Young Earth - Global Flood

I just did a little experiment... thinking about the fossil record sequence being roughly in order of the species vertical/altitude habitat.

So I looked up the 'evolution of mountain goats', and my prediction is confirmed that the populations of these goats that occupied mountainous regions do not show up in the fossil record till roughly 15-20,000 years ago in evolutionary time.  (around the time of the last "ice age" )  So they are one of the most "recent" fossil groups on record.

Animals that lived on the tops of mountains would have been some of the last to be killed in Noah's Flood.

Plus you got the animals that actually survived the flood because they could live just under the surface of the water, but died with the receding waters when stranded......like whales.

Plus animals that had the intelligence to make their way up to the highest ground possible, but were eventually overcome, like humans.

These are "recent" fossils too.

All makes perfect sense with flood goggles on. They are simply fossils found at high altitude because that's where they were when they died

Instead of accepting that whales died at high altitude from a flood, the evo's claim that they are "evolutionarily advanced". That they evolved from land animals?....because they are "recent" fossils in that high strata. Lolz.

Yes, amazingly... evolutionists believe that a small deer-like animal hopping around on the beach evolved into a deep-sea fully-aquatic whale in roughly 10 million years...   (the evolutionary blink of an eye)

This is a great segment that was part of an ID vs. Evo debate. (Meyer, Sternberg vs. Prothero,Shermer) 

Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist, and is basically ripping apart the ridiculous and absurd idea of random mutations and natural selection building whales in the time allotted and the population numbers available.  (not that adding a billion more years would make it any less absurd)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAzZEu13_w

Strangelove wrote:Plus you got the animals that actually survived the flood because they could live just under the surface of the water, but died with the receding waters when stranded......like whales.

Plus animals that had the intelligence to make their way up to the highest ground possible, but were eventually overcome, like humans.

These are "recent" fossils too.

All makes perfect sense with flood goggles on. They are simply fossils found at high altitude because that's where they were when they died

Yea that's the idea, and it seems to work in a general sense.   You also have the factor of mobility..  Large land mammals, while mostly living in more in-land, and higher elevations,  can also typically run the fastest for the longest periods of time.  So with a steadily encroaching catastrophe, we can expect they would make the most distant retreat.   (birds, too of course)

Also it's important to note that not all creatures were actually killed in the flood.  The Bible says only creatures that moved on the dry land, with the breath of life in their nostrils.

Genesis 7:21-23
-And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
-All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
-And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the Earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Creatures like insects, do not have lungs or breathe through nostrils.  They instead circulate oxygen through openings in their body.   And it makes sense that many insects would have been able to survive on floating mats of vegetation.

Also marine creatures are not on the dry land of course, so not all of them were killed.  This means we must have pre-flood insects and marine creatures still living today.   Which helps explain some "living fossils", where we have things like the Horseshoe Crab (450 MYA) still around today that looks essentially the same as living ones. (no evolution after 450 million years! ...  but a deer can turn into a whale in 10 million)

If anything would need to evolve it would be a cockroach.

If it falls on its back it cant turn over, and dies.

And yet it's been around unchanged for 500 million years.

Hmmmm.

Great video.  Here's a link to the Paleo Group who conducted the research.  http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/
Pretty funny how their scientific data was censored from the conference because it conflicted with Evolution religion.

And yea,  that Jack Horner call says it all, huh?  These people have a serious problem with empirical science when it doesn't go their way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w28FqN1X17s


Here's a great interview with Mark Armitage, who found sheets of unfossilized soft bone tissue on a Triceratops horn, " allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"dated" over 65 million years.  Mark got these findings published in a secular journal and was actually fired for it.

I just read today in a Google news forum, where scientist's, I believe it was in the Antarctic,  discovered the waves they've been looking for that happened after the Big Bang.    

Christians use to argue for the Big Bang theory and Scientists wouldn't here of it.  Now Scientist are arguing for it and some of the Church won't here of it!  

What are your thoughts on this?  

I don't see how anyone can argue for the BB theory in light of modern observations of the cosmos that place Earth in a unique position.

If Earth is in a special place then the BB is refuted.

I've always found it telling that even a significant minority of secular physicists consider the Big Bang theory a joke, unworthy of even being called a theory because of all the imaginary objects it invokes.

Things like this make it clear we are not immersed within a scientific discussion but a propaganda war.  Materialist fanatics can not afford to open up the debate to criticism.  Same with abiogenesis, same with evolution, same with anything origins related.  It's all a smokescreen that cannot survive open debate.


http://cosmologystatement.org/


But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors...."

Prediction:
If the earth were even 20,000 years old, its magnetic field would have been so strong as to make life impossible, based on the present rate of decay. The theories of Humphreys and Lamb can be used to determine how much the magnetic field of an astronomical object should decay after 6,000 years at the present decay rate. The numbers that resulted from Humphreys’s theory not only matched the strengths of the known magnetic fields at the time but also successfully anticipated Voyager 2’s measurements of the magnetic field of Uranus (in 1986) and Neptune (in 1990). These results not only confirmed a creationist theory but also helped confirm that the solar system really is as young as the Bible claims.


Prediction:
In the early 1980s, physicist John Baumgardner developed a creationist theory for the rapid motion of the earth’s crust during the Flood. His theory suggested that the “cold” crust, located beneath the pre-Flood oceans, should have sunk the full 1,800 miles (2900 km) to the base of the earth’s hot mantle, where the temperatures are up to 7,232°F (4000°C). This crust would have melted if it had millions of years to reach the base of the mantle, sinking as slowly as today’s rates. On the other hand, if it sank quickly 4,350 years ago, as Baumgardner’s theory suggested, then piles of those plates should still be found at the base of the mantle, cooler than the mantle around them.

It took ten more years before scientists developed the technology capable of “seeing” something like that at the base of the mantle. When that technology was developed, the cold material was discovered, just as Baumgardner’s model had expected. This successful prediction suggests that Baumgardner’s model is true.

Prediction:
During the production of egg and sperm, DNA mutations can occur and be passed on to the next generation. When these are empirically measured within a family’s pedigree, an estimate of the mutation rate can be achieved. Scientists have actually measured this rate in humans in a number of studies and found it to be between 75 and 175 mutations per generation.

Using this known data about mutation rates, a variety of researchers have used computer simulations to model the accumulation of mutations in the human genome over time. It was found that over 90% of harmful mutations fail to be removed over time and are passed on to subsequent generations. Because this buildup of mutations would eventually reach a critical level, it was postulated that humans would eventually go extinct at a point called error catastrophe. This incessant process of genome degradation over time with each successive generation is called genetic entropy. More amazing, the process of genetic entropy is closely mirrored by the trend of declining human life-span documented in the Bible, especially in the 4,300 years since the global Flood. In addition to these genetic simulation studies, prominent evolutionists have shown that the problem of mutation accumulation in the human genome is accompanied by the inability of natural selection to remove them—an aspect of genetics completely contrary to evolutionary assumptions.

The conclusions of these studies in modeling genetic entropy have been spectacularly confirmed by two additional secular studies based on empirical data that provided the same results, along with a timescale that paralleled biblical history. Both studies examined the amount of rare single nucleotide differences in the protein-coding regions (exons) of the human genome called the exome. One study analyzed 2,440 individuals and the other. Over 80% of the rare variability was considered to be harmful (associated with heritable disease), and researchers attributed the presence of these mutations to “weak purifying selection.” This essentially means that the alleged ability of natural selection to remove these harmful variants from human populations was somehow powerless to do so—the exact same results observed in the computer simulation studies discussed above.

Prediction:
Atheists will deny the above but will not mention this last prediction because they never actually read the predictions before rejecting them.

Hi CCornelius....if you are going to copy/paste material from a source can you please reference the source. Thanks.

Strangelove wrote:Hi CCornelius....if you are going to copy/paste material from a source can you please reference the source. Thanks.

I can't remember. Grabbed it off one of those creation science websites years ago.

CCornelius wrote:I can't remember. Grabbed it off one of those creation science websites years ago.

In that case you can preface the copy paste with that explanation.... otherwise people might think you are presenting material as your own when it's not.

Strangelove wrote:

In that case you can preface the copy paste with that explanation.... otherwise people might think you are presenting material as your own when it's not.

lol Really! Well, yes, some might think I did primary research in the fields of geology, genetics, and biology, resulting in the refutation of widely accepted opinion in those fields. But I doubt someone who would think that would be able to follow the arguments.

Nonetheless, here are some quote marks : " " " " " " "
Please feel free to put them around the above paragraphs.

Next time is fine mate. Its a rule of the forum that citations are required for any copied material.