How do you define species?
I'll take the.commonly accepted definition - a basic classification.How do you define species?
When first discovered, the presence of these fossil pits, formed by an allocthonous process, literally baffled many of the researchers and scientists that had already been indoctrinated into the faith based Neo-Darwinian bias. They simply had no intelligent alternate explanation,
...way up in the Tibetan mountains...amazing!
Neo-Darwinian and Darwinian are not the same...for example Darwin would say men and apes share a common ancestor, neo-Darwinians always try and demonstrate the ancestor to be an ape. And if you read my post I did not say XYZ amount of species developed in a mere 4000 years...I am not YEC in any dogmatic sense of that term...and never really bought into it. God COULD have done all this (and even created the Universe) in a very short time (He is God)...even with the impression of age already in place, but I do not believe that that was necessarily what He did nor that His not doing it in a 4,000 year time is necessarily all there is to this story. As for external evidences IF the neo-Darwinian Chronology or the Bishop Ussher Chronology is correct, THEN it would not be possible in 4,000 years by natural means.
And sorry but yes at its most basic levels "Neo-Darwinism" is faith based (and full of manipulative misrepresentation of fact and interpreting of data to fit the theory rather than shaping it). This was important to realize in the context of my comment because they teach a known falsehood regarding the tarpits to innocently inquiring public school children (over and over, generation after generation) as if it is the reliable truth when they know it is not (the Geobbels principle). The truth about them I revealed is just supportive of the story. Just as they do with so many other mis-statements of fact.
Ever read "The Peppered Moth" in your average Public School biology text? What a bunch of malarky! You know as well as I it is a gross misrepresentation intended to impress or imprint and assumption they want thought of as a conclusion.
You seemed to skip right over the important information of the post relative to the previous posts...
Ok, good arguments, lets move on..
Gen 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.
I get the idea, everything wiped out because man was turning out a bit rotten by all accounts. Presumably this means 7 metres above the highest mountain? I'm sure you have explanations about where all this water came from but I can't see it really so I'll move quickly on.
I'm wondering where your pastor friend gets his info from. There is zilch evidence that there had been no rain prior to the flood.And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.' And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. (Genesis 1:6, 7 YLT98)
This is not my interpretation or my idea, I heard this from a pastor friend of mine and found it interesting. Take it or leave it I'm just sharing. The waters above the expanse was actually ice surrounding the planet providing the water for the flood combined with the water from all the underground springs. Until this time, no rain had ever fallen. Like I said, take it or leave it, just sharing.
What are the sources for your 'reasonable scenario' and 'might not have had incredibly high mountains'?It should also be considered as a reasonable scenario that with the geological upheaval that took place at that time the topography of the planet could understandably have undergone massive change. The Earth that then was might not have had incredibly high mountains like Mt Everest. So the required volume of water for a global flood may well have been far less than would be required today.
15 cubits by any arbitrary reckoning would have been easily achievable for the most skeptical of people if there had been no extremely high mountains.