Evolution and the Global Flood

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

dunsapy
Sage
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm

Evolution and the Global Flood

Post #1

Post by dunsapy »

This thread is split from the Value of Human Life thread. THis first post, by dunsapy, raised the issue of the global flood. I have moved that discussion here as it was not really on topic in the original thread.

micatala acting as moderator.



*********************************

[the following is by dunsapy]


Cathar1950 wrote:
There is no evidence for a flood while the Nazis kept very good records still available.
Yes the Nazis liked scientists.

A. M. Rehwinkel writes in his book The Flood:
“Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock, for example, which can be traced to Scandinavia,
are scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany. Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons. The same phenomenon is found here in America in the New England States and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere. . . . In many cases the distance over which they have been transported is very great, and sometimes they are found at an elevation apparently much higher than their source.�

Some have theorized that these huge masses of stone were carried to their present locations on top of glaciers during an ice age. “However, these boulders are also found in warmer climates far from any signs of glaciation. For example, in Southern California,� notes the book Target: Earth. glaciers cannot account for many of these “erratic� rock masses resting on ground higher, sometimes thousands of feet higher, than their apparent original location. “And there is still another problem connected with the erratics for which the glacial theory has no satisfactory answer,� observes Rehwinkel:
“And that is the question of the mixture of rocks in one locality brought there from sources lying in opposite directions. This phenomenon has been observed in several places of the earth. One of them is in Saxony, where rocks are found lying together of which some had their source in Scandinavia in the north, while others were carried there from some source in the south. . . . Moving ice cannot accumulate boulders from opposite directions and deposit them together at one place

Interestingly, in the United States, England, France, southern Spain, Germany, Russia and elsewhere huge fissures in the earth have been found filled with the remains of large numbers of animals. They include mixtures of bones of the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, reindeer, horse, hog, bear, and many others. One such cavern near Palermo, Sicily, yielded more than twenty tons of bones for commercial purposes. Often these fissures are located on isolated hills at considerable height where animals would be expected to flee from floodwaters that “kept increasing greatly upon the earth.� (Gen. 7:18) With regard to the variety of animal remains found in one bone cave, the book Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries asks:
“What made rabbits run into the same cave as coyotes? And an antelope with a wolverine and a grizzly? Bones of the mastodon were found, also a few reptiles . . . The whole mass of bones was covered and preserved by a flood deposit of gravel and rocks.�
An extraordinary testimony to the widespread watery destruction of animal life is the remains of the mammoths found throughout northern Siberia and into Alaska. Hundreds of thousands (some estimate as many as 5,000,000) of these creatures were rapidly buried and quick-frozen in icy muck. They are sometimes found in a near-perfect state of preservation, with undigested tropical vegetation in their stomachs and between their teeth. As to the type of catastrophe that could sweep away creatures over so widespread an area, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries observes:
“There is one significant fact that is always connected with every dinosaur fossil and every mammoth fossil, and that is that every fossil is almost invariably dug out of water-laid sedimentary rock. Every fossil is either dug out of shale, which is just floodwater mud hardened into rock, or out of floodwater sand hardened into sandstone, or frozen into permafrost.�
Target: Earth notes with regard to the Yukon district of North America: “The presence of bones, trees, peat, and other debris all mixed together down to a depth of nearly 100 feet, points to a cataclysmic flood of tremendous proportions that must have moved across the land, grinding the bodies of the animals with stones and trees and spreading the whole out over the Yukon Valley.�
And when the destruction had been accomplished, what happened to the floodwaters? A sinking of the sea basins would cause the waters to collect there, allowing dry land to appear again. (Compare Psalm 104:8.) In the oceans today there is more than enough water to have accomplished what the Bible describes; 71 percent of the earth’s surface is water, with an average depth of two and a half miles.
ps( this is mostly quoted from JW's books I don't claim any credit for it.)

byofrcs

Post #2

Post by byofrcs »

dunsapy wrote:Cathar1950 wrote:
There is no evidence for a flood while the Nazis kept very good records still available.
Yes the Nazis liked scientists.

A. M. Rehwinkel writes in his book The Flood:
“Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock, for example, which can be traced to Scandinavia,
are scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany. Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of ........
ps( this is mostly quoted from JW's books I don't claim any credit for it.)
I see that is copied in part from here and probably also other places.

The Flood by Rehwinkel was published in 1951 onwards in various editions by the looks of it. Oddly enough Rehwinkel isn't even a stub on Wikipedia which is telling because it looks notable enough (publishing a book or two probably would make them notable enough).

Now the interesting thing about geology is that some of the first compelling evidence for plate tectonics was released around that time (in 1956) and onwards into the 1960s. I suspect that what Rehwinkel has had to say has been quite simply obsoleted.

Without any clear clue as to what support Rehwinkel has for the theory and with not much coming up trustworthy on the background of Rehwinkel I think we can safely ignore what you have written.

dunsapy
Sage
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm

Post #3

Post by dunsapy »

I see that is copied in part from here and probably also other places.

The Flood by Rehwinkel was published in 1951 onwards in various editions by the looks of it. Oddly enough Rehwinkel isn't even a stub on Wikipedia which is telling because it looks notable enough (publishing a book or two probably would make them notable enough).

Now the interesting thing about geology is that some of the first compelling evidence for plate tectonics was released around that time (in 1956) and onwards into the 1960s. I suspect that what Rehwinkel has had to say has been quite simply obsoleted.

Without any clear clue as to what support Rehwinkel has for the theory and with not much coming up trustworthy on the background of Rehwinkel I think we can safely ignore what you have written.
Ha Ha everything that does not conform to the doctrine of evolution is discredited, by science. And yet science has no idea of how life got started, they can not prove the myth of evolution, and they go against all reason. Don't you think it is time that science started to get their act together , and go in a direction they can prove. They go to Mars to find life, they jump up and down when they find some water, ( they are all over the TV) then you hear nothing from them when they find out that life could not survive there. ( they slink back into there little offices , when they can not show even this) 150 years of intense study, and zero.
If you think about ( i know that's a weird idea, for science), evolution ( or non creation) should be extremely easy to prove, there would be all sorts of grotesque, forms of life is all stages of development, for all completed life forms on the earth even now. But not so.

byofrcs

Post #4

Post by byofrcs »

dunsapy wrote:
I see that is copied in part from here and probably also other places.

The Flood by Rehwinkel was published in 1951 onwards in various editions by the looks of it. Oddly enough Rehwinkel isn't even a stub on Wikipedia which is telling because it looks notable enough (publishing a book or two probably would make them notable enough).

Now the interesting thing about geology is that some of the first compelling evidence for plate tectonics was released around that time (in 1956) and onwards into the 1960s. I suspect that what Rehwinkel has had to say has been quite simply obsoleted.

Without any clear clue as to what support Rehwinkel has for the theory and with not much coming up trustworthy on the background of Rehwinkel I think we can safely ignore what you have written.
Ha Ha everything that does not conform to the doctrine of evolution is discredited, by science. And yet science has no idea of how life got started, they can not prove the myth of evolution, and they go against all reason. Don't you think it is time that science started to get their act together , and go in a direction they can prove. They go to Mars to find life, they jump up and down when they find some water, ( they are all over the TV) then you hear nothing from them when they find out that life could not survive there. ( they slink back into there little offices , when they can not show even this) 150 years of intense study, and zero.
If you think about ( i know that's a weird idea, for science), evolution ( or non creation) should be extremely easy to prove, there would be all sorts of grotesque, forms of life is all stages of development, for all completed life forms on the earth even now. But not so.
You are certainly predictable. I caught you out and you amuse us with a temper tantrum. That was easy.

ps: learn to spell "their". At least that would be an improvement in readability.

dunsapy
Sage
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm

Post #5

Post by dunsapy »

You are certainly predictable. I caught you out and you amuse us with a temper tantrum. That was easy.

ps: learn to spell "their". At least that would be an improvement in readability.
So is science.
AS for my spelling , yes I know, I am terrible. Writing is not my thing, I have to work at it very hard. It was my worst subject in school. If it wasn't for spell check , I would probably give up. My sentence structure is not very good either. So I appreciate you guys not giving me too much hassle on that. I am much more a visual person. ( I am an artist,I have done work for movies etc, and paintings , that kind of thing.)

It is interesting , that every time I bring up something that does not agree with sciences view of about life, and why it is here and how it came to be as we see it today. They discredit the source of information, even if it comes scientists themselves .
Yet they can not prove anything, they really don't know how things got started, they can't prove evolution, yet they feel justified in their only minds to criticize others. It must bother them that they have nothing worth saying. That is very hypocritical. Besides it is not scientific, to come to a conclusion, that they do not have proof for.
I would like science to show me, in the real world, how DNA and real animals, like a cat, came, from the ground. With out using intelligence.

byofrcs

Post #6

Post by byofrcs »

dunsapy wrote:
You are certainly predictable. I caught you out and you amuse us with a temper tantrum. That was easy.

ps: learn to spell "their". At least that would be an improvement in readability.
So is science.
Yey, at last. Yes Science is predictable. It predicts. If it doesn't predict then it just isn't science. End of story. Anyone who says 'x' is science without telling you what it can predict then they are talking crap.
AS for my spelling , yes I know, I am terrible. Writing is not my thing, I have to work at it very hard. It was my worst subject in school. If it wasn't for spell check , I would probably give up. My sentence structure is not very good either. So I appreciate you guys not giving me too much hassle on that. I am much more a visual person. ( I am an artist,I have done work for movies etc, and paintings , that kind of thing.)
It was a hook. I wanted to see what came up.
It is interesting , that every time I bring up something that does not agree with sciences view of about life, and why it is here and how it came to be as we see it today. They discredit the source of information, even if it comes scientists themselves .
That is how science works !. Heck I just love to see a theory shot down. Evolution isn't that theory. I mean if someone does come up with the goods to shoot it down then it'll truly go bang but it has survived a long time now and it's not through lack of people trying.

How science works is ....Person comes up with theory. Theory proves to be as predictive as a Monkey and a Dart board. Science discards theory and moves on. Monkey stays with picking stock market closes. Monkey does quite well.
Yet they can not prove anything, they really don't know how things got started, they can't prove evolution, yet they feel justified in their only minds to criticize others. It must bother them that they have nothing worth saying. That is very hypocritical.
The Theory of Evolution does make predictions. It has been proven again and again.

Again (how many times have we mentioned this ?) Evolution doesn't address the issues of abiogenesis. It would be nice if you kind of accepted this because else we are mistaking you for just another tedious debater.
Besides it is not scientific, to come to a conclusion, that they do not have proof for.
I would like science to show me, in the real world, how DNA and real animals, like a cat, came, from the ground. With out using intelligence.
Once again you are blaming others for your lack of concentration. Actually. It is tedious but at least you're more interesting than the drive-bys.

The order is this....

- Basic subatomic particles form into Atoms in Stars.
- Atoms form into lots of different Molecules on their own. Lots. On their own.
- Molecules formed are Amino acids. Lots of different types. On their own.
OK to here. Now the question marks but there are many theories on next steps. The first question mark is how these freely available amino acids get formed into proteins and the two big theories are the Iron-sulphur world theory and the RNA first theory. Both are compelling. What do you think of them ?.
- Either way we have RNA and we have DNA. Now Evolution is underway.

Through the processes suggested and which are supported by the theory of Evolution after billions of years and many generations, from virophages and viruses (which are not even alive), through to bacteria (who own this Earth) through to organisms that have genomes over 100 times our genome, through a molecular clock that shows compelling evidence for a common ancestor, you end up with a mammal, that man has artificially selected from natural wild cats.

The Cat.

The symbol of Mafdet, an Egyptian Goddess, whom I suspect you do not believe exists. Odd. You choose one God but not others and yet you see the cat before you and yet do not believe in Mafdet. Me thinks you will certainly be in for a shock when your time is up !.

Meow.

dunsapy
Sage
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm

Post #7

Post by dunsapy »

That is how science works !. Heck I just love to see a theory shot down. Evolution isn't that theory. I mean if someone does come up with the goods to shoot it down then it'll truly go bang but it has survived a long time now and it's not through lack of people trying.

How science works is ....Person comes up with theory. Theory proves to be as predictive as a Monkey and a Dart board. Science discards theory and moves on. Monkey stays with picking stock market closes. Monkey does quite well.
Then why put an trust in it? It is all just hypothetical. How can you turn down other lines of reasoning, when science does not have any proof from the one they are working with.
All science has, is hypothetical reasoning's. But some scientist, claim it is fact or proven. But they can't even show the beginning. How can you explain the in between or the ending, until you know what happened in the beginning. It is all conjecture, at this point. It is myth.
If they find out how it started, in the first place, it may rule out evolution all together.
So until they can prove how life started and prove evolution after that, they have nothing. Plus the fact that if scientists show that life started from experiments in a lab, all they have shown , is that it took intelligence to create life. They have not shown that it could happen on it's own.
Science will not win with this line of thinking, but they just don't get it yet.
It is like a drunk, that has to hit rock bottom , before before they see the trouble they are in.
( did you get it 'rock bottom' )( sorry... that was bad) 8-)

dunsapy
Sage
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm

Post #8

Post by dunsapy »

Yey, at last. Yes Science is predictable. It predicts. If it doesn't predict then it just isn't science. End of story. Anyone who says 'x' is science without telling you what it can predict then they are talking crap.
It's one thing to predict, it's another, for them to come true.

dunsapy
Sage
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm

Post #9

Post by dunsapy »

That is how science works !. Heck I just love to see a theory shot down. Evolution isn't that theory. I mean if someone does come up with the goods to shoot it down then it'll truly go bang but it has survived a long time now and it's not through lack of people trying.
If this is a fact, then, get science to show me, how a cat came from the earth. I would like to see how DNA was formed, and not just formed but also into usable instructions. Then how that eventually turned into a cat. Science would also have to show this could happen on it's own, with out intelligent interference, because that shows creation.
The only thing science really knows is a fantasy.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #10

Post by Cathar1950 »

dunsapie wrote:
That is how science works !. Heck I just love to see a theory shot down. Evolution isn't that theory. I mean if someone does come up with the goods to shoot it down then it'll truly go bang but it has survived a long time now and it's not through lack of people trying.
If this is a fact, then, get science to show me, how a cat came from the earth. I would like to see how DNA was formed, and not just formed but also into usable instructions. Then how that eventually turned into a cat. Science would also have to show this could happen on it's own, with out intelligent interference, because that shows creation.
The only thing science really knows is a fantasy.
Hopefully you won't pass on your ignorance defence to your children.
Just because science can't seem to show you what you refuse to understand because unless it can show where everything came from.
You claim God is the source so therefore you don't need to understand anything else. Yet you can't explain how God did it so by your reasoning you should question God too. If God can't show you how He did it then why bother?
Evolution does show how a cat became a cat, it evolved with its environment as nature kept changing its genes. I the genes did not change the species would have eventually perished with its environment.
We see it everywhere including asexual reproduction and in viruses and bacteria.
We don't have to do it in a lab, it is all over the place.
All you claim is God did it and can't explain anything.
From you claim you also can't show us anything in a lab or anywhere else what God is llike or where God got the information to create life.
This might as well be God for all your claims mean.

Image

Post Reply