Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The thing is God could have done all that with one snap of the omnipotent finger.

No need for mass flooding and/or harvesting DNA, nor for repopulation of the planet.

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" and all that jazz.

Else omnipresence/omnipotence is not all its cracked up to be would be my thinking on the matter.

Who says it was God ?

I'm one to lean towards the Ancient Alien theory . en.wikipedia.org...
I don't full on buy it but it makes more sense than the bible ever did to me alone.

originally posted by: Kurokage
Well at least we know how syphilis, and gonorrhea was carried forward after the flood!!

Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

Humankind is the only known "reservoir" for numerous communicable diseases. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis, and gonorrhea. The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, in which the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every disease and had to have passed them all to their children. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's ark.

Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each "kind" are supposed to have been on the ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the ark embarked. He recovered but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct. Furthermore, fatal diseases would have caused both the host animals and the diseases to disappear.

Creationists cannot pin the blame for germs on Satan. If they do, the immediate question is: How do we know Satan didn't create the rest of the universe? That has frequently been proposed, and, if Satan can create one thing, he can create another. If a creationist tries to claim that germs are mutations of otherwise benign organisms (degenerate forms, of course), then he or she is arguing for evolution. Such hypothetical mutations could only be considered favorable, since only the mutated forms survived.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

"They could do it by harvesting the DNA of all the animals on Earth and then placing them on a ship for safe keeping and after the disaster that destroyed a generation of man".

They didn't even know about DNA let alone how to "harvest" it?

You lived during the Times of Noah and the great flood ?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Ice Core and Glacers Read Here

Recently an ice core nearly two miles long has been extracted from the Greenland ice sheet. The first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (GISP2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events. Since the ice sheet would have floated away in the event of a global flood, the ice core is strong evidence that there was no global flood any time in the last 110,000 years.

Sad to see you still spreading the bad news here flyersfan.

Regardless, there is good news. A WWII plane was found beneath 300 ft of ice, totally recalibrating our knowledge on ice accumulation. I would go into detail but you're all dead set on what you believe and I'm going to just save my time rather than repeatedly answering the same objections over and over.

I'll leave you to your mutant ancestor mythos

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Mate you're thinking to literal ...

The Bible says nothing about harvesting DNA, these New Creationists say the Bible is a factual account and not Metaphorical and symbolic.

Is that what they say interesting .....

Well I say the Bible is for the most part Metaphorical and Symbolic .

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

Who says it was God ?

I'm one to lean towards the Ancient Alien theory . en.wikipedia.org...
I don't full on buy it but it makes more sense than the bible ever did to me alone.

I like comparing it to a cleansing mechanism that gets initiated by the earth when its flora become too parasitic. A classic cleansing mechanism for any kind of organism

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
You lived during the Times of Noah and the great flood ?

DNA Information
DNA was discovered in 1950. Noahs Flood was supposedly 2400BC.
People in 2400BC didn't understand the word 'species' let alone have
the scientific instruments to know about DNA let alone collect it
and store it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Or do anything with it?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

Who says it was God ?

I'm one to lean towards the Ancient Alien theory . en.wikipedia.org...
I don't full on buy it but it makes more sense than the bible ever did to me alone.

I like comparing it to a cleansing mechanism that gets initiated by the earth when its flora become too parasitic. A classic cleansing mechanism for any kind of organism

That is very plausible and also terrifying .

originally posted by: cooperton
Sad to see you still spreading the bad news here flyersfan.

DEFLECTION. You fail to address the fact that the Ice Sheets are still in tact and that that scientists can go back 110,000 years and see NO FLOOD. The ice sheets prove there was no world wide Noah flood in 2400BC.

I'm going to just save my time rather than repeatedly answering the same objections over and over.

You have never adequately answered ANY OF THEM.
The Noahs Flood has been totally DEBUNKED.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

But just like with the other fellow asabuvsobelow.

Tangible evidence is what is required to back up such a claim.

And the fact remains that there is no evidence to support global flooding around the time of 2000BCE.

The Ancient Alien theory has been popularised in various television programs and books, but the ideology lacks empirical evidence to back up the claim just like with the tale of Noah's Ark.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

"You lived during the Times of Noah and the great flood ?"

No.

Did I have to to know for a fact that Noah knew nothing about DNA?

Common sense.

Which seems to be sadly lacking

a reply to: cooperton

Was it 7 pairs or 2 pairs?
also...

A simple question for you...

How long did the flooding/rain/ swelling last for?

Genesis 7:17 states that the flood lasted 40 days, yet Genesis 7:24 states And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.
Which is it?

How many animals did Noah take again?

Genesis 6:19-20 states And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.

Yet Genesis 7:2-3 states Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.

Was it seven pairs or a pair of each??
So even the bible can't decide which bulls**t to follow?

and...

First tell me how my beloved White Cliffs of Dover where formed?

Here's a clue.... fossilized coccoliths

and...

Surely if all mankind was wiped out, then all it's dieases was wiped out too??
Can you me tell which one of Noah's 'team' decided they'd be the "reservoir" for numerous communicable diseases like measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhoid fever, typhus, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and why no one else onboard were infected?

And maybe try and answer FlyerFan's questions that they'vre repeatedly asked over the last 80+ pages you've ignored

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
You lived during the Times of Noah and the great flood ?

DNA Information
DNA was discovered in 1950. Noahs Flood was supposedly 2400BC.
People in 2400BC didn't understand the word 'species' let alone have
the scientific instruments to know about DNA let alone collect it
and store it.

That is a lot of assuming for something that happened thousands of years ago mate . The Great flood is not just a Christian Tradition it is also known in Islam and Hinduism .

Meaning clearly there is more to what it is that you think you know . We only have bits and pieces of information about something that supposedly killed everyone on earth save a handful of people .

Yet you know they didn't understand the word " Species " ....

Watering the Animals - More proof Noahs Flood Didn't Happen

Each animal would have to be provided with sufficient fresh water each day. If we say that watering an animal took only 20 seconds then that gives us 88 human-hours of work watering animals per day.

More problematic would be the source of the water itself.

If the flood waters were used, some method of purification would be needed to remove the silt, salt, and other high concentrations of toxins. Distillation would require a tremendous quantity of fuel and labour. Filtering it through sand would be painfully slow and would require tons upon tons of sand weighing a minimum of 90 pounds per cubic foot[15] The sand would then have to be changed periodically due to mineral buildup. Solar distillation would require sunlight, which would be lacking for the first forty days of rains, and vast surface areas for water to evaporate and condense. Chemical purification and boiling, ignoring the impossible logistics, would do nothing to diminish the toxic levels of minerals. No matter the purification method, a method to move thousands of gallons per day, from the waterline to upper levels, would be needed.

Storing water from before the flood would have been even more absurd. Assume that at least 100 of the animals had at a minimum the water requirements of a goat. A goat requires more than two gallons of water per day to survive.[16] Water weighs about eight pounds per gallon. For these 100 animals alone, 200 gallons of water would be needed each day, weighing in excess of 1600 pounds. To last 376 days, 75,200 gallons, weighing almost eighty tons would have to be brought aboard and stored, without compromising the buoyancy and stability of the Ark — for just these 100 animals.

It is conceivable that a system of ducts could have captured rainwater and watered the animals for the first forty days of heavy rains. However, the problem remains that 336 days of water would need to be stored, purified, and/or captured. Only by heavy, regular rains would this be conceivable, which of course contradicts the statement that the rains stopped on the fortieth day.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So the Ark was a sophisticated Biolab?

I don't think so.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
That is a lot of assuming for something that happened thousands of years ago mate .

No. It's common sense. 2400BC no one had scientific instruments or even basic scientific knowledge.

The Great flood is not just a Christian Tradition it is also known in Islam and Hinduism .
.

And none of those stories even come close to the Noahs Ark story. It's not the same.
This was already addressed in the thread.

a reply to: andy06shake

The Ancient Alien theory has been popularised in various television programs and books, but the ideology lacks empirical evidence to back up the claim just like with the tale of Noah's Ark.

Do you have any " Empirical " evidence to support the Electrons existence ? The Electron was made popular by modern Science so surly it's real right ?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So the Ark was a sophisticated Biolab?

I don't think so.

It's just a theory mate.

and it Seems more plausible than Cramming millions of animals on a wooden ship

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

If it's not real how are we all managing to post on here?