My first time posting on Think Atheist, so I thought some of you might find this to be interesting.
Ran across this today (http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2012/09/proof-of-worldwide-fl...)...a blog by the name of "Worldview Warriors" arguing for a biblical flood using this argument:
"The first obvious sign that a worldwide flood occurred is that there would be thousands upon thousands, millions upon millions of dead creatures buried underneath the surface of the earth. When we look at Geology, guess what? This is exactly what we find: thousands upon thousands and millions upon millions of creatures buried beneath the earth. Unfortunately, before secular humanists got their hands on the fossil record, creationists were poorly interpreting the fossils that were buried underground, which paved the way for secular scientists popularizing more scientific interpretations of the fossils. Today, creationists fight to set the record straight despite the fact that their interpretations are more reasonable and more logical than that of secularists."
"The first obvious sign that a worldwide flood occurred is that there would be thousands upon thousands, millions upon millions of dead creatures buried underneath the surface of the earth"
No, it's purely evidence that animals where buried and preserved. We would expect jumbled marine and non marine fauna buried together if it was evidence of a flood. This is very rarely the case, and when it does occur it is generally due to secondary processes such as slope failure or reworking of sediments.
The focus on fossils is also absurd, as the fossils should be taken in context with the rocks they are in, if you have a chalk layer tens of metres thick it is evidence of no (or very little) input of terrestrial material in comparison to the microfossils which make up the chalk.
In other words it's an irrelevant conclusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi in that there are fossils, but it has nothing to do with a flood.
" Today, creationists fight to set the record straight despite the fact that their interpretations are more reasonable and more logical than that of secularists."
This is just plain bullshit, the creationists don't offer a model which allows the fossils to be properly integrated into geology, let alone make predictions off the fossil distributions. I'm a petroleum geologist, we use the fossil record to help date rocks, allowing us to compare different wells and make predictions from the depositional environment what exists outside these wells. This gets combined with imaging of the subsurface (seismic data). If we for example have a few wells which penetrate a delta system, we can expect further inland fluvial deposits and further outboard a slope setting, this allows us to predict where we are likely to have reservoirs, source rocks etc.
Evolution in the form of fossils doesn't stand alone as a science, it is integrated into geology, and when combined provides massive predictive capabilities. A flood would have different sedimentary patterns, would less fossils and a less differentiated fossil record.
Thanks Alex. I think the predictive element is always telling. You would think creationists, if their "science" was right, would make a killing doing what you do for a living. I'm guessing that is why they stick to Sunday school materials. :)
There's nothing I can say that wasn't covered by Alex. Darwin figured this out in the 19th century. It's only right that creationists follow suit.
He continues towards the end of his masterpiece to say:
God’s Word allows us to interpret Geology and the other sciences properly
He is just another YEC with little or no understanding of Science. The article is all wrong.
WTF?! “...(creationists’) interpretations are more reasonable and more logical than that of secularists.”? That’s the specious claim made by the author of the article upon which this post is based. That might be a defensible statement IF fossils were all found in the same layer; but they are found in strata spanning millions of generations. Further, the more recent the stratum, the more complex the organism. That fact can ONLY be explained by science-based geology (and, by extension, evolution).
To the extent that the flood stories are descriptions of real events and not just mythological, they are fully consistent with local floods and do not require a global inundation. And if the flood covered all the mountains on earth, as the Noachic account in Genesis clearly states, then either God hadn’t created Mt. Everest yet, or it was completely submerged. Given that the concept of the entire earth being covered by water five miles deep is ludicrous in the extreme, it is a logical conundrum no young earth creationist has ever been able to credibly explain.
The referenced article also argues that dinosaurs and people co-existed, and that preople called them “dragons.” The last dinosaur (or “dragon,” if he prefers) disappeared 65,000,000 years ago. The first humans appeared no more than 3,000,000 years ago, if that. So humans and dinosaurs never interacted. That’s based on radiometric and geological evidence that is virtually irrefutable. But, interestingly enough, this bozo doesn’t have anything to say about radiometric dating; I assume that’s because he is too ignorant to be able to address it cogently.
The title of the article upon which this post is based is “Proof of the Worldwide Flood.” But, ultimately, the author bases his conclusions on “God’s written revelation,” which, of course, doesn’t even remotely qualify as scientific evidence.
Actually Mt. Everest is about 8.8 kms high, and 5 miles is about 8 kms so not that far fetched really. But to cover Earth with water to such a height would require about 3 times the amount of water than there is on Earth. I did the calculations long back. Where did all that water come from, and where did it go? Thin air isn't a convincing answer :)
I don't know when you did your calculations, Akshay, but the measurements have been changed as of 1999. It was previously believed to be 29,028 feet, as determined in 1954 by averaging measurements from various sites around the mountain. The new elevation has been confirmed by the National Geographic Society as being 29,035 feet (c.5.5 miles, determined using GPS satellite equipment on May 5, 1999.
It would require 1,194,845,753,604,350,656,512 - (1+ sextillion) - gallons of water to cover the earth to the top of Everest (disregarding the "15 cubits" more), and Earth, according to the National Geological Survey, holds only 326 quintillion gallons of water on, in, under, and above, our planet.
I just subtracted the volume of a sphere of radius 8.8kms more than the radius of the Earth from the volume of the Earth. There was some miscalculation and the possible answers were 3 times and 300 times. I think after rechecking I decided it was 3 times. Was a while ago and it is possible I made a mistake. Will recalculate and get back to you.
Akshay - I think you will find this indispensable -- world.std.com/~reinhold/BigNumCalc.html
Is that Java? I hate Java!
Anyways, I wrote a Python program to do the job for me, and it seems 300 times was closer to the mark than 3.
If you take the height of Everest to be 8.848 kms, then it would require 424.719906281 times the amount of water present on Earth to cover the entire planet. But I rounded the height of Everest down to 8 kms to account for all the hills and mountains on the planet, as they take up space too. This brought the number down to 383.935470418 times.
You can find, and run, the program here -
It's closer to 3, 70% of the world is ocean, Mt Everest is 8.8km high.
8.8/3 is closer to the average depth of the ocean in km than 8.8/300...
Erm, I don't think it works like that. I don't really understand your logic.
You have to calculate the volume of the sphere of radius 8.8 kms more than the radius of Earth, and then subtract it from the volume of the Earth. Then I made an adjustment for the volume the various hills and mountains take up, and viola, the magic number comes out to ~384 times the water on Earth. The math is all there, and it's all correct.