Location of Pine Trees Globally? . .(Noah's Ark)

[Magnetic]

I'm looking for information of where Pine Trees grow globally.. . . . Which countries, . . . . where at, . . . numbers of them. . . . .

Okay, the reason. . . . Proponents of the Noah Global Flood say that the "pitch" that was used on the vessel was pitch from Pine Trees. That's because they say that oil deposits were created by the crushing effects of the water upon animals which is what caused oil to form beneath the surface, not millions of years.

Of course, that's absurd, . . . but I was wondering if there would have been enough Pine trees in Noah's location, and how many trees it would take to pitch such a huge vessel?

[Cao Cao]

Okay, the reason. . . . Proponents of the Noah Global Flood say that the "pitch" that was used on the vessel was pitch from Pine Trees. That's because they say that oil deposits were created by the crushing effects of the water upon animals which is what caused oil to form beneath the surface, not millions of years.

We've solved the energy crisis!
Quick, open all taps. Dismantle Hoover Dam. Remove all flood barriers. Do a rain dance!
Time to make oil!

[The Silence and I]

Pine trees are native only north of the equator, and then are only found in large numbers in two habitats: tiaga, which is certainly not where Noah lived (mostly frozen land where conifers have an advantage. There are some absolutely huge forests in Russia), and temperate rainforests, which is where you will find the huge redwood forests in California. However confiers grow in lesser numbers in other temperate locations too, one large-ish grove could conceivably pitch the ark.

Noah supposedly lived in Southern Sumer in the Tigris-Euphrates River System, I've been searching for the vegetation of that area. So far I have this: Link1 Link2 Link3 which describe the vegetation along the Euphrates and Tigris River system. No mention of conifers is made.

(Note, one of those links might require a membership to see all of it)

[Darth Wong]

Why do you bother debating the YECs on terms of their choosing? Why not force them to explain all of the things that are unexplainable with a flood, like the fact that you'd need multiple layers of vegetation and animals stacked on top of each other prior to the Flood in order to produce the world's sheer quantity of limestone if it was all done at once? Or the fact that some mountain ranges are more eroded than others?

Poking holes in the non-supernatural parts of their theory is a pointless exercise because the real hole in their theory is the various places where divine intervention is required in order to make it work. The use of divine intervention as a problem solver makes the entire exercise of creating a mechanistic theory a complete diversion tactic. They could just as easily say that God made the oil go POOF! out of nothing.

[CarsonPalmer]

Because if you refuse to debate them on terms of their choosing, the debate breaks down, because you're not speaking from a common ground. It would seem to me that the most effective debate victory over a fundamentalist is a theological victory, because you have dismantled them on their turf, so to speak.

[Vendetta]

Why do you bother debating the YECs on terms of their choosing? Why not force them to explain all of the things that are unexplainable with a flood, like the fact that you'd need multiple layers of vegetation and animals stacked on top of each other prior to the Flood in order to produce the world's sheer quantity of limestone if it was all done at once? Or the fact that some mountain ranges are more eroded than others?

Because unless you can hold a gun to their balls you won't get a straight answer. They'll either start reasserting their position from the beginning, because they are absolutely convinced that their chosen brand of woo is real, or (more likely on the internet) storm off in a huff.

Seriously, you would have to make these people think by threat of physical violence. It's the only thing that could shock their brain back to the real world.