• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would sharks and T Rex buried together lean toward the flood?

tas8831

Well-Known Member
No, the evidence says so.
Have you heard of Stephen Jay Gould?

Lol.
Lol. Yes I have. LOl. I have his 1000+-page book. You?

LOL.

Still waiting for the evidence that Haeckel's drawings are used as evidence for evolution in textbooks.
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Either your comprehension skills are sorely lacking, or you lie on purpose — which is it?

I’ve repeatedly state that I’m not a YEC!

Is this difficult for you to understand? I find it hard to grasp that you are just obtuse! Abusive, yes...your attitude reveals that.
I fail to see the relevance of this dodge - have YOU, or have YOU not, parroted (and copy-pasted without attribution) YEC claims re: Haeckel being used in textbooks as support for evolution?
Have YOU, or have YOU not, copy-pasted and paraphrased YEC claims on this forum and presented them as infallible?

Is it really that hard for you to grasp?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
So,
In this thread we have Christians arguing against the science of evolution.
In another thread we have Christians arguing against the medical science of vaccines.
In yet another, we have a Christian complaining that it's a smear and false caricature of Christianity to point out the anti-science tendencies of conservative Christianity.

What's with that?
Tom

Same crowd is terrified of globalism as if that hadn't been around since salt, pearls and dates were traded.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Gould gets credit for being honest about the lack of transitional fossils and major anilmal groups appearing fully formed in the record.

Actually, he gets credit for coming up with Punctuated Equilibrium, which is an important aspect of evolution and which explains the cambrian explosion as being a period of relatively "rapid" evolution, giving rise to several phyla in the geologically short period of some 50 to 80 million years.


Your (dishonest) statement implies that evolutionary biologists, except for him, were NOT being honest about the facts. Which is off course just nonsense, mentioned solely to try and make your side "look good", by trying to drag the other side down to your level and even lower.

Too bad you have to lie about the other side in order to do so, ha?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
But yet scientist have found out in deserts mountains many clam shells 300 miles from the nearest ocean.

Newsflash: the earth isn't static. The crust constantly moves and changes. Volcano's explode and reshape the land. Plate tectonics constantly reshape continents by having land sink or bottoms of the seas lifted up above water level.

The mountain peaks of today, oftenly are the seabeds of ancient times.
That's how sea life fossils end up on mountain peaks

It's also how buildings end up in the sea.

This flood of water happen million of years before the flood of Noah's ever happened.

Yes. And that "flood of water", was actually just the ocean. And the mountain at that time, wasn't yet a mountain. It was the sea floor, which eventually got raised up to become the mountain we see today.

No flood. Just a dynamic earth where land is constantly reshaped.

So where exactly do you suppose this water came from, seeing that this flood of water was there way before the flood of Noah's happened.

Where it still is. In the ocean.
It was just the ocean. There is no reason for additional water. There was no flood.
The mountain did not yet exist. It was the seafloor.

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Note here in verse 6, everything
Perished, meaning nothing survived.
Unlike the flood of Noah's, there were
8 people and animals survived.

But in this flood that 2 Peter speaks about nothing survived, everything Perished.

yes yes

Your religion, like most all religious, has apocalyptic tales. It doesn't matter, it never happened.

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men"

Note here in verse 7, God is not going to destroy the earth again by a flood of water.

Nore has he ever.

God going to destroy everything by fire.
giphy.gif
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If you understood, that the flood of Noah's there were 8 people and animals survived.

Which is demonstrably incorrect. We can literally prove that this is incorrect.
It would leave gigantically obvious genetic bottlenecks in all species, all of them dating to the same period.

Instead, we find none. Not a single one. Ergo, it never happened. Debunked. Falsified. Refuted. Demonstrated incorrect.

But here in 2 Peter 3:5-7, nothing survived everything Perished nothing was saved alive.
That means there were two floods of water to come upon the earth.

The first flood destroyed everything.

But the flood of Noah's 8 people and animals survived.


Neither happened.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Which is demonstrably incorrect. We can literally prove that this is incorrect.
It would leave gigantically obvious genetic bottlenecks in all species, all of them dating to the same period.

Instead, we find none. Not a single one. Ergo, it never happened. Debunked. Falsified. Refuted. Demonstrated incorrect.




Neither happened.

Well not quite "none". There are a handful of species that went through a strong bottleneck. Cheetahs went through a bottleneck that was on the order of Noah and family. Not quite on the order that the Bible claims where there would have been only two. This occurred about ten thousand years ago and they are still suffering the consequences today. Any two cheetahs will be more closely related than you are the to your brothers and sisters (assuming that you are not an identical twin). That raises a strong 'yuck' factor in mating. But it also would mean that if that had happened that matching donors for organ transplants would not be a problem.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well not quite "none". There are a handful of species that went through a strong bottleneck. Cheetahs went through a bottleneck that was on the order of Noah and family. Not quite on the order that the Bible claims where there would have been only two. This occurred about ten thousand years ago and they are still suffering the consequences today. Any two cheetahs will be more closely related than you are the to your brothers and sisters (assuming that you are not an identical twin). That raises a strong 'yuck' factor in mating. But it also would mean that if that had happened that matching donors for organ transplants would not be a problem.

I'm guessing there are other bottlenecks from the end of the last ice age. A lot of species went extinct and I'd bet some others were very close. I dont know specific examples (cheetah are well known), but it wouldn't surprise me.


On the other hand, the noahdic flood would produce a universal bottleneck for land species.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
I'm guessing there are other bottlenecks from the end of the last ice age. A lot of species went extinct and I'd bet some others were very close. I dont know specific examples (cheetah are well known), but it wouldn't surprise me.


On the other hand, the noahdic flood would produce a universal bottleneck for land species.
Physical events in history can be proved. Social events are more problematic. What the atheists want to prove is that ALL religion is based on lies. That ALL events of the past have logical explanations. I disagree with them for purely logical and scientific reasons. We don't know. The opinions and perceptions of desert nomads should be taken with a grain of salt.

There are several mysteries of the Universe. why some people deny those mysteries exist or others assign mystical reasons for it is not in keeping with science.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Physical events in history can be proved. Social events are more problematic. What the atheists want to prove is that ALL religion is based on lies. That ALL events of the past have logical explanations. I disagree with them for purely logical and scientific reasons. We don't know. The opinions and perceptions of desert nomads should be taken with a grain of salt.

There are several mysteries of the Universe. why some people deny those mysteries exist or others assign mystical reasons for it is not in keeping with science.
Where do you get your ideas about atheists from?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well not quite "none". There are a handful of species that went through a strong bottleneck. Cheetahs went through a bottleneck that was on the order of Noah and family. Not quite on the order that the Bible claims where there would have been only two. This occurred about ten thousand years ago and they are still suffering the consequences today. Any two cheetahs will be more closely related than you are the to your brothers and sisters (assuming that you are not an identical twin). That raises a strong 'yuck' factor in mating. But it also would mean that if that had happened that matching donors for organ transplants would not be a problem.

Yes off course.
I ommitted a few words there it seems. It idd wasn't clear (and actually idd quite wrong as written).

We haven't found a single "one". "one" being a "universal bottleneck". As in: in all species.
There isn't one 10.000 years ago, there isn't one 500.000 years ago.
There just isn't a universal bottleneck (in all species). :)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I'm guessing there are other bottlenecks from the end of the last ice age. A lot of species went extinct and I'd bet some others were very close. I dont know specific examples (cheetah are well known), but it wouldn't surprise me.


On the other hand, the noahdic flood would produce a universal bottleneck for land species.

There's also one in Homo Sapians. Reduced to a couple thousand individuals, some 70.000 years ago, if memory serves me right. Something about the Toba volcano? Been a while and too lazy to look it up now. :)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There's also one in Homo Sapians. Reduced to a couple thousand individuals, some 70.000 years ago, if memory serves me right. Something about the Toba volcano? Been a while and too lazy to look it up now. :)
I think that is one of the possible causes. Though I do not think that they are a sure of the cause as they are of the event itself. At any rate, a couple of thousands of people is a far cry from eight.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I think that is one of the possible causes. Though I do not think that they are a sure of the cause as they are of the event itself. At any rate, a couple of thousands of people is a far cry from eight.

Idd. Once heared on a nature doc that in general, when a population of mammals drops below 200, it would become very difficult to avoid extinction if nature is left to its course.
A population of 8 would be unavoidably doomed to extinction.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Idd. Once heared on a nature doc that in general, when a population of mammals drops below 200, it would become very difficult to avoid extinction if nature is left to its course.
A population of 8 would be unavoidably doomed to extinction.


Cheetahs are probably the most inbred species on the planet. They are so closely related to each other that organ transplants are not a problem as this article explains:

Will evolution doom the cheetah?

"If a cheetah needed a kidney transplant, it could probably get one from any other individual. Siblings, third cousins twice removed and even complete strangers on the other side of Africa could all probably donate a kidney to a fellow cheetah."

I have not read this particular article, but it is almost as if they have read my posts where I say the fact that you won't end up in a skid row motel in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney tells us that the flood never happened. With a Noah's Ark level bottleneck we would be even more closely related than cheetahs. I can't find it now, but I swear that I did read in one article on them that their breeding population got down to around ten individuals at the worst of the bottleneck. Cheetahs still suffer today due to that extreme bottleneck and with humans messing up their hunting ranges they may go extinct yet.

There are some other species that had very few individuals left. Both the California Sea Otter and the European Bison or Wisent had populations that got down to about 50 individuals In the Wisent's case a breeding program was started to save as much genetic diversity as possible:

European bison - Wikipedia

It is so odd that there are so many totally independent sources of evidence that refute the flood myth and yet it lives on.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Cheetahs are probably the most inbred species on the planet. They are so closely related to each other that organ transplants are not a problem as this article explains:

Will evolution doom the cheetah?

"If a cheetah needed a kidney transplant, it could probably get one from any other individual. Siblings, third cousins twice removed and even complete strangers on the other side of Africa could all probably donate a kidney to a fellow cheetah."

I have not read this particular article, but it is almost as if they have read my posts where I say the fact that you won't end up in a skid row motel in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney tells us that the flood never happened. With a Noah's Ark level bottleneck we would be even more closely related than cheetahs. I can't find it now, but I swear that I did read in one article on them that their breeding population got down to around ten individuals at the worst of the bottleneck. Cheetahs still suffer today due to that extreme bottleneck and with humans messing up their hunting ranges they may go extinct yet.

There are some other species that had very few individuals left. Both the California Sea Otter and the European Bison or Wisent had populations that got down to about 50 individuals In the Wisent's case a breeding program was started to save as much genetic diversity as possible:

European bison - Wikipedia

It is so odd that there are so many totally independent sources of evidence that refute the flood myth and yet it lives on.

Indeed. Cheetah's are also quite an exceptional case, to have survived so long with so less diversity. There's a reason, off course, why there aren't many examples of such.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
According to Hell Creek Formation - Wikipedia , the formation is 90 metres (295') thick and represents a time interval of two million years.

Willing to be corrected. I read otherwise. But my memory isn't perfect. I will revisit.

Edit:

Found these two references, which disagree with both of us. Perhaps the 90 meters is an average?

From Natural Museum of History article-
Formations are recognizable rock layers or “strata,” and they vary from region to region. All formations have a particular size, appearance, and history. They can range anywhere from 10 to 10,000 feet in thickness, from 3 to 3,000 miles in area, and encompass thousands to millions of years of time.

( not a measure of thickness, but points out the sheer size of the formation)

From a Geological Society of America paper-
The Hell Creek Formation is exposed in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Equivalent and contiguous strata in Wyoming are known as the Lance Formation and in Canada as the Frenchman and Scollard Formations. In this volume, authors have focused on the areas that bear the Hell Creek name, primarily those on the margin of the Williston Basin in Montana and the Dakotas (Fig. 1). The complete thickness of the Hell Creek Formation has been measured at only a few locations. Several factors have contributed to this apparent oversight. The formation is mostly horizontal and is usually thicker than the topographic relief that has been incised into it. This, combined with the lateral discontinuity of beds, a bentonitic surface weathering that obscures bedding, and an upper contact that in places is difficult to identify, has created a situation where it is difficult to make accurate measurements. For these reasons, many have estimated the thickness of the formation rather than directly measuring it. Estimates in the Fort Peck Reservoir area have ranged from a maximum of 170 m in Garfield County, Montana (Brown, 1907) to a minimum of 41 m in McCone County, Montana (Collier and Knechtel, 1939). The most recent work in McCone County reported thicknesses of 51–85 m (Rigby and Rigby, 1990). Murphy et al. (this volume) report six localities in North Dakota where they measured the entire thickness of the formation. At two sites in southwestern North Dakota, the formation is 100 m thick and at four sites in the central North Dakota the formation ranges from 50 to 70 m thick
 
Last edited:
Top