust, and not a supercritical fluid.

I'm also still waiting on a reply to the pitch conundrum?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You haven't presented anything other than your own assumptions that aren't spoke about in the bible. "Oh, there were a few extra women on the Ark because I said so". Thats just dumb and pure conformation bias...

www.thetech.org...

Your assumptions are simply based upon faulty anthropology based upon out-of-africa presuppositions you are still clinging to and have been proven false.

I will repost the stuff Robert Sepehr has released.
Do not pull a daskakik and refuse to look at it but deny it because.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

All the assumptions are coming from you on this thread.
Please post any actual REAL evidence you have other than "I said so". It's making you look foolish. Please also post all the "faulty out-of-Africa" evidence you have other than because they were black people....

“Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make — bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake — if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble.”

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I don't agree with your premise that the "Out of Africa theory" has been proven wrong. If anything its being proven time and again. Obviously as time moves on, our understanding of exactly how will improve.
www.nature.com...

Researchers have used distinct markers from human subpopulations to trace back to our common African root in a giant human "tree." However, a “trellis” model might be more appropriate.

To track the evolution of groups, anthropological geneticists study extremely polymorphic alleles. In addition to mtDNA, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and short tandem repeat (microsatellite) loci—nucleotide repeats, such as CACACACA—are found throughout mammalian genomes, and they have proved to be immensely useful for inferring the history of human migration.

www.researchgate.net... ean_Rim

Out of Africa: New Hypotheses and Evidence for the Dispersal of Homo sapiens Along the Indian Ocean Rim

The dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa is a significant topic in human evolutionary studies. Most investigators agree that our species arose in Africa and subsequently spread out to occupy much of Eurasia. Researchers have argued that populations expanded along the Indian Ocean rim at ca 60,000 years ago

www.nationalgeographic.com...

Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says

We are solely children of Africa—with no Neandertals or island-dwelling "hobbits" in our family tree, according to a new study.

Scientists who compared the skulls and DNA of human remains from around the world say their results point to modern humans (Homo sapiens) having a single origin in Africa.

The study didn't find any evidence to suggest that human species living elsewhere in the world contributed to our direct ancestors' make-up.

A team led by Andrea Manica at the University of Cambridge, England, combined analysis of global genetic variations with comparisons of more than 6,000 skulls from more than a hundred ancient human populations.

The team found that loss of genetic diversity was very closely mirrored by reduced physical variation the farther away people lived from Africa.

a reply to: cooperton

No it's not, at that depth the minerals are beyond their melting point and exist as a liquid. They are not crystals in the depths of the mantle, they are only crystalized when they are spewed onto earth's surface and exposed to regular pressure and temperatures

Okay, were done.

Is the liquid ringwoodite down there with all the liquid diamonds?

Just keep having your own narrative that always tries to make science obey the bible, the least enlightening science book ever. Great for white light morals, not so much for explaining light itself.

But yes, the high pressure polymorphs are liquid in this land of apologetics and imagination.

This thread is the Christmas gift that keeps on giving. It gets crazier and crazier each page.

I for one welcome our extraterrestrial ark builders!