The Great Flood

Got Pi?

New member
Well, finding fish fossils on a mountainside gives absolutely no evidence that the was a "great flood", because, 1. the planet was once covered in water, and 2. fossils take millions of years to form, which is long before the flood ever happened.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Dr. Carl Baugh fossilized a cheeseburger in 2 hours.

The conditions necessary to fossilize, such as heat and pressure, make much more sense in the light of a catastrophic moment rather than millions of years. It also explains why sharks are found fossilized while giving birth and fragile, gelatinous creatures like jellyfish fossilized before rotting away.

Don't believe everything you're force-fed in high school, boys and girls. They tell us a kiss turning a frog into a prince is fairy tale. Then they tell us that millions of years turning a frog into a prince is science. All sounds the same to me.
 

Got Pi?

New member
Oh, well, I guess that pretty much destroys my second theory. I guess that kind of makes sense now, considering stuff like the lost city of Pompeii. But it is true, however, most fossils do take millions of year to form.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Fossils don't form, rather they created under the right conditions. <small>Sorry I'm a perfectionist...ie "pain in the butt"....when it comes to terms</small>
 

Johan

Active member
To add to my theory... in water )or the flood )Carbon will be the first thing to settle. With the build up of carbon it creates extraordinary heat therefore fossilizing whatever it covers...as well as putting the carbon dating system out of whack....I read too!
 

Tennessee R

New member
IndyJohan,
You are absolutely correct. Carbon Dating is very much 'out of whack' in many cases.

Have you looked into Kent Hovind (A good friend of mine)? He's a creationist, and has lots of good info on C-14 in his videos. ( www.drdino.com )

That last paragraph was great, Doc. Wasn't that Kent Hovind?

Aaron H,
Fossils are created by minerals replacing the object which is being fossilized, therefore causing them to turn to stone, correct?
 
Last edited:

OldawanKenobi

New member
Fossils are created by minerals replacing the object which is being fossilized, therefore causing them to turn to stone, correct?


That was always my belief,too.If that is the case,then carbon dating would not work at all and we would use another method to date the artifact.



How do you explain them finding fossils of sea shells and fish on top of mountains?

Do we know that the mountain was always a mountain?Geological forces acting over time may have changed that land mass from its original form.Granted,it doesn't seem likely that it would have changed much in 6,000 years,but it may not have always been a mountain,either.I'm just wondering if whoever found those items did any research on that.
 
Last edited:

Doc Savage

New member
007 said:
Do you have a picture of it.. I would very much like to see it!

I'll definitely look into that, 007. I saw one when I watched his program, I believe, and he usually keeps very good record of his experiments...I actually think his "petrified cheeseburger" is standard fare at his museum in Glenn Rose, TX. All it required, if memory serves, was a container, a plunger, a heat source, and, of course, a cheeseburger.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Tennessee R said:
That last paragraph was great, Doc. Wasn't that Kent Hovind?

Good eye, Tennessee! That man's particular approach to creation science has completely revolutionized my way of thinking. Anyone with an open mind and a penchant for bucking the system should visit www.drdino.com.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Doc, Thanks, but I was actually looking out of both eyes, when I spotted it. ;)
I think you have to edit that web address without the period.
I have put it into my post above (as I forgot to do to start with), and will post it again. www.drdino.com
 

Johan

Active member
Hey guys read the book "Noah's Flood" by William Ryan and Walter Pitman...they have some startlling evidence of the flood...quite interesting!
 

bob

New member
'Sigh', the Noah Flood again....

Archaeology is such a rich area of possible discussion and this comes up time and time again, I mean it isn't even archaeology!

I don't see the point of a discussion in which nobody is likely to change their minds, and that bares no relevance to orthodox archaeology (i.e. excavations)

(Sorry.... but this must be the 5th time it has come up)
 

OldawanKenobi

New member
'Archaeology is such a rich area of possible discussion and this comes up time and time again, I mean it isn't even archaeology!'

My feelings exactly.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Tenn:
Right, "Fossils are created by minerals replacing the object which is being fossilized, therefore causing them to turn to stone, correct?" Thus stone is created, not formed.

We had this debate in a class I took...that is why I'm making a deal out of it.:)
 

Doc Savage

New member
bob said:
'Sigh', the Noah Flood again....

Archaeology is such a rich area of possible discussion and this comes up time and time again, I mean it isn't even archaeology!

I don't see the point of a discussion in which nobody is likely to change their minds, and that bares no relevance to orthodox archaeology (i.e. excavations)

(Sorry.... but this must be the 5th time it has come up)

Various excavations have been done, one is presently underway, and the Turkish government states that the Ark is there. How do you suppse it isn't legitimate archaeology?
 
Top