The Flood

[BrianC]

I was asked recently to explain something in relation to the flood. In light of that, I wanted to get your view as to how the earth became as it is today. Did it happen over billions of years, or did it happen quickly in a worldwide flood? Did the flood cause the layering we find today? Did it cause the fossilization and the bent rocks we find today in the layers of the earth? Or was it billions of years? Which do you believe? I'll give my point of view in the next post. Give your point of view before you read it, though...it's a huge explanation that I pulled from one of my other replies to someone.

Also, I'd like to point out that in the bible it says the flood started with "the fountains of the deep broke forth", meaning that the water for the flood came from underneith the crust, which would explain why the bible says it didn't rain in those days...being that there was no water in the atmosphere...

[BrianC]

An Explanation for the Flood

Let's assume most of the water in the original creation was above the mantel, but under the crust of the earth (the earth is built just like a giant nuclear reactor: Core, Mantel, Water, Crust). However, the current configuration has changed from the old configureation. We have Core, Mantle, Crust then water. There is quite a bit of water below the crust, but nothing like before. Most of it's still in the ice caps, 90% of which is in Antartica, which, by the way, has been growing more thick, which goes against global warming...but that's another subject.

Now, let's say the earth was created originally like that nuclear reactor, and it heated itself internally from the core, which heated the mantel, which heated the water, which heated the crust. Genesis says that it did not rain in those days, but water came up from the ground in springs to water the plants. Interesting. If there's no rain, there are no clouds either. So the Sun had yet to evaporate water. On the second day, God created something called the firmament. He said it was created in the middle of the heavens. Upon studying what the "heavens" are, you find that the first heaven is the sky, the second is space, and the third (as Paul describes) is where God presides. If the firmament was in the middle of the heavens, it was between the sky and space.

Now, if this firmament kept the longwave radiation (or was it shortwave? I forget) from the earth and it was very cold, then heat would have to come internally from the earth. Currently, the 7th layer of the atmosphere is unexplained by scientists. It is where the ozone is, and it is cold as hell. Ice crystals are also there, and this is where we get the magenta sunset and the aurora borialis. They call it the heatsink. It's fairly thin, only a few feet thick, I believe. When the sun is showing, on one side, you'd fry, and on the other side, you'd freeze to death.

With this established, let's say that the earth starts to get hot about 4400 years ago (this is when scientists have tracked the wobble of the Earth's axis back to, approximately). And let's assume that at that time the water became so hot that it blasted through the surface at the ocean ridges. Like the mid-atlantic ridge and mid-pacific ridge (in Genesis, the flood started when "the fountains of the deep broke forth...so the water came from underneith...not from the sky). Water gushed out in large quantities and with the temperature creating pressure and the weight of the crust pushing down creating pressure, scientists guess that the water would've gone higher than the 7th later of the atmosphere.

Let's assume it broke that canopy which fell down to the earth and collected at the north and south poles (the colder ice is, the more magnetic it because, and this is why the poles of the earth would attract it heavily as it fell to the earth). If the water from under the earth became frozen on its way down, it also would be more attracted to the poles. We find wooly mammoths in Russia and at the south pole in Antarctica that are frozen standing up and eating green vegitation. That means Antarctica was once fertile and green and warm. Hense the warmth coming from inside the earth. I believe a socalled "cave man" was found there too. He looked perfectly normal like a human, but had a loincloth on... I could be wrong about this one, though...it's been too long since I saw that.

Now, water would cover the earth nearly one mile high. The sheer weight and pressure that one mile high water would create is insane! It would fossilize stuff almost immediately. Why? Because fossilization is all about time and pressure, according to scientists. The more pressure you have, the less time you need. Scientists can produce diamonds from coal now simply by applying pressure. Viola! Man-made diamonds.

Have you ever taken different types of dirt and put them in a jar of water, then shaken it up? You'll notice that dirt seperates into layers according to weight. If the entire earth were covered with water and the moon was causing major ocean currents and cherning and huge tital waves, this would shake the dirt below until it layered out according to its weight. Also, you would get dinosaurs sinking to the bottom of the ocean and being torn apart by the currents of water on their way down. Ever wonder why it's such a big deal to find a fully intact dinosaur skeleton? That's why... We also find sinkholes where hundreds of random dinosaur bones are found. As the water was sinking back down into fault lines, you find that many bones which were not covered by water were pulled near the hole, but not washed down it. As water continued to run into the sinkhole, it covered the bones with sediments and eventually, they also were fossilized...OR, they were fossilized by the sheer initial weight of the water, but he fossiles did not go down the sinkhole.

Now, here comes the bit about the rocks and the Grand Canyon. You have a crust with a larger diameter than the mantel underneith, and it's crashing down onto the mantel as the water shoots up out of the ground. Rocks are jutted upwards while the crust settles down. No one knows exactly how long it took the crust to settle down during and after the flood. The rocks you see jutted up out of the ground are layered like the rest of the crust around the world. And because of this, we know it must've been underwater at one point to receive the layer effect. At some point while the crust was settline down completely, the rocks jutted upward because of inconsistances at the bottom of the crust as it hit the mantel.

When the waters were going back into the ground or settling in the recessed oceans, you get the water runoff cutting down through the recently created, possibly recently dried layered rock. Apparently, a meandering river shows a quick formation of the river and cut of the rocks. I don't know the theory behind this, unfortunately.

Another thing this explains is bent rocks. Rocks are not ductile. You cannot bend rock. It breaks. So, why do we cut into rocks to create highways and see that the rock layers are bending? Well, that's simple. If the rock layers were formed during the flood, they were sediments that were wet at the time, and as they layered, they were already bent...then they hardened like that. We find this consistant all over the globe. We also find ocean life fossiles all around the world on mountain tops.

Now, if the diameter of the crust was much larger than the diameter of the mantel, then you'd have to fit this huge crust diameter onto the mantel as it settled down. This would cause breaking of the crust into plates, which would immediately press upward against each other doing one of two things:

1. Creating an overlapping layer like we see with plate tectonics, or
2. Creat mountains where the edges of the plates jutted upward.

Also, if the crust receded moreso at the mid-ocean ridges due to the water rushing up through those middle sections, you'd have oceans in those areas, which is what we find today. Also, you'd have mountains parallel to the coast lines, just as we find most of our mountains today. Why? Because if a plate sinks down on the ocean side, it's going to jut upward on the opposite side of the plate. For instance, take a two cement blocks and put a board between them. Break the board between those two blocks. What happens? The inside of the board is collapsed downward, and the outsides are jutted upward. Hense oceans and mountains. We find the layers of dirt consistant all around the world...same layers everywhere. Heaviest on bottom and lightest on top. This is a very simple concept, all-in-all, and a much better explanation as to why we find things the way we do nowdays.

Oh, one other thing is that the process of fossilization is when something is buried and the passage of water or moisture through the soil the item is buried in causes the parts of the item to wash away and be replaced by mineral deposites. I have seen pictures of stakes used to built houses that are seven years old dug up and have become completely fossilized. I have seen car keys fossilized, and even a human finger. Bury something for yourself and check it in 7 years or so. Find out for yourself just how long fossilization takes. It does not take a lot of time. The water factor is a huge part of it, though. And if a flood were happening at the time of fossilization, it would accelorate the process heavily. If the earth were covered with water, this would explain skeletons we find as well. Animals would sink to the bottom and plants would be covered, compressed and turned into oil, which is what we find. Animals would be as well, but we'd only find fossilized bones, so that it would appear as a tar pit where they died. Humans, on the other hand, would float to the top. And when the water receded in about a year (yes, the water was over the land about one year), then the bodies would eventually settle on the ground and decompose. We would find no human remains...only animal and plant remains. And if the atmosphere was much better back then, we'd find larger animals and larger plants, which we most certainly do find. These are all things that are never considered in an old earth worldview...however, they make a lot of sense.

Oh, and glaciers would've been huge till they melted into the oceans causing them to pull northward as we find that they did in the past.

Also, on a humorous note...if Noah's Ark was on high ground, and the waters were rising, then the animals would instictively seek high ground and come right to it out of desperation. It'd be easy to get two of each animal.

[black02mustang]

An Explanation for the Flood

Let's assume...Bunch of nonsense......more nonsense.....It'd be easy to get two of each animal


This will take me some time to go through all the problems this story has.

[black02mustang]

"Also, on a humorous note...if Noah's Ark was on high ground, and the waters were rising, then the animals would instictively seek high ground and come right to it out of desperation. It'd be easy to get two of each animal."

First off, there are thousands of different kinds of animals. I don't think anyone can assume they all fit on ONE boat and survived with NO food for any amount of time period. This is just stupid IMO. I hope you are assuming this boat held only a few hundred different kinds of animals, otherwise it would be astronomical in size. I think the largest cruise ship is 1,181 ft long and it holds like 6,400 people. Coincidentally this ship is called "Project Genesis" I believe.... :)
So is it possible for such a ship to be built back then? Have we found this ship? If we did, how big was it? Was it big enough to accomodate two of every animal on the earth?
Maybe god built this ship with his hands, and fed the thousands of animals on board with his love.

[BrianC]

"Also, on a humorous note...if Noah's Ark was on high ground, and the waters were rising, then the animals would instictively seek high ground and come right to it out of desperation. It'd be easy to get two of each animal."

First off, there are thousands of different kinds of animals. I don't think anyone can assume they all fit on ONE boat and survived with NO food for any amount of time period. This is just stupid IMO. I hope you are assuming this boat held only a few hundred different kinds of animals, otherwise it would be astronomical in size. I think the largest cruise ship is 1,181 ft long and it holds like 6,400 people. Coincidentally this ship is called "Project Genesis" I believe.... :)
So is it possible for such a ship to be built back then? Have we found this ship? If we did, how big was it? Was it big enough to accomodate two of every animal on the earth?
Maybe god built this ship with his hands, and fed the thousands of animals on board with his love.

Actually yes, we have found it. Genesis gives the exact dimensions of the ship, and the ship we find has the exact dimensions in Royal Egyptian Cubits. 550 Cubits, I believe. I think that it's 3 football fields long...but it could've been 1 football field long...I forget. It's many decks high, but I don't remember the cubit height. Anyway, you can look at the photos at www.anchorstone.com. Click on Noah's Ark and view the images and read the story of its discovery in Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat.

Now, let me put the thousands of animals myth down. First of all, you have an extremely large ship with many decks. Secondly, you have to realize that back then you didn't have to get one of each type of dog. You simply got one pair of dogs, and they had the gene-pool too create every type of dog depending on the environment and how each type evolved per adaptation. So, only two dogs on board. Probably one set of horses, which later spawned zebras and mules and donkeys, etc...and so on and so forth. This would elliminate many animals which you'd think would have to be on the ark.

[BrianC]

In reference to "was it possible to build a ship that size back then", sure it was. What, do you think these people were stupid? It's very possible they were much larger than we are now, as well. Many skeletons have been found around the world that are 9 feet tall, and even as tall as 11 feet. New Years Eve 1999-2000, I watched a special on TV about untombing the pharoahs of the Great Pyramid. At midnight, they untombed the pharoahs below the Great Pyramid (which is the only pre-flood pyramid with water scoring on it). The mummies were around 11 feet tall. That was the last time I saw that on TV. It was very strange. Look it up and see if you can find it. Also, at Glen Rose, Texas (near where I live) they found TONS of human footprints that were 14-16 inches long (which would indicate an 8 to 9 foot person. And they found 5 footprints that were 25 inches long, indicating someone around 11-12 feet tall.

Now, per the bible, right before the account of the flood, it says, "In those days were the Nephalim. The sons of God had sexual relations with the daughters of men and their offspring were giants. They were called the kings of old, the men of renown." It's in Genesis if you want to read it. I forget which chapter. Anyway, I believe these are the extremely large pharoahs they found...the kings of old. Also, you always saw pictures depicting the pharoahs as being much larger than the servants.

Further more, the ship they found had iron ribs, but not iron that could be created in our current atmosphere. The iron can be scratched, but does not rust. It's a more pure makeup than the iron we produce nowdays. The boat had iron ribs and you can read about a man right before the flood called Tubal can, and the bible says he was an ironsmith. Interesting...

Around this ship they found dreg stones. Dreg stones are HUGE stones with holes through the top for a rope to go through. They found them lining the sides of the boat's landing. I think the total was eight. Dreg stones are draped over the side of a boat on both sides and hung VERY low. This lowers the center of gravity so that the boat will not tip over when it goes over a large wave. It would also steer the boat into the wave. It's very clever. This would ONLY be good for a boat that only wants to stay afloat and go no where. This is the only boat in history to be found with dreg stones. Very interesting...

[black02mustang]

Actually yes, we have found it. Genesis gives the exact dimensions of the ship, and the ship we find has the exact dimensions in Royal Egyptian Cubits. 550 Cubits, I believe. I think that it's 3 football fields long...but it could've been 1 football field long...I forget. It's many decks high, but I don't remember the cubit height. Anyway, you can look at the photos at www.anchorstone.com. Click on Noah's Ark and view the images and read the story of its discovery in Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat.

Now, let me put the thousands of animals myth down. First of all, you have an extremely large ship with many decks. Secondly, you have to realize that back then you didn't have to get one of each type of dog. You simply got one pair of dogs, and they had the gene-pool too create every type of dog depending on the environment and how each type evolved per adaptation. So, only two dogs on board. Probably one set of horses, which later spawned zebras and mules and donkeys, etc...and so on and so forth. This would elliminate many animals which you'd think would have to be on the ark.

You will notice that is off a christian site for your viewing pleasure. :)
So what do you think of this? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html)

[black02mustang]

Actually yes, we have found it. Genesis gives the exact dimensions of the ship, and the ship we find has the exact dimensions in Royal Egyptian Cubits. 550 Cubits, I believe. I think that it's 3 football fields long...but it could've been 1 football field long...I forget. It's many decks high, but I don't remember the cubit height. Anyway, you can look at the photos at www.anchorstone.com. Click on Noah's Ark and view the images and read the story of its discovery in Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat.

Now, let me put the thousands of animals myth down. First of all, you have an extremely large ship with many decks. Secondly, you have to realize that back then you didn't have to get one of each type of dog. You simply got one pair of dogs, and they had the gene-pool too create every type of dog depending on the environment and how each type evolved per adaptation. So, only two dogs on board. Probably one set of horses, which later spawned zebras and mules and donkeys, etc...and so on and so forth. This would elliminate many animals which you'd think would have to be on the ark.


How long were these animals on this ship?
These animals ate what while they were on this ship?
They had to store how much food on this boat for how many animals again?

[Fobra]

You will notice that is off a christian site for your viewing pleasure. :)
That would be a fallacy of guilt by association. In other words, you discredit it based on its association of being "Christian."

[BrianC]

You will notice that is off a christian site for your viewing pleasure. :)
So what do you think of this? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html)

Yeah, I've read this before. This is a different object/formation completely, and found in a different part of the mountains.

The boat I'm talking about has been dug on for quite some time. I actually have a friend who's personally been on this dig, and it continues today. The Turkish government has put a visitor's center there and people visit it all the time. Anchorstone.com has a yearly trip over there to see it and how the dig is progressing. The visitor's center is a sort of small museum as well. The boat you're talking about is, as I said, something completely different.

[Fobra]

black02mustang
Were you talking about the sites BrianC posted or yours? If you talked about the one you posted, then I retract my statement because your initial statement seemed to address Brian's site instead of yours, but maybe I'm wrong.

[BrianC]

How long were these animals on this ship?
These animals ate what while they were on this ship?
They had to store how much food on this boat for how many animals again?

Alright, these animals were all in baby form. How else are you going to fit, say...a T-rex on board? And all of animals were vegitarians before the flood, and their main function was to keep the foilage down. If you have a perfect pre-flood world with trees which we see in the fossile record that are HUGE, and plants that are huge, insects are all larger...sharks and crocodiles are larger...everything is larger in the pre-flood atmosphere. So, assuming all the foilage was there, and grew very quickly, you'd need dinosaurs as large as the 80ft brontosauruses to mediate their growth. Also, scientists have found T-Rex fossiles with chlorophyl imbedded in them. And on the tooth of a T-Rex you'll find a seraded edge on the front and back, perfect for sawing branches and foilage. You can view one of these at the dinosaur museum in Glen Rose, Texas. It's a fairly controversial museum amongst evolutionists, of course, so they have written quite a bit of bad press about the place. It's best to see it for yourself. I've been there a few times. He has a pre-flood iron worker's hammer. It's made of iron and it has a scratch on it which never rusts. Stays shiney all the time. Very interesting. It's still partially imbedded in the rock. I think it was found around that area.

Anyway, I would suppose that if Noah brought the animals on in infant form, and they were on the boat for a year, they had a year to grow a bit larger. It's possible Noah had brought a lot of vegitables on the boat, and it's also possible he had gardens planted on the boat, as well. Theory, of course... But you could sustain a boat if you have one level of the boat dedicated to a huge garden strictly for food. 1-3 football fields is a lot of garden. :) Anyway, I'm not quite sure how all that worked. The bible isn't just making up stuff at this point in its writing...I believe it was accurate.

[BrianC]

Actually, they absolutely had to have taken vegitables and/or seeds on the boat at the very least. Why? Because after the flood, there would be no vegitables or anything of that sort. So they had to plant something, or they had to continue living off of the gardens in the Ark till they could grow food.

Also, they took 7 cows and 7 of some other animals. Those were for food purposes. They were doing something with those cows and the other animals they took 7 of. I haven't read the flood account in quite sometime.

By the way, it says that 180 days went by before the flood waters began to recede, I'm pretty sure... And if you count all the days, it seems to point to about a year of being on the boat. Not just the 40 days and 40 nights.

[black02mustang]

Actually, they absolutely had to have taken vegitables and/or seeds on the boat at the very least. Why? Because after the flood, there would be no vegitables or anything of that sort. So they had to plant something, or they had to continue living off of the gardens in the Ark till they could grow food.

Also, they took 7 cows and 7 of some other animals. Those were for food purposes. They were doing something with those cows and the other animals they took 7 of. I haven't read the flood account in quite sometime.

By the way, it says that 180 days went by before the flood waters began to recede, I'm pretty sure... And if you count all the days, it seems to point to about a year of being on the boat. Not just the 40 days and 40 nights.


"A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]"

This is a small portion of the text included in this site.

Check it out...tell me what you think (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#building)

[BrianC]

"A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?


I don't think you understand...what I'm saying is that those mountains weren't there before the flood at all. The flood caused those mountains to "pop up". Then, you must consider, due to the height and due to the land configuration at that time, the water would've run off between those two mountains into the Gulf, causing a huge plain type area in between the two mountain ranges. Now, as to how that water eroded those areas differently, that's anyone's guess. Because you must consider, water was flowing off from both sides of each mountains range. Maybe land was higher on one side of the Rockies as opposed to the other side of the Appalachians. Sorry, I can't answer that one definitively. But you do find fossiles from sea life on top of both mountains.


Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?


You should do more research on ice layers. Those layers aren't annual layers. Let me explain. You can look this story up for yourself if you like. There was a squadron of planes in WWII flying over Greenland. They were running low on fuel, so they landed there. They were rescued and the planes were left there. A man heard about this legend sometime in the 80's or 90's...I forget. He wanted to get his hands on these planes and put them in a new museum, because they would be the most well preserved WWII planes in the world. He and a team go up to find the planes, and they find their exact location...but they're nowhere to be found. So, they use equiptment to find out if they're under the ice. And sure enough, they are. MANY MANY feet down. So, they drill down onto each plane and disassemble them one by one and pull the pieces back up through the holes and reassemble them in a museum in Kentucky where they presently reside.

Now, it wasn't too terribly many years from the time they were left to the time they went to retrieve the planes, yet they were covered by snow heavily. They took their own ice ring samples and found that there were 330,000 some odd rings in their samples. Normally, this would mean the ice was 330,000 years old there. However, the people taking the samples for them informed them that these rings were not annual rings...they were hot/cold rings. See, when the sun comes out and melts the top layer of ice, it makes a solid sheet of ice. Then, it will snow again on top of that. So, everytime for the past 50 some on years that the sun had come out, it made a new ring. Hence the 330,000 rings. Please, by all means, go find this story.

If I understand it right, glaciers melt from the bottom up, and so they sink. That's why the airplanes had sunk down so far below the surface, and ice continues to build on top of it forming a new surface. Annual rings are a myth evolutionists use to try and prove the earth is older than it really is.


How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Well, you've got the water gushing out from underneight the crush, going into the air and freezing initially, then being pulled magnetically toward the poles...more the south than the north since 90% of the ice is in Antarctica. You'll start off with this large ice accumulation on land, and the waters will rise all over the earth. Then, they will recede, and you'll have more ice that has collected on those ice caps. It's possible the ice caps floated originally, but I couldn't really say. I haven't looked into this much. All I know is that 90% of the ice is in Antarctica, Greenland, and the rest is elsewhere. I know that for the last 4400 years, Antarctica has been melting (that's how big it was after the flood...and we still have as much as we have left today...impressive). However, in the past 20-50 years, if I understand it correctly, Antarctica has started to freeze again. Only 4% of the continent is still melting and glaciers have broken off from it. The other 96% of it is getting thicker! Quite the opposite of global warming.


Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?


The oceans weren't there right after the flood. There is a time right after the flood where the water had receded fully beneith the surface, or it had frozen in the ice caps. It was all fresh water at the time. The way salt water was formed is by the glaciers melting a couple of hundred years after the flood. As they melted, the water ran either through the land or into the lowered surfaces. While running through the land and through rivers and such, it eventually accumulated minerals like salt. After many years of melting, the glaciers receded northward, and the water filled in the area where the ocean floor currently is. And salt water was what was filling it. Not fresh water anymore.

Most of the surface, in the beginning, was not covered by water. It was granite and topsoil. There were no oceans, really. Maybe one toward the south...very small. It was mostly rivers that started at a higher elevation created from the water pressure underneight the crust, instead of from rain. They either went down to the small ocean at the bottom of the globe, or they fell into places where they would reenter the water table below the surface again. I don't know if I'm doing the explanation justice, though. The point is that there were not oceans to begin with, really, and no salt water. Salt water oceans are a result of the run-off from glacier melting. If you read in Genesis about the period right after the flood, you'll find that someone named their sons significant names for the times. One's name was Peleg. And that means "the continents divided", or something to that effect. That is also the time that people started to live less years. Before, people would live nearly 1,000 years. After the flood, they were living 400 years...then there was a sharp drop off sometime in that period when the oceans filled in where people started to only live around 100 years. This was largly due to the ice melting and giving off carbon, which mixed with the air and aparently wasn't too good for humans. Again, I'm not doing the explanation justice...sorry. Look into this on a creation website. They'll give a much better explanation. It's been a long time since I studied this...


Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]"

Again, like ice, tree rings are not annual rings. They're growth rings. I have talked to some people who grow trees for a living in order to sell them. They take readings of the rings periodically. You should go talk to someone that does this sometime. I've been told (as have many scientists) that a tree can produce as many as 7 rings in one year. It all depends on how well the tree was kept that year and how friendly the weather was to the tree. That's all. They're growth rings, not annual rings. Go find a tree farmer in DFW. There's one a few blocks down at I35 and 635 in Dallas on the SW side of the freeway.

Also, the trees you're talking about that supposedly date back to 10,000 years are a prime example of people twisting data to try and prove the earth is older than 6,000 years. Why? Because those trees have grown together. I've read about this before, and basically, what the scientists have done is take ring samples from a cluster of trees that are very old...but have grown together at the base. I guess that's how they grew originally. They are seperate trees, though, and no one can tell you which rings go to which tree...but they're combining rings. Those trees have been tested again and again by different scientists which said the trees cannot be more than around 4,400 years old. I believe it was only one team of scientists that quoted 10,000. All the other scientists were in a big uproar about that, because it was posted in something like Time Magazine or National Geographic, and none of them believed it was accurate at all since they had proven otherwise. Check that one out a little better. Again...it's been years since I looked into that, so I don't remember specifics, unfortunately.

[BrianC]

This is a small portion of the text included in this site.

Check it out...tell me what you think (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#building)

I haven't read the entire writeup yet, but I'll comment on the first part about a boat 450 feet not being seaworthy. Actually, the Ark was larger than that. It was 515 feet. See, the bible's measurement of 300 cubits in length was not Hebrew Cubits. It was Royal Egyptian cubits. Hebrew Cubits were not around in that day and time. So, the boat was longer than 450 feet, making it harder to believe it would've survived, right?

Well, they also find that the boat had iron ribs, and as I said, the bible talks about an iron worker named Tubal Cain prior to the flood. So Noah had iron ribs on his boat, something 300 ft boats don't have today...they only have iron straps.

"The Aramaic root word for the Hebrew word "gopher wood" means laminated wood (this is when layers of wooden boards are glued together one upon another to provide extra strength), and when these cuts were completed, it was plainly evident that the wood found at the ark's dig site was laminated wood.

The excess of the cementing substance (the "glue" used was resin, which was made from tree sap) was squeezed out the end of the plank, hardened, and has remained in the fossilized form. Until this cut was made, it was merely assumed that the dripping material along the outer edge was the pitch placed on the outer surfaces of the deck timbers and the rest of the boat. But now the amazing fact has come to light that the construction methods used by Noah to build the ark included laminating."

There's a picture on the site that shows this laminated wood. It's at the following link:

http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/153/51/


Now, in light of that, you have a boat with iron ribs and laminated wood for strength, something we don't do with our 300 foot ships we have today. You must remember that God designed the thing and told Noah exactly how to build a ship that was pefect for floating in horribly turbulant waters for 1 year straight. As we're finding with this dig, this boat was VERY cleverly built for strength and the ability to not flip over.

It is also speculated that there may have been a moon pool. A moon pool is a hole going through the center of the boat where water is allowed to come up through all the way to the top of the boat if need be. It's used so that a boat will not snap in have when it reaches the top of a wave. Instead of the full weight of the boat being divided at the crest of the wave, instead the boat sinks into the wave a bit more and water enters the middle of it, causing much stress to be taken off of the center section of the boat which would normally break under those circumstances. This is just speculatory....that's all.

[BrianC]

"Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.

Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?

Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.

Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood."

This person obviously isn't taking into account that these animals were brought from a perfect world where the climate was temperate all the time at about 72 degrees. All of the animals were completely used to the climate, even after the flood. It had changed a bit, but nothing they weren't built to adapt to.

Also, these animals weren't in the form they are in today. Have you ever seen a fossile of a penguin? No. Do you know why? Because Penquins are nothing like they were back then. They've changed and adapted to cold weather since then. They used to live in a warm climate.

Wooly Mammoths used to live in a warm climate and their hair was hollow and used to carry the heat away from their bodies...not keep heat in. Elephants got into an even warmer climate in Africa and ended up losing those hairs, because they were no longer effective in dissipating heat of that magnitude. Now we have naked wooly mammoths running around... that's right...streekers! It's a big deal in the animal kingdom, I hear. lol

[BrianC]

This guy also points out that dinosaurs would've been on the ark. This is true, but you also must understand that some things in the fossile record being called dinosaurs were nothing of the sort. For instance, put a pteridactyl skeleton next to a crane or sea herin skeleton. They're dead on the same. Some fossiles indicate pteridactyls had feathers. Gee, what a coincidence? So, there were far less "speicies" than we think there were...they were just larger. They also grew more slowly back then than they do today. With the absense of short wave radiation back then due to the firmament blocking it out, animals and plants would grow more slowly. Why? Because longwave radiation stunts the growth of animals in plants in a way that accelorates the grown initially, but does not allow the growth to excede a certain point and time. Hence, slow faster growth and shorter lifespans nowdays. The animals on the ark would've still been very small and in a juvenile form even after a year of slow growth.

[BrianC]

After continuing down through this article, there's too much to reply to. Could you simply post single questions from the article so I can address them seperately and so I don't have to address everything? That's awful time consuming, especially if you only want a few questions answered. Thanks!

[Fobra]

Did you go to an apologetics academy or something? There aint no way I can learn all that while in College :o Which church do you go to? I go to Denton Bible, we're going over the song of solomon discussing attracting, dating, courting, marriage etc. It's an 6-8 week long sermon. :D This sermon series our minister Tom Nelson does attracts thousands of people, literally, I guess because he makes it funny and applicable to the normal john and jane.

[BrianC]

Did you go to an apologetics academy or something? There aint no way I can learn all that while in College :o Which church do you go to? I go to Denton Bible, we're going over the song of solomon discussing attracting, dating, courting, marriage etc. It's an 6-8 week long sermon. :D This sermon series our minister Tom Nelson does attracts thousands of people, literally, I guess because he makes it funny and applicable to the normal john and jane.

LOL Nah, I didn't learn this in church. It'd be a cool church if I had, though. :) A friend sparked my interest many years ago...probably 5-6 years ago and I started researching this stuff. I watched some tapes that Dr. Baugh put out on the subject explaining some of the scientific data behind this theory. Then, I watched Dr. Kent Hovind's 15 hour long tape series on the subject which gives a lot of good information on the subject and shows proof of this theory being more likely as opposed to an earth billions of years old, etc. I studied it hard for nearly six months on my own when I learned most of this. I studied it off and on for the next couple of years when I couldn't find much more info on the subject. Since then I just debate people from time to time on the subject for fun, but not often... It's a very interesting conversation, to say the least, so it makes for some good fun when people hear these ideas.

You can go down to Glen Rose, Texas sometime to Dr. Baugh's Creation Museum. It's on the way to the Dinosaur Park. He has a cast of one of the five 25 inch male footprints, and some casts of the 14 - 16 inch long footprints as well. He has a T-Rex tooth that has chlorophyl deposits in it, and shows how the tooth has seraded edges on the back and front, good for cutting brush and branches rather than meat, which it would make a little harder to do. T-Rex was most likely just a "grounds keeper", as were most of the other dinosaurs. With huge trees, you need huge grounds keepers to mow it all down periodically. After the flood, you'll notice that God told Noah that the animals would fear him. That's because the canopy was gone and the canopy was responsible for the mood of the animals.

I know, that sounds crazy, but have you ever heard of how colors cause humans to change mood? For instance, after many studies, Microsoft designed there building color schemes to keep their employees calm but productive. There have been many studies on the color pink and how it relieves aggression, relaxes you and things of that nature. It does the same thing to animals, not to mention how it causes them to grow larger. Dr. Baugh has done some experiments with pink light. I've seen one of his piranahs that is 3 times the size it should be. Normally, piranahs are 5-7 inches long in the wild. Dr. Baugh used pink light in the fish tank periodically, causing the fish to grow to around 20 inches long. They're huge. And they're non-agressive as well...they're not scared of you like piranahs in nature are. He said that their size is also partly influenced by a strong magnetic field that is close by in a hyperberic chamber where he's trying to grow snakes extremely long.

Creation scientists believe they've figured out the makeup of the firmament canopy, which is far from "ice", as an article implies which was posted earlier. Apparently, you can take most elements and compress them and drop their temperature to -435 degrees fahrenheit. At that point, the element becomes transparent. This is done with gold specifically. Nasa gold plates the space helmets in order to block the sun's rays from penetrating to the astranaut's eyes. Scientists compressed hydrogen, though, and something more amazing happened. Hydrogen not only turns into a metal, but it glows pink, it's magnetic, it has the mizner effect, but to a greater degree, it's ridged, it's chrystallin...etc, etc. Quite amazing. A professor was showing this to his class one day. He had a towel holding a piece of compressed hydrogen, and a magnet over the top of it. The magnet floated on the hydrogen. He was simply showing the Misner effect. The magnet on top fell off, and when he went to find it, it was hanging suspended underneith. It wouldn't touch the hydrogen, but it wouldn't leave it either. Very strange.

Scientists think the firmament canopy was water, as the bible says, but compressed and frozen down to -435 degrees. At that point, they say, elements start seperating. So water would yield 2 parts hydrogen, and one part oxygen. So you'd have a hydrogen sphere, then oxygen, then another hydrogen sphere surrounding the earth. The sphere's would never touch one another due to the Misner effect, and the oxygen would stay in between the two layers to keep them cool. Shake a can of CO2 and see how cold it gets. Now multiply that on a huge scale and you have the firmament cooling mechanism. The Earth's magnetic field was much stronger back then. Every 1400 years it loses half its energy. It would've suspended that canopy perfectly overhead. And that would've created the pink light that calmed the agression of the animals and the people. It was gone after the flood, so animals would become scared and agressive, as God told Noah they would.

Oh, I go to Irving Bible Church, by the way. Only good church I found after visiting like 30 in the DFW area. Hard to find a good one now-days. :(

[BrianC]

What's more interesting is the air pressure the canopy held. When scientists find amber air bubbles that are "prehistoric", they always have twice as much air pressure and twice as much oxygen, and a slightly different mixture of air than we have today. They say that there's no way this could be possible unless something was holding the air pressure in, but they have no clue what that was or how that happened.

Creation scientists know it was the firmament. They also understand that that was the cause of the animals and plants and people being larger. The animals in the fossil record are huge as well as the plants, because they had added air pressure and added oxygen.

Evolutionists have a problem with dinosaurs. Why? Because there's not enough air pressure for them to pump blood to their brains in those large bodies. A Brontosaurus has a HUGE neck that you'd never get blood pumped to properly without added air pressure. When the air pressure is greater, the pressure at which the heart pumps blood is much greater, as well. Dinosaurs, in today's atmosphere, would simply die out from oxygen starvation.

Reptiles grow their entire life, until their environment can no longer support their size. There are small reptiles now that look just like miniature dinosaurs. That's most likely because they were dinosaurs at one time.

Normally, in a human, the blood hemoglobin will take in 4 oxygen molecules, then deliver that to the brain. However, when there is twice the air pressure and oxygen, something quite amazing happens. Normally, our brains work at about 4% activity. In a hyperbaric chamber, they work at 87-98%. What happens is that the blood plasma becomes saturated with oxygen and carries it to the brain. So you get TONS more oxygen for the brain to run off of, and not through a blood hemoglobin, but rather through the blood plasm itself. More blood, at a greater pressure, is pumped to the brain, and the brain begins to function the way it was designed to do so. It starts healing the body quickly.

Dr. Baugh has a friend that was in a car wreck five years before. He lost the use of his right arm. They gave him 3 hours of hyperbaric treatment and he started using his hand again. The baby that fell down the well in Texas had excessive blood loss to her legs and toes. They were black when they brought her out of the well. They rushed her to a hyperbaric chamber and gradually, her legs, feet and toes began to turn pink again. Prior to the hyperbaric chamber idea, the doctors were saying she would lose her feet. Her leg had been pinned backwards behind her head and bloodflow was cut off for hours. I have a friend who cracked his knee many years ago. He underwent 40 hyperbaric hours in one hour intervals. He went to see a completely different doctor after the treatment and that doctor x-rayed his knee. He said, "I don't see any new injuries here. All I see is a very old wound that healed up a long time ago. Have you cracked your kneecap before?" Mark told the man no, this was the first time. So the hyperbaric chamber had healed up the knee to look like an old wound. Hyperbaric chambers in hospitals aren't quite like the earth before the flood. They double the air pressure, but they use 100% oxygen, which has some major draw backs...like oxygen poisoning. You can only stay in them for one to two hours at a time. But they still work somewhat well...not nearly as well as twice as much oxygen.

Dr. Baugh has constructed the world's largest hyperbaric chamber, I think, down in Glen Rose, Texas. May want to check it out sometime. It's going to have animals in it and plants, possibly, if he doesn't already have them in it. I need to go visit the museum again...it's been a while.

I read some stories a while back that in the 30's, I think, they had hyperbaric chambers that they'd use to heal people, but I don't remember why they ended up getting rid of them. I should look into this again. It was very interesting. The FDA and FTC seem to shut down anything that's really good for you, it seems. :(

[DarkWolf]

Did you go to an apologetics academy or something?

I would hope not. Any respectable aplogetic wouldn't be filling their arguments with "let's assume", or "I don't remember the exact verse" or "It's in Genisis somewhere if you want to look", or change from 3 football fields to 515 feet (roughly 1.5 football fields) for the Ark length, and then start adding 1-3 football fields in there to make it look like he knew this all along.

Basically he's found a website with a lot of neat pictures that claim to be of biblical things, and he's running with it. He's making a LOT of assumptions about the earth's primitive atmosphere, that quite simply have no scientific backing. But by assuming things were that way, it helps make all his other assumptions seem less rediculous.

Baby animals? Really? Are you really going to go with that theory, after you first started by saying with the flood waters rising animals are going to seek higher ground? (hint: baby animals would not make it to higher ground, no matter how much they "sought" it. They are slower, weaker, and generally less able to fend for themselves than the adults. If they weren't trampled by the massive stampeed to reach the ark, they would've drowned as the floodwaters inevitably caught up to them. Let's not forget the distance many of these animals would've had to travel in their mass exodus.)

Nevermind that there are literally tens of thousands of species, and unless you believe in macro-evolution, the self-same species had to have been around during the "flood" as well. Species will produce their own species as offspring. (ie: you won't get a zebra from two horses, nor a donkey from two horses, so for zebras and donkeys to be around now, they had to have been on the ark as well.)

Extra-specie mating occurs, but it produces half-breed offspring, not a pure-breed new species... and more often than not, the half-breeds are sterile. In cases where the half-breed is fertile, the offspring produced is of the original parenting species. Let's take Horses and Donkeys for example. When the two mate, you'll either get a Mule (Male donkey + female horse), or a Hinny (Male horse + female donkey). There have been 0 recorded cases of fertile Male mules or hinnies, since the 1500's. There has only been 60 something cases of fertile female mules, since the 1500's. There has only been 1 case of a fertile female henny, since the 1500's. So, with sterility in male mules and hinnies at 100%, the only way to mate mules and hinnies, is with horses or donkey's. When a horse or donkey and mule mate, the mother (female mule, remember male mules are sterile) passes on 100% of her genetic code. In the case of a horse and mule, the resulting offspring is 100% horse. However, in Morocco, there's been one case of a donkey mating with a mule, and the resulting offspring was a new crossbreed, similar to one produced in China to the single known case of a fertile hinny.

When a donkey and hinny mate... the one time in the last 500 years that it's happened (ie: no examples of a horse and hinny mating), the resulting offspring was neither hinny, nor donkey, but was yet another crossbreed, dubbed "Dragon Foal", as it happened in China, and it's one of the few examples of a genetic chimera in history (like it's cousin in Morocco.)

[White trash wagon]

DarK Wolf, don't use logic! Christian's don't like it!! Take the fact that :

The amount of water on the Earth is fixed, there's no "new" water being made, it's all been here since creation of the earth. It's redistributed by rain, so anytime water evaporates, it falls back down in the form of rain somewhere.

So..... to flood the earth to the point that Mt Everest was was 1 inch under water would require 5 times the amount of water on the whole planet, that includes the ice in the poles, and all the water in the atmosphere. Remember your talking about a layer of water 5 MILES thick over the WHOLE earth.

Even if this amount of rain could fall, the atmosphere could never soak it all up via evaporation, so the waters would never recede. But when the entire atmosphere HAD absorbed the maximum amount of condensation, it would displace the oxygen in the atmosphere.

And lastly, if you count every last species of animal, insect & bird your talking 33 million different types worldwide. I know some will state that just one pair of dogs propagated all the other breeds of dogs, and one pair of butterflies propagated all others after the flood, etc......but insn't that evolution?

Since logic doesn't work......you just have to take it on faith!!!

Scott

[Fobra]

DarK Wolf, don't use logic! Christian's don't like it!! Take the fact that

lol do you know what logic is or how it works?

[BrianC]

I would hope not. Any respectable aplogetic wouldn't be filling their arguments with "let's assume", or "I don't remember the exact verse" or "It's in Genisis somewhere if you want to look", or change from 3 football fields to 515 feet (roughly 1.5 football fields) for the Ark length, and then start adding 1-3 football fields in there to make it look like he knew this all along.

What part of "I haven't studied this stuff in YEARS" did you not understand? Man, I'm pulling this stuff out of thing air initially, then I'm going and referencing SOME of the material I've read in the past which is giving me the actual measurements, so I can post them properly. That's why measurements are changing. I forget this stuff and have to have a refresher.

Now, 1.5 football fields is huge...and multiple decks...HUGE...it's around the size of a small aircraft carrier like the Lexington that's parked down in Corpus Christi.

You want me to quote verses in Genesis? Sure, I can look them up for you. It's not that big a deal. I just didn't want to spend the time doing it while typing some huge explanation. You read through things I've typed with vague scripture references and tell me what you want me to post and I'll post the verses. Just because I'm vague doesn't mean I'm making this stuff up. lol It's cause I have't looked into it in a few years and I don't remember exact verses and such.



Basically he's found a website with a lot of neat pictures that claim to be of biblical things, and he's running with it. He's making a LOT of assumptions about the earth's primitive atmosphere, that quite simply have no scientific backing. But by assuming things were that way, it helps make all his other assumptions seem less rediculous.

Again, what part of "I have a friend who was part of the dig on Noah's Ark" do you not understand? No, they are not a bunch of "neat pictures", as you put it. He's been to these locations and participated in some of these digs personally. He was trying to recruite me a while back, but I didn't care to go over to Turkey during the war. I've heard quite a few random people say they got to view the Ark of the Covenant in Israel before the restricted viewing of the new find. There are pictures of the ashen city of Sodom and Gomorrah on the site and I've seen the video as well. You can see actual structures, buildings, a sphinx, ect, and they're all ashen now. Still standing, but ashen. I watched the people dig into walls with the bare hands and crumble it like ask...effortlessly. And they find sulfur balls all over the place that have melted down into rock that's encapsulated them. They said the sulfur burns around 5,000 degrees when ignited (at some point, such intense heat can reduce rock to ash). They also show a video of the sulfur behing held in a spoon, and it starts to burn through the spoon like acid. In the bible it says God rained down fire and brimstone (sulfur) on Sodom and Gomorrah and reduced it to ash. Well, that's exactly how they find it today.

Again, I know people who've seen these things first hand. They're not full of it. They don't make money off of it...they have no motivation to lie about this stuff.

So I'm making "assumptions" about the earth's primitive atmosphere? It is quite scientific to take prehistoric amber samples with air bubbles and study the pressure of the air and the makeup of the air inside the air bubbles. Scientist say that the air inside has twice as much air pressure and twice as much oxygen, and lacks carbon and have a different mixture of other elements not like our present atmosphere.

Scientists also say that a 50 foot pterodactyle could not fly in our present atmosphere, because the air is far too thin. However, they say that if there is twices as much air pressure, the pterodactyle would have no problem flying. The 50 foot wingspan pterodactyle was unearthed in a desert in West Texas. Isn't it quite scientific to come to the conclusion that a prehistoric air bubble has twice as much air pressure and it would take twice as much air pressure for a prehistoric bird to achieve flight? Hmmmmm...sounds pretty scientific to me. I'd say there's enough scientific backing there.

Also, scientists agree that the dinosaurs would've suffocated due to their size if their atmosphere was like our today. There's NO POSSIBLE WAY a dinosaur the size of the ones we find would survive at the current air pressure. Much testing has been done to show that dinosaurs needed more air pressure in order to pump blood from their heart to their brain, and properly provide blood to the entire body mass. A Sizemasaurus was 80 feet tall, and his heart wasn't much bigger than a human heart. You need massive pressure to pump blood up that huge neck! Well, gee, look at that...another prehistoric animal that required twice as much air pressure to survive. Gee...sounds pretty scientific to me.


Baby animals? Really? Are you really going to go with that theory, after you first started by saying with the flood waters rising animals are going to seek higher ground? (hint: baby animals would not make it to higher ground, no matter how much they "sought" it. They are slower, weaker, and generally less able to fend for themselves than the adults. If they weren't trampled by the massive stampeed to reach the ark, they would've drowned as the floodwaters inevitably caught up to them. Let's not forget the distance many of these animals would've had to travel in their mass exodus.)


Hey, have you ever seen a horse birthed? When they come out, they can walk immediately. They stumble a bit, but they walk right out of the womb. Are you telling me a baby horse about, say...1 month old, couldn't run to high ground given a few days? Animals know when things are about to happen. Haven't you seen how animal start to freak out before an earthquake happens or when bad weather's coming in? I'm sure the animals had no problem going to higher ground. And if the earth was temperate all around due to the core heating it, then every type of animal would've been around that area at the time. As the animals started migrating in herds to high ground, Noah and his family could simply pick out the smaller ones of the bunch. It's not rocket science. Also, we don't know how long it rained before it actually covered the ground up to the height where the ark was. It could've taken a few days to get that high, which I'd think it would. And that gives the animals plenty of time to get there, especially since every kind was in his area. I see no problem with animals having many days to reach the ark. It's not like you're going to flood the entire area in a matter of a day. Granted, the water was bursting through the crust, hitting the firmament canopy, then coming back down again in great quantity, but it would've still taken MANY days to cover the entire surface of the earth up to a mountain level height. Your arguments aren't well thought out...


Nevermind that there are literally tens of thousands of species, and unless you believe in macro-evolution, the self-same species had to have been around during the "flood" as well. Species will produce their own species as offspring. (ie: you won't get a zebra from two horses, nor a donkey from two horses, so for zebras and donkeys to be around now, they had to have been on the ark as well.)

I have no problem with microevolution. Microevolution is when species adapt, more or less. Change that effects the animal within its species, but not changing the animal into a completely different species. That's macro evolution, not micro. And no, you would have two horses on the ark, and no more.

Do have any concept of how genetic data works?? Let me explain. The original horses God created had TONS of genetic data in them...genetic data for spots and no spots, stripes and no stripes, many different colors, different statures, etc. God said he knew what was going to happen to mankind and the earth before he created everything. Therefore, he would do such a thing to the animals so they could survive after the flood...which they did. So, after the flood, you'd have animals adapting to a new environment, branching out all over the world. After thousands of years, of course you're going to have lots of different types of horses, and even some that had mutated enough to become mules or donkeys...things that cannot produce offspring, etc. That's what adaptation and mutation do. Adaptation will change the overall characteristics of the animal, and mutation will cause it not to produce offspring. If an animal is so far removed from its ancestor that it can't mate with it any longer, that means simply that it has adapted over such a long time and its genetic data isn't supporting breeding with its old kind anymore. Now, if you reintroduce it back into its old kind again for years and years, it could possible produce offspring that would eventually be able to mate again. That's what happened with the finches of the Gallopagos Islands. However, some species are so far removed that they have literally lost the genetic data and will never be able to reproduce with their old kind again. That's how perfect God's design is. It's accounted for change and adaptation to change...but not interspecies change. And just because something can no longer mate with something of its own kind doesn't mean it's a different species. It means it's a difference species per science's definition of a species. It's still a finch, though! So no, there would've have been tons all those millions of species on the ark. Those came later per adaptation. Penguins did not start out as they are...they adapted to cold and ice over hundreds of years.


Extra-specie mating occurs, but it produces half-breed offspring, not a pure-breed new species... and more often than not, the half-breeds are sterile. In cases where the half-breed is fertile, the offspring produced is of the original parenting species. Let's take Horses and Donkeys for example. When the two mate, you'll either get a Mule (Male donkey + female horse), or a Hinny (Male horse + female donkey). There have been 0 recorded cases of fertile Male mules or hinnies, since the 1500's. There has only been 60 something cases of fertile female mules, since the 1500's. There has only been 1 case of a fertile female henny, since the 1500's. So, with sterility in male mules and hinnies at 100%, the only way to mate mules and hinnies, is with horses or donkey's. When a horse or donkey and mule mate, the mother (female mule, remember male mules are sterile) passes on 100% of her genetic code. In the case of a horse and mule, the resulting offspring is 100% horse. However, in Morocco, there's been one case of a donkey mating with a mule, and the resulting offspring was a new crossbreed, similar to one produced in China to the single known case of a fertile hinny.

When a donkey and hinny mate... the one time in the last 500 years that it's happened (ie: no examples of a horse and hinny mating), the resulting offspring was neither hinny, nor donkey, but was yet another crossbreed, dubbed "Dragon Foal", as it happened in China, and it's one of the few examples of a genetic chimera in history (like it's cousin in Morocco.)

Again, you're giving examples from animals that have already lost a lot of genetic data. Of course you can't breed them properly. You don't have a horse from when God first created them. I'm sure you could've gotten any assortment of horse from the originals, because they had all the genetic data to product all the different types of horses. What we have today is like a stripped down model. It has just what its needed to survive all the years in its own environment. You really need to read into this stuff more to understand how it works. Scientist will call mutations advances in genetics in an attempt to prove evolution of species. But the fact is that all we've ever witness is mutation and when something has mutated it's become inferior. It's that simple. We've never witness any species changing into a completely different species like...a dog changing into a cat, or a whale walking on land. All we see are mutations and inferiority. That's why so many species become extinct. Eventually, they've adapted all they can, and they no longer contain the proper genetic data to properly adapt to the current environment any longer...so they die out. It's very simple...

[BrianC]

DarK Wolf, don't use logic! Christian's don't like it!! Take the fact that :

The amount of water on the Earth is fixed, there's no "new" water being made, it's all been here since creation of the earth. It's redistributed by rain, so anytime water evaporates, it falls back down in the form of rain somewhere.

So..... to flood the earth to the point that Mt Everest was was 1 inch under water would require 5 times the amount of water on the whole planet, that includes the ice in the poles, and all the water in the atmosphere. Remember your talking about a layer of water 5 MILES thick over the WHOLE earth.

Even if this amount of rain could fall, the atmosphere could never soak it all up via evaporation, so the waters would never recede. But when the entire atmosphere HAD absorbed the maximum amount of condensation, it would displace the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Well, if you don't understand this theory or the science of the water on the earth right now, you definitely won't get it.

As of right now, you could melt every glacier on the planet and cover the earth at least a mile high. Now, that doesn't count things like Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest wasn't here before the flood. It was created by the flood. So, as the flood waters receded, it would've popped up. During the flood account around Genesis 6-9, Noah notices that the terrain has changed drastically. He says there were new mountains and new peaks. So, the flood literally caused new mountains. This was massive.

Now imagine the earth was built like this:

Top layer: crust
Second layer: water
Third Layer: Mantel
Fourth Layer: Core

Now, as I said before, this is a perfect nuclear reactor setup. The core heats the mantel which heats the water which heats the crust and everyone's a happy camper on the surface. Now if the core heats up, and the water bursts forth out of the crust, you've got exactly what the bible says, which is "the fountains of the deep broke forth". But there were no real oceans at the time...maybe one very small one in the south. So, as the water displaces itself from under the crust to above the crust, the crust will come down to rest on the mantel. But, the diameter of the crust is much larger than the diameter of the mantel. Therefore, you're going to get the crust breaking into pieces, and those pieces are going to push up against each other causing mountains. All of this will happen, because the crust's new diameter must fit on top of the mantel. It makes perfect sense. And again, where the water was spewing out, taking dirt and sediments with it from under ground, those places would recede moreso than the rest of the land, because there's less dirt underneith having been carried out by the water. There are your oceans. As the land sinks in the ocean areas, it's going to pop up in the areas parallel to the ocean recessions, causing the mountains.

Most likely, the flood was happening, and as the crust sank down to the mantel, the mountains started to sprout up and rise above the water, sticking out of it. So, most likely, there were some mountain tops sticking out of the water while the flood was going on. It's just that I don't think there are any huge mountains in the ararat area, so they would've have been sticking up out of the water.

Now, not all of the water went into the atmosphere. A portion of it did, yes. And a portion went back underneith the crust, hence, our water tables. And a HUGE portion of it froze during the flood at the ice caps. Those ice caps melted over time and filled the oceans. That's where all the water went...air, oceans and ice. Again, look at some actual decent estimates of the water contained on the earth in ice form and see how high it would flood the earth in full. It's over a mile high. And that's assuming we can actually take a good reading of all the ice on the planet. I doubt we can. We only monitor 14 different glaciers in the world, and there are thousands! If you're hearing that there's not enough water, you're hearing it from scientists who haven't a CLUE how much water is on the planet. Sorry, but it's incredibly hard to make that kind of guess scientifically.


And lastly, if you count every last species of animal, insect & bird your talking 33 million different types worldwide. I know some will state that just one pair of dogs propagated all the other breeds of dogs, and one pair of butterflies propagated all others after the flood, etc......but insn't that evolution?

Since logic doesn't work......you just have to take it on faith!!!

Scott

Yeah, that's microevolution. Interspecies adaptation. Granted, as I said in my last post, this will yield different species from time to time, but nothing radical like a dog to a cat. It would only yield like a horse to a zebra, or horse to mule, etc. There's a reason we can't find any actual transitional fossils. There are none. There were no transitions...just animals mutating and dying out from lack of an ability to survive on what genetic data they had left to pull upon for adaptation. That's it. Please define "evolution" more specifically in the future. I don't take this stuff on faith. I take it on facts. And if you can't even explain my theory, then you haven't seen the tons of facts I've seen and you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about when it comes to creation models. You can only argue that "oh, these have no scientific basis, and it's all on faith." Well...prove it. Go learn the theory and see the evidences they use to explain the theory, then tell me there's no scientific basis.

Tell me this...which sounds more fesible...dust settled for billions of years creating layers over time and magically top soil found its way to the top in our time, and magically the layers of the earth are layered according to rock weight (in other words, the heavier rock is at the bottom, and the lighter at the top). OR, there was a worldwide flood where water covered the entire surface and through turbulant waters, the dirt all over the world layered itself out according to heaviest dirt to lightest dirt, causing layers just as we see them today. Also, those layers are bent in many hills, meaning that the dirt was wet at the time it bent and then dried out solid, but still bent. If the rocks became bent over time, that's impossible. Rock don't bend at all...they just break. But everytime I go through West Texas, I see tons of bent rocks. Hmmmmm... Sounds like a flood makes more sense. Oh, to add to that, again, we find sea creature fossils on Mt. Everest and all other mountains worldwide, indicating that at some point they were all underwater. But wait! I don't base my theories on scientific fact, right? No, apparently I base them on common sense.

[White trash wagon]

[QUOTE=BrianC]Well, if you don't understand this theory or the science of the water on the earth right now, you definitely won't get it.

As of right now, you could melt every glacier on the planet and cover the earth at least a mile high.
Not true, see below:

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter.

That's off the US Coast guard site, 80 meters is about 260 ft, so much for your mile of water.

Volume of water stored in
the earth's enviroment[2] Reservoir Volume of water
(106 km³) Percent
of total
Oceans 97.25
Ice caps & glaciers 2.05
Groundwater 0.68
Lakes 0.01
Soil moisture 0.005
Atmosphere 0.001
Streams & rivers 0.0001
Biosphere 0.

Nope, not gonna get much more from rain, the atmosphere only has has .0001 % of the worlds water reserves.



Now, that doesn't count things like Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest wasn't here before the flood. It was created by the flood.

There were no mountains in the pre-flood world?.

Tell me this...which sounds more fesible...dust settled for billions of years creating layers over time and magically top soil found its way to the top in our time, and magically the layers of the earth are layered according to rock weight (in other words, the heavier rock is at the bottom, and the lighter at the top)

Gravity caused heavier elements to sink to the core, that's simple logic. Topsoil is mostly composed of organic material(decayed plant & animal matter & thier waste products), so of course it's on top. Since new top soil is always being created, it will always be on top.

If you're hearing that there's not enough water, you're hearing it from scientists who haven't a CLUE how much water is on the planet. Sorry, but it's incredibly hard to make that kind of guess scientifically.

Water has a fixed specific gravity and volume,so there is no need to guess, scientist can determine exactly how much water is on the earth. It's 1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers of water (in the oceans, but that's 97% of it all).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle


Scott

[BrianC]

Not true, see below:

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter.

That's off the US Coast guard site, 80 meters is about 260 ft, so much for your mile of water.

Volume of water stored in
the earth's enviroment[2] Reservoir Volume of water
(106 km³) Percent
of total
Oceans 97.25
Ice caps & glaciers 2.05
Groundwater 0.68
Lakes 0.01
Soil moisture 0.005
Atmosphere 0.001
Streams & rivers 0.0001
Biosphere 0.

Nope, not gonna get much more from rain, the atmosphere only has has .0001 % of the worlds water reserves.


I don't buy for a second that we can accurately calculate how much water is on the earth, in the atmosphere and under the crust.


Now, that doesn't count things like Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest wasn't here before the flood. It was created by the flood.

There were no mountains in the pre-flood world?.

Correct. Not the traditional mountains as we have today. If the world back then was mostly crust, a few rivers and maybe one ocean at the bottom of the world, it would mostly be flat with some small rolling mountains. It would look similar to modern day Saudi Arabia on the east side of the Red Sea. It's just a bunch of rolling rocky mountains that aren't too terribly big. Once the water shot out of the crust, this caused the mountains to form when the crust fell back down.

Tell me, why is it that all the mountains just HAPPEN to be running parallel to the oceans? That's an awful big coincidence... Why are there cracks in the middle of the oceans well placed to look like pressure breaches at the middle of the earth on each side? That's a bit peculiar.


Gravity caused heavier elements to sink to the core, that's simple logic. Topsoil is mostly composed of organic material(decayed plant & animal matter & thier waste products), so of course it's on top. Since new top soil is always being created, it will always be on top.

Holy crap, are you serious?! So you're telling me that as dust settles, somehow gravity makes it sift itself per weight? That's pretty funny. If this is true, and we see the world as it is today, that means over the last billion years all the different sediments have been falling from the sky and settling on the ground. As they settle, gravity sifts them out into layers (the ground we have today). As the heaviest sediments fall, they make their way all the way down to the bottom layer of the crust through the lighter layers. Hmmmmm... Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever...


Water has a fixed specific gravity and volume,so there is no need to guess, scientist can determine exactly how much water is on the earth. It's 1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers of water (in the oceans, but that's 97% of it all).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle


Scott

Again, I don't buy for a second that scientists can actually calculate how much water is on the earth. The 1 mile estimate was just that...an estimate by scientists...nothing more. Your supposed dead on data is far more conservative. Please explain exactly how they can accurately tell how much water is on the earth.

[White trash wagon]

Correct. Not the traditional mountains as we have today. If the world back then was mostly crust, a few rivers and maybe one ocean at the bottom of the world, it would mostly be flat with some small rolling mountains. It would look similar to modern day Saudi Arabia on the east side of the Red Sea. It's just a bunch of rolling rocky mountains that aren't too terribly big. Once the water shot out of the crust, this caused the mountains to form when the crust fell back down.

Tell me, why is it that all the mountains just HAPPEN to be running parallel to the oceans? That's an awful big coincidence... Why are there cracks in the middle of the oceans well placed to look like pressure breaches at the middle of the earth on each side? That's a bit peculiar.

Most the mountians that exist today were formed by plate tectonics, movement of plates of crust that are on the earth's surface. When the plate push against each other, mountains are pushed up, that's why you can see sedimentary layers "pushed over". And of course most mountains run along tectonic plate lines.

Mt Everest was created about 65 million years ago (along with the rest of the Himalaya mountains) when India (then a large island, like Australia) colided with Asia, it took a long time as the movement were a few inches a year.

The mid ocean ridges are where the tectonic plates were pulled apart. Look at South America, it almost precisely fits into Africa. Coincedence? No, they were pulled apart a long time ago. The soils of the South American coast exactly match the soils of the African coast, because they were once one.

Sometimes plates "slip", that's what creates earthquakes, and the friction of plates rubbing together creates volcanos (which mostly run along the edges of tectonic plates). Since Texas is at least 1500 miles from the closest tectonic plate edge, we have no earthquakes, no real mountains, and no volcanos. Another coincidence?

Holy crap, are you serious?! So you're telling me that as dust settles, somehow gravity makes it sift itself per weight? That's pretty funny. If this is true, and we see the world as it is today, that means over the last billion years all the different sediments have been falling from the sky and settling on the ground. As they settle, gravity sifts them out into layers (the ground we have today). As the heaviest sediments fall, they make their way all the way down to the bottom layer of the crust through the lighter layers. Hmmmmm... Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

Throw some sand, rocks, and bits of wood into a bucket of water. What happens? The rocks plunge to the bottom, the sand slowly settle on top of the rocks, and the wood floats on the surface. Simple model of how heavier elements of the earth ended up lower, that's not rocket science. Try it with sand and rocks only, but vibrate the bucket (the earth moves you know), in a few minutes the rocks are on the bottom. Earth's atmoshpere keeps most "dust" from settling onto it nowadays, but about 660 tons of meteorites DO hit the earth every year.

For more info on plate tectonics read this: http://geology.com/pangea.htm

I don't buy for a second that we can accurately calculate how much water is on the earth, in the atmosphere and under the crust.

Since, as stated, water has a specific gravity and known volume, it's simple multiplication the figure the volume of water. Scientist have used incredibly complicated math to split the atom, to create nuclear energy and weapons, but you say they cannot do simple multiplication?

I guess you believe the world is flat, and is at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the church used to teach?

Scott

[Fobra]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]
I guess you believe the world is flat, and is at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the church used to teach?

lol, you claim to appeal to logic yet you actually appeal to logical fallacies. This is a begging the question fallacy because you assumed your conclusion in the premise of your argument. Not only that, but it looks like a staw man argument because it mischaracterizes BrianC's position, which btw, isn't exactly of the Church during Galileo's day. Do you know where the "flat earth" theory came from?

[DarkWolf]

lol do you know what logic is or how it works?

Yep. Do you?

[DarkWolf]

Brian, do you understand that doubling the volume of water over the surface of a sphere doesn't magically create oceans that are twice as deep? Not to mention the enormous pressure that would be created from doing such a thing.

You claim all this water came from under the surface. The problem with this claim is there's not nearly enough room down to the core, to house all this water which you speak. And, even if there were enough room, the pressure exerted as the water heats up would literally rip the planet apart, not simply form some mountains and fissures. The planet would be reduced to chunks of rock floating in space.

As for your other statements about the first horses having all the genetic data to make zebras and donkeys... would you care to provide your source of this information? You can make as many assumptions as you want, but without anything to back them up, you just look stupid.

[edit] Also, sure baby horses can walk on birth. What about cats? Dogs? Pigs? Mice? Can baby birds fly? Are you suggesting that all these baby animals that aren't self sufficient currently, somehow were back in the days of Noah, and they've somehow de-evolved? (Nevermind that there's never been any case in which life has taken an genetic step backwards sufficient enough to affect the entire species)

You know what all your assumptions are called? Junk science. A 6th grader has a better understanding of science and genetics than you do.

[Fobra]

Yep. Do you?
:rolleyes: Have you read a book on basic logic and good reasoning?

[DarkWolf]

:rolleyes: Have you read a book on basic logic and good reasoning?

You understand that logic isn't just philosophical, right? I know Zorro's like your hero or something, but his idea of logic revolves around philosophy. However, philosophy doesn't always apply to logic. Logic is simply a byproduct of knowledge.

[Fobra]

You understand that logic isn't just philosophical, right? I know Zorro's like your hero or something, but his idea of logic revolves around philosophy. However, philosophy doesn't always apply to logic. Logic is simply a byproduct of knowledge.
But I repeat myself...
Have you read a book on basic logic and good reasoning?
If you have, you'd realize that logic essentially applies to everything. I took an intro to philosophy class last year and before we got into anything philosophical, the grad student who was teaching the class made us read certain chapters out of a book called "Open Minds and Everyday Reasoning" by Zachary Seech that pertained to logical arguments in the everyday world. It was a very basic template of what logical arguments are in an informal/formal and inductive/deductive sense. I can tell you, nothing that was said in the chapters had anything philosophical given that it's just a basic template (don't want to confuse the students yet), but what was said corresponded to the philosphical arena as well, this was demonstrated when we went over philosophers such as Plato, Nietzche (sp?), Hume, Kant and other scientist we studied, when the logical fallacies they comitted were pointed out. Thus, logic applies to everything that involves argumentation be it whatever the topic may be.

[justinsn95]

"Also, on a humorous note...if Noah's Ark was on high ground, and the waters were rising, then the animals would instictively seek high ground and come right to it out of desperation. It'd be easy to get two of each animal."

First off, there are thousands of different kinds of animals. I don't think anyone can assume they all fit on ONE boat and survived with NO food for any amount of time period. This is just stupid IMO. I hope you are assuming this boat held only a few hundred different kinds of animals, otherwise it would be astronomical in size. I think the largest cruise ship is 1,181 ft long and it holds like 6,400 people. Coincidentally this ship is called "Project Genesis" I believe.... :)
So is it possible for such a ship to be built back then? Have we found this ship? If we did, how big was it? Was it big enough to accomodate two of every animal on the earth?
Maybe god built this ship with his hands, and fed the thousands of animals on board with his love.

it may be possible that only the part of the world that was inhabited by humans was flooded. wouldnt make sense to flood the whole thing when it was completely un needed.

[black02mustang]

it may be possible that only the part of the world that was inhabited by humans was flooded. wouldnt make sense to flood the whole thing when it was completely un needed.

Well I believe "BrianC" has us all convinced that the waters were over a mile high covering the entire earth, and
"...the world back then was mostly crust, a few rivers and maybe one ocean at the bottom of the world, it would mostly be flat with some small rolling mountains"

So to me a "mostly" flat earth would completely covered by a flood...especially one a mile high! :)

But to me both responses seem stupid. I mean come on, what was the last thing he said?
"Once the water shot out of the crust, this caused the mountains to form when the crust fell back down."

Hmm.. not believing that one for a minute.

BTW:
Isn't christianity all about "belief" and "faith" in the existence of their god?
So if you are a christian and looking for proof of his existence aren't you kinda doubting his existence at the same time?
I mean, if you need proof then you are not believing in faith alone. It looks like people question whether or not what they believe is right and then and try to find proof. I mean wasn't that the point of the so called "miracles" that were performed? So people would REALLY believe in god?

A religion based on faith alone would not need miracles to have believers. It would be just that, a belief of "Faith". If you have to have proof of your god then you question his existence as well.

[DarkWolf]

But I repeat myself...

If you have, you'd realize that logic essentially applies to everything. I took an intro to philosophy class last year and before we got into anything philosophical, the grad student who was teaching the class made us read certain chapters out of a book called "Open Minds and Everyday Reasoning" by Zachary Seech that pertained to logical arguments in the everyday world. It was a very basic template of what logical arguments are in an informal/formal and inductive/deductive sense. I can tell you, nothing that was said in the chapters had anything philosophical given that it's just a basic template (don't want to confuse the students yet), but what was said corresponded to the philosphical arena as well, this was demonstrated when we went over philosophers such as Plato, Nietzche (sp?), Hume, Kant and other scientist we studied, when the logical fallacies they comitted were pointed out. Thus, logic applies to everything that involves argumentation be it whatever the topic may be.

And I repeat myself...

You understand that logic isn't just philosophical, right? I know Zorro's like your hero or something, but his idea of logic revolves around philosophy. However, philosophy doesn't always apply to logic. Logic is simply a byproduct of knowledge.

[Fobra]

And I repeat myself...
ok, assume what you'd like, but you'll find logicians not agreeing with your statement in its entirety.

[zorro]

BTW:
Isn't christianity all about "belief" and "faith" in the existence of their god?
So if you are a christian and looking for proof of his existence aren't you kinda doubting his existence at the same time?
I mean, if you need proof then you are not believing in faith alone. It looks like people question whether or not what they believe is right and then and try to find proof. I mean wasn't that the point of the so called "miracles" that were performed? So people would REALLY believe in god?

A religion based on faith alone would not need miracles to have believers. It would be just that, a belief of "Faith". If you have to have proof of your god then you question his existence as well.

In Christianity we are justified by faith alone. That means that doing good deeds is not a basis for justification. It is a soterological statement, not an epistemic statement.

Do I believe that God exists? I believe it is necessarily true that God exists. That means that I am asserting it is logically impossible for God not to exist. In other words, for me to deny that God exists, I must first deny that logic exists. As you know there as those on this forum that have actually gone that route.

So, you ask, "Where is faith in all this?" One must first ask, "Where is faith required." Faith is trust in something.

You see there are three types of faith:.

1) Irrational faith - For instance, OJ's mom trusts that OJ didn't kill anyone, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The rational man goes with the evidence and not against it. To continue to maintain a view or trust a position when the evidence is against it, is irrational faith.

2) Blind faith - This would be to trust and hold a position when there is no evidence for or against it, or equal amounts of evidence for and against it. It basically comes down to a guess that one asserts.

3) Rational faith - This is when someone has reason to trust, but doesn't have confirming evidence. For instance, when a good friend asks you to try a new food and tells you will like it. You trust your friend, so you open up and enjoy.

So, what does the New Testament, and in particular Jesus, say about faith?

Here are a couple of examples:

In John 14:8-12, Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." As part of Jesus reply, He answered: "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. “

Jesus doesn’t expect his disciples to believe blindly, but rationally.

A similar instance takes place in Mark 2:3-12

3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

The point is they couldn’t see the man’s sins forgiven, so Jesus gave them something they could see.

Today we still have a reason to believe what Jesus said: the historical argument for the reliability of the NT and the resurrection. This argument leaves us with only one option: The only rational position is to affirm that Jesus rose from the dead. The further implications of this are obvious.

Happy Easter,

Z

[BrianC]

Most the mountians that exist today were formed by plate tectonics, movement of plates of crust that are on the earth's surface. When the plate push against each other, mountains are pushed up, that's why you can see sedimentary layers "pushed over". And of course most mountains run along tectonic plate lines.

Mt Everest was created about 65 million years ago (along with the rest of the Himalaya mountains) when India (then a large island, like Australia) colided with Asia, it took a long time as the movement were a few inches a year.

The mid ocean ridges are where the tectonic plates were pulled apart. Look at South America, it almost precisely fits into Africa. Coincedence? No, they were pulled apart a long time ago. The soils of the South American coast exactly match the soils of the African coast, because they were once one.

Sometimes plates "slip", that's what creates earthquakes, and the friction of plates rubbing together creates volcanos (which mostly run along the edges of tectonic plates). Since Texas is at least 1500 miles from the closest tectonic plate edge, we have no earthquakes, no real mountains, and no volcanos. Another coincidence?

Actually, you're thinking of Pangea, and you're claiming that South America split from Africa. Well, allow me to enlighten you a bit on Pangea and continental drift theory. It's just that...a theory. Let me explain...

Go take another look at Pangea. Notice something of vital importance...Mexico is not part of it at all...it's gone. And Africa is MUCH MUCH smaller, as are many of the continents. Sizes are ALL out of wack and things are missing all over Pangea. It doesn't make one bit of since. Pangea is a great big crock.

Also, taken into account that the ocean floor is almost dead on 199-200ft everywhere around the world except the mid-ocean trenches. It's the continental shelf. Gee...I don't see a place for the continental shelf in Pangea. So, you're telling me that magically the continental shelf appeared between these drifting continents? Hmmmmm....I think not. Because there's no evidence of it moving or spreading or being created at the ocean trench. Only a very small part of the continental shelf is said to have been "created" at the point of the mid-ocean trenches by volcanic activity.

Mt. Everest was created about 4400 years ago, actually, when a larger diameter crust had to fall down onto a smaller diameter mantel, and the crust couldn't fit properly...not enough space. So it caused many mountains to pop up parallel to the oceans, and there go your mountains. It's a much simpler solution since current rates of erosian indicate that our tallest mountain would be washed into the ocean in a matter of 1 million years. Gee...that's an awful hard statistic to overcome there since Mt. Everest was supposedly formed 65 million years ago. Go do some research on that. You'll find that nearly all scientists that have studied erosion rates agree that it would take roughly 1 million years to erode the largest mountain (which means all mountains on the planet along with it) on earth.


Throw some sand, rocks, and bits of wood into a bucket of water. What happens? The rocks plunge to the bottom, the sand slowly settle on top of the rocks, and the wood floats on the surface. Simple model of how heavier elements of the earth ended up lower, that's not rocket science. Try it with sand and rocks only, but vibrate the bucket (the earth moves you know), in a few minutes the rocks are on the bottom. Earth's atmoshpere keeps most "dust" from settling onto it nowadays, but about 660 tons of meteorites DO hit the earth every year.

How about this....how about you do an experiment. Take a bucket with NO water and just sand and dirt and rocks and wood and throw everything in. Now, let it sit there for a few years and come back to it. You tell me if ANY of that stuff moved from its original place. I guaratee it didn't move one bit. At very best, if it were to rain on the stuff from time to time and the rain were to run out of the bucket, you might get some of the sand repositioning itself just a tad, but not much. Rocks will stay at the bottom wherer they started, and wood will as well.

Your experiment simply proves my theory of a flood, because you fill the bucket with water. Well, heck, I already told you how that works and why it would work. You have to do your experiment without water to prove your point, and it won't work.


For more info on plate tectonics read this: http://geology.com/pangea.htm

That's quite alright, I know quite a bit about plate tectonics.

I don't buy for a second that we can accurately calculate how much water is on the earth, in the atmosphere and under the crust.

Since, as stated, water has a specific gravity and known volume, it's simple multiplication the figure the volume of water. Scientist have used incredibly complicated math to split the atom, to create nuclear energy and weapons, but you say they cannot do simple multiplication?

I guess you believe the world is flat, and is at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the church used to teach?

Scott

Now that you mention it, yes, I do believe the earth is at the center of the universe, and many scientists agree, especially the hubble telescope researchers that track the outskirts of the universe. They say that the edge of the universe is uniformly closing in from all sides at the same distance. They also say there are seven galaxies on top of ours, and seven galaxies below ours. Interesting coincidence being that seven is the number of completion in the bible. Of course, the Earth is not flat, and only the catholic church taught that during and a little after the Dark Ages when they dominated what the bible taught by restricting access to the bible by burning many of them, and not teaching the people to read. You can read even in the bible, before Jesus' time, there are references to a circular world. Also, there was an astronomer that calculated the distance around the world in 600 B.C. So yes, the Catholic Church may have screwed up royally by teaching a flat planet, but they're the only ones who believed that. Many people were not convinced at all. And that was a simple isolated incident for a certain small time period.

Another reason that may lend proof to us being in the middle of the universe is that if the Earth were to move just a mile or so toward or away from the Sun, life would cease to exist on the planet according to most scientists. It would throw everything out of balance. Maybe that has something to do with our relation to the other 14 galaxies around us, or maybe it has to do with how close we are to our sun...I don't know. Either way, it's a bit strange that we're perfectly place to support life. Almost like we were put here purpousfully.

[BrianC]

Brian, do you understand that doubling the volume of water over the surface of a sphere doesn't magically create oceans that are twice as deep? Not to mention the enormous pressure that would be created from doing such a thing.

You claim all this water came from under the surface. The problem with this claim is there's not nearly enough room down to the core, to house all this water which you speak. And, even if there were enough room, the pressure exerted as the water heats up would literally rip the planet apart, not simply form some mountains and fissures. The planet would be reduced to chunks of rock floating in space.

As for your other statements about the first horses having all the genetic data to make zebras and donkeys... would you care to provide your source of this information? You can make as many assumptions as you want, but without anything to back them up, you just look stupid.

[edit] Also, sure baby horses can walk on birth. What about cats? Dogs? Pigs? Mice? Can baby birds fly? Are you suggesting that all these baby animals that aren't self sufficient currently, somehow were back in the days of Noah, and they've somehow de-evolved? (Nevermind that there's never been any case in which life has taken an genetic step backwards sufficient enough to affect the entire species)

You know what all your assumptions are called? Junk science. A 6th grader has a better understanding of science and genetics than you do.

Oh, how cute. You think I'm "assuming". That's entertaining. Of course these aren't assumptions. Go look into creation scientist's research on genetic data. They show quite a few studies from their own scientists and secular scientists that have shown the loss of genetic data in MANY cases. And yes, we have shown a loss of data to effect a speicies. For instance, look at the research we've done on flies. After much breeding, scientists found that the flies would begin to lose wings and become inable to adapt properly. They had lost the genetic data to produce wings. This is a loss of genetic data. Very simple. If flies in a certain part of the world began to see such a change, it would effect them all if they lost their wings. They'd die out. Pretty simple.

Also, all of the animals you stated above can walk within a matter of a few weeks from when their born. Some as soon as their born, but others, only weeks afterwords. It's easy to get a baby running away from water, especially since we don't know how long it took to fill the earth with water up to the point at which the ark was resting.

And finally, about your core comment. Again, you've shown that you know absolutely nothing about the flood theory. As I said before, no, the water was not going down to the core. That's ridiculous. There's a core, then a MANTEL, then the water, then the crust. The core heats the mantel, which heats the water, which heats the crust. VERY simple concept, so much so that this is exactly how we make nuclear reactors. Uranium rods with cadmium rods to control the heat, and a lead plate above with water on top, and a spout for the steam to travel up and through a generator wheel which spins a generator. Very simple concept. Now, if you took the crust of the earth, eliminated all of the mountains and used the extra diameter that would create by flattening everything out, you'd get a much larger circumfrence...which means there would be plenty of room to fit quite a bit of water below the crust of the earth, where it was before the flood. At first, the core would moderately heat the mantel, then the water, and the bible says the water came up from the ground in springs to water the ground in the mornings. And it said there was no rain in those days. Gee, that's pretty straight forward, don't you think? There was no rain, so no water in cloud form, and water was coming from under the ground to water everything. That's pretty simple. If this was not true, but rather figurative, why the HECK would they include this in the bible?? Especially if it really WAS raining back then? There's absolutely NO reason to include this in the bible unless it was true. Just as there would be no reason to include a water canopy in the creation where the canopy is placed inbetween space and the sky. No reason whatsoever. And if you look at the translation of the word firmament into Hebrew, you find that the word is Raquia, and it means layers of metal beat into thin sheets. Well, what a coincidence, because we find that if you take water and freeze it past -435 degrees and compress it, it splits into hydrogen water and hydrogen, and the hydrogen becomes a metal and transparent and it glows pink and it is fiberoptic and ridged and crystaline and has the misner effect, etc etc. And scientists have said that if there was water in the atmosphere, yes, it would push in on the atmosphere and create more air pressure, even doubling our current air pressure. And finally, the air in prehistoric amber air bubbles has twice as much air pressure. Wow...what a coincidence. Also, if the crust has lowered itself on the earth as to where it was before the earth when it was sitting on water, that means there's more room from the top layer of the atmosphere to the crust...meaning a drop in air pressure. Once again, a peculiar coincidence.

And again, finally, scientists have repeatedly said that dinosaurs in the size we find them, could not have lived in our current atmosphere, but rather one with twice as much air pressure to support their bodies pumping blood to their brains and them getting enough oxygen. A brontosaurus has lungs just a little larger than ours for that huge body. It needs lots more air pressure and oxygen.

No offense, but you obviously want to make no effort to fit together what I'm saying or even entertain the fact that it could be possible and actually makes a much better case than what you're discribing. Haven't seen a good argument yet.

[BrianC]

it may be possible that only the part of the world that was inhabited by humans was flooded. wouldnt make sense to flood the whole thing when it was completely un needed.

Nah, that doesn't make sense, because we find evidence of flooding worldwide, and we find ocean floor life on the tops of all mountains in the world. At some point, everything was covered in water for some period of time. Scientists have admitted that...but they don't claim a flood...

[BrianC]

Well I believe "BrianC" has us all convinced that the waters were over a mile high covering the entire earth, and
"...the world back then was mostly crust, a few rivers and maybe one ocean at the bottom of the world, it would mostly be flat with some small rolling mountains"

So to me a "mostly" flat earth would completely covered by a flood...especially one a mile high! :)

But to me both responses seem stupid. I mean come on, what was the last thing he said?
"Once the water shot out of the crust, this caused the mountains to form when the crust fell back down."

Hmm.. not believing that one for a minute.

BTW:
Isn't christianity all about "belief" and "faith" in the existence of their god?
So if you are a christian and looking for proof of his existence aren't you kinda doubting his existence at the same time?
I mean, if you need proof then you are not believing in faith alone. It looks like people question whether or not what they believe is right and then and try to find proof. I mean wasn't that the point of the so called "miracles" that were performed? So people would REALLY believe in god?

A religion based on faith alone would not need miracles to have believers. It would be just that, a belief of "Faith". If you have to have proof of your god then you question his existence as well.

I originally came to my beliefs by faith because God literally changed my life in a split second. He changed my mind, my heart, everything all at once, and I wasn't even asking for it...he just did it. At from that point on, I believed. Also, from that point on I was healed a few times, and saw many other people healed as well. I saw lots of proof for God in that form. Then I stumbled onto creation science and researched it quite heavily for a year or so and found that it made far more sense than evolution or big bang theory. It's that simple.

If you actually understood the theory, you would have to admit that it makes a LOT more sense. But, obviously, you have no wish to study or understand it since you keep mincing facts and attempting to prove them wrong. It's kind of entertaining...like watching a baby try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

And to answer once again about a flat earth and water covering it and mountains forming....here we go...

If you have a water layer under the crust that is around a mile deep, and then the core heats up causing the mantel to heat up, causing the water to heat up and bust through the crust, you'd get that water displacing itself on top of the heavier crust. Now, the crust's diameter would be much larger than the water's diameter underneith it. Therefore, you'd get the crust falling back down on the mantel at a smaller diameter and no place to go. So it would create mountains where it could not fit itself onto the mantel. It's EXTREMELY simple physics. If something can't fit in a certain area, it must compress itself or create higher areas to fit more of itself into that area. If you can't figure that out, then not understanding science is the least of your problems. Not to be condescending or anything, but this is VERY simple concept that you don't seem to be able to get and I'm a bit concerned. It's so simple.

So, after you have the water displace itself onto the crust, you have the areas where it shot out and carried sediments with it from underneith the crust. Those areas will have less sediments/rock underneith them, so when they fall onto the crust, they'll be lower than the other areas where water did not carry out the sediments/rock. Hence the ocean recessions. Pretty simple. And since that area fell, you've got the mountains popping up from the portion of the crust falling. VERY simple stuff. Then, you've got the rock layers forming underwater, and they're wet while they're being bent, so they rock layers don't break. Then, the water drains away or freezes in the poles or goes back underneith the crust. Then the bent layers of rock dry and are permanently bent...no breaking. Water and dirt layers is the only way you could've caused those rocks to bend. It wasn't magic. lol They bent while they were wet, period. No other solution. Water covered the earth and those layers were soaked. You find another way to bend dry rock and tell me, because I've never seen it done. You're in denial if you think otherwise. I have quite a good grasp on science. When I was a teenager I believed as you do because I didn't think it through fully. Then I was opened up into a world of science that said there are huge holes in big bang and evolution theory and explained them out. And they were gaping holes. But creation theory set them straight and there were no holes. Made perfect sense. You don't understand the theory, and therefore cannot debate it properly.

[BrianC]

1) Irrational faith - For instance, OJ's mom trusts that OJ didn't kill anyone, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The rational man goes with the evidence and not against it. To continue to maintain a view or trust a position when the evidence is against it, is irrational faith.

2) Blind faith - This would be to trust and hold a position when there is no evidence for or against it, or equal amounts of evidence for and against it. It basically comes down to a guess that one asserts.
Z

And see, I would claim that black02mustang has irrational or blind faith in his worldview. Why? Because there are no facts to support evolution or big bang which it would seem he is advocating. It's irrational to say that something was created from nothing, or it's simply blind, not wanting to see the truth of all the holes in the theory. There's absolutely NO evidence proving big bang or evolution, but people cling to it because it's what they have been taught and it's dominantly what is taught in schools, where as 40 years ago it was a joke in schools. Funny that back then they thought it was a joke. Until scientists were taught this theory and had such a drive to try and prove it correct, to no avail, of course. And today they still struggle to find evidence to prove it, which they cannot do... They seem to find all kinds of evidence that works against them, though. I find it quite entertaining that most of the big scientists are not starting to claim that there was a designer, but not claiming it was a God. They are finally starting to see that things are far too complicated and balanced to be created by chance.

Also, scientists say a dead RNA cell was struck by lightning and came to life, magically... Something that's dead indicates that it was living at one point. It knew nothing of life before it was struck by lightning... But it somehow became living all of the sudden? Hmmmmm... And it had intelligence, because it found food? And found a mate and knew what to do with that mate to reproduce? That's what I hear as the explanation from top evolutionists. That's pretty entertaining that they actually believe that. TOTAL theory, not documented anywhere in history...but they believe it blindly with no evidence. And if it was such a simple event involving an RNA cell and lightning, why can't we recreate it? Maybe that's because IT CAN'T HAPPEN! lol

[zorro]

And see, I would claim that black02mustang has irrational or blind faith in his worldview. Why? Because there are no facts to support evolution or big bang which it would seem he is advocating. It's irrational to say that something was created from nothing, or it's simply blind, not wanting to see the truth of all the holes in the theory. There's absolutely NO evidence proving big bang or evolution, but people cling to it because it's what they have been taught and it's dominantly what is taught in schools, where as 40 years ago it was a joke in schools. Funny that back then they thought it was a joke. Until scientists were taught this theory and had such a drive to try and prove it correct, to no avail, of course. And today they still struggle to find evidence to prove it, which they cannot do... They seem to find all kinds of evidence that works against them, though. I find it quite entertaining that most of the big scientists are not starting to claim that there was a designer, but not claiming it was a God. They are finally starting to see that things are far too complicated and balanced to be created by chance.

Also, scientists say a dead RNA cell was struck by lightning and came to life, magically... Something that's dead indicates that it was living at one point. It knew nothing of life before it was struck by lightning... But it somehow became living all of the sudden? Hmmmmm... And it had intelligence, because it found food? And found a mate and knew what to do with that mate to reproduce? That's what I hear as the explanation from top evolutionists. That's pretty entertaining that they actually believe that. TOTAL theory, not documented anywhere in history...but they believe it blindly with no evidence. And if it was such a simple event involving an RNA cell and lightning, why can't we recreate it? Maybe that's because IT CAN'T HAPPEN! lol

I agree with you that the evidence does not support evolution, and in fact there are many facts that directly contradict evolution. Most evolutionists agree with this, so they have tried to come up with some Ad Hoc explanations. Many have actually started to reject the possibility of life's origin occurring by chance on earth and have started to look elsewhere, i.e. panspermia. This has also proved to have its difficulties.

I agree that naturalism is unable to provide any mechanism to get from nothing to something, from inanimate to animate, from non-sentient to sentient. And that it is not just because they are not yet smart enough to figure it out, but because their world view makes these explanations impossible.

Where we would probably disagree is in the age of the universe and the big bang. It is not my intent to debate this with you, merely to note that there is another Christian position that does maintain that the universe is about 14 billion years old, that the earth is about 4.8 billion years old, that the big bang is God's creation of the universe, yet maintains the special creation of all life on earth.

Z

[BrianC]

Where we would probably disagree is in the age of the universe and the big bang. It is not my intent to debate this with you, merely to note that there is another Christian position that does maintain that the universe is about 14 billion years old, that the earth is about 4.8 billion years old, that the big bang is God's creation of the universe, yet maintains the special creation of all life on earth.

Z

Yes, you're speaking of the Gap Theory. Basically, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there's a gap of billions of years where the dinosaurs and what not happened, more or less. And supposedly, this was the work of Satan being on the earth and he created all the crazy stuff we see in the fossil record like dinosaurs, etc.

I don't know what parts of this theory you agree with, but I will say that there are two things that the bible has to say about the Gap Theory. First is that Satan was in the Garden of Eden per Ezekiel, if I remember correctly...but it could've been another prophetic book. Basically, God is talking to Satan and saying the he was perfect fron the day of his creation and he was in the garden with all the jewels and whatnot, until iniquity was found in him. So, Satan was not in this old Earth.

Secondly, I'd bring up that Jesus says a few times in the Gospels that "from the beginning, God made them man and woman." If the "beginning" was a time other than "in the beginning" in Genesis, there's no place for billions of years. So I don't agree with the Gap Theory at all. Has some "gaps" of its own. :)

[DarkWolf]

ok, assume what you'd like, but you'll find logicians not agreeing with your statement in its entirety.

What's not to agree with? I said logic isn't solely based on philosophy. Are you going to be like Zorro and claim all logic is solely based on philosophy? You'd be pretty foolish to take that stance.

[DarkWolf]

Nah, that doesn't make sense, because we find evidence of flooding worldwide, and we find ocean floor life on the tops of all mountains in the world. At some point, everything was covered in water for some period of time. Scientists have admitted that...but they don't claim a flood...

You still haven't provided any links to show this evidence. There is no evidence of a world wide flood.

[DarkWolf]

Yes, you're speaking of the Gap Theory. Basically, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there's a gap of billions of years where the dinosaurs and what not happened, more or less. And supposedly, this was the work of Satan being on the earth and he created all the crazy stuff we see in the fossil record like dinosaurs, etc.

I don't know what parts of this theory you agree with, but I will say that there are two things that the bible has to say about the Gap Theory. First is that Satan was in the Garden of Eden per Ezekiel, if I remember correctly...but it could've been another prophetic book. Basically, God is talking to Satan and saying the he was perfect fron the day of his creation and he was in the garden with all the jewels and whatnot, until iniquity was found in him. So, Satan was not in this old Earth.

Secondly, I'd bring up that Jesus says a few times in the Gospels that "from the beginning, God made them man and woman." If the "beginning" was a time other than "in the beginning" in Genesis, there's no place for billions of years. So I don't agree with the Gap Theory at all. Has some "gaps" of its own. :)

Umm, no. He's talking about the big bang theory, and how it applies to creation. Has nothing to do with a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It's how God uses the story of Genesis as an allegory to explain to man how he created the universe/earth etc. It's hard enough NOW for man to comprehend billions of years, much less ~6000 years ago, so God put it into words simple enough for man to understand.

[DarkWolf]

Wow... I mean wow. Brian, not even Zorro would attempt to claim the rediculous things you're claiming. I don't think a rebuttal is even needed for this crap... you do a damn good job yourself, of making yourself look like a total moron.

[Fobra]

What's not to agree with? I said logic isn't solely based on philosophy. Are you going to be like Zorro and claim all logic is solely based on philosophy? You'd be pretty foolish to take that stance.
I never did, I said logic applies to everything, Zorro has already demonstrated that logic applies to everything, you just don't seem to like that. Might as well just end this discussion over this issue and agree to disagree.

[zorro]

Yes, you're speaking of the Gap Theory. Basically, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there's a gap of billions of years where the dinosaurs and what not happened, more or less. And supposedly, this was the work of Satan being on the earth and he created all the crazy stuff we see in the fossil record like dinosaurs, etc.

I don't know what parts of this theory you agree with, but I will say that there are two things that the bible has to say about the Gap Theory. First is that Satan was in the Garden of Eden per Ezekiel, if I remember correctly...but it could've been another prophetic book. Basically, God is talking to Satan and saying the he was perfect fron the day of his creation and he was in the garden with all the jewels and whatnot, until iniquity was found in him. So, Satan was not in this old Earth.

Secondly, I'd bring up that Jesus says a few times in the Gospels that "from the beginning, God made them man and woman." If the "beginning" was a time other than "in the beginning" in Genesis, there's no place for billions of years. So I don't agree with the Gap Theory at all. Has some "gaps" of its own. :)

Actually I am not refering to the gap theory. There are four views that are the most held in Christian communities, here is a link to a brief discription of them. I would go with number 2.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/4viewsofcreation.shtml

Z

[zorro]

Brian,

You might want to read this link by J.P. Moreland on the topic too:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/moreland_jp_age_of_earth.shtml

Z

[SVT93Style]

Today we still have a reason to believe what Jesus said: the historical argument for the reliability of the NT and the resurrection. This argument leaves us with only one option: The only rational position is to affirm that Jesus rose from the dead. The further implications of this are obvious.

Happy Easter,

Z


Couldn't agree more with this statement. Just wanted to add the archaeological record is doing wonders for Christianity as well.

Happy Easter.

[BrianC]

You still haven't provided any links to show this evidence. There is no evidence of a world wide flood.

I must've posted it in the wrong there. Here's one link...pretty simple to find. Hope you don't ever have to do research, because all I did was type Mountain Fossils and it was the first google entry. You said you looked for a while and never found this stuff....hmmmm...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

Anyway, this link is someone trying to disprove it, but their arguments are pretty bad. They say first that mountains would deposit sediments into valleys during a flood...but that's a typical flood. If a flood were occuring on a worldwide scale, everything was underwater, then the mountain shot up during the crust settling, you'd still have lots of sea life or fossils stuck on top of the mountain. Simple idea, but this guy apparently doesn't want to consider that.

His other arguments are kind of ridiculous, because he's talking about redistributing ocean life, and then supports mountains being under oceans at some point by indicating that sea shells found on a mountain had to have been under an ocean at one time. He shot himself in the foot on that one.

Also, you must remember that currently, scientist's best calculations at current erosion rates say that the largest mountains on earth would erode in one million years...yet supposedly it takes 65 million years for our mountains to form from uplifting due to tectonic plate activity. Please explain this one...

[BrianC]

Umm, no. He's talking about the big bang theory, and how it applies to creation. Has nothing to do with a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It's how God uses the story of Genesis as an allegory to explain to man how he created the universe/earth etc. It's hard enough NOW for man to comprehend billions of years, much less ~6000 years ago, so God put it into words simple enough for man to understand.

That's completely ridiculous. Why else would he go into water being underneith the ground and no rain happening in those days? Why would he go into detail on what he created on which days, etc? That's WAY too much information for alegory. Sorry, but it makes no sense whatsoever. And yes, he's talking about the gap theory, more or less. Whether he ascribes to it or not, that's called the gap theory. Day Age theory is the theory where God created things in day one, and day one lasted like thousands of years, or millions of years, etc. This doesn't work either, because on day 3 he creates plants and on day 4 he creates light. Plants can't survive more than 27 days without sunlight. Again, this doesn't make sense.

If God is so inept that he's got to use evolution to create everything, I just assume not believe in a God that weak. I mean, come on...if you're almighty God and you can do anything, you'd build it all correctly the first time, and you'd do it instantly. Why would you make things REALLY old (or should I say, why would you make it so people could interpret things as very old) so people can come up with ridiculous theories to fit it and take God out of the picture? Makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, but I don't buy it...

[BrianC]

Actually I am not refering to the gap theory. There are four views that are the most held in Christian communities, here is a link to a brief discription of them. I would go with number 2.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/4viewsofcreation.shtml

Z
So you believe in the Analogical Days Interpretation? Well, if the days are supposedly an unspecified length of time, how do you explain each day ending with "The morning, the evening, the first day"? God seems to make it quite clean that one day is the morning and the evening. Also, if he creates plants on the 3rd day, but no sunlight till day 4, you would have a big problem if there was an extended period of time there. Does that make sense? I haven't heard of this theory yet, but it's easily disputible with Genesis itself.

[BrianC]

Brian,

You might want to read this link by J.P. Moreland on the topic too:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/moreland_jp_age_of_earth.shtml

Z

No offense, but I could care less what his or the other two people stated in the article's opinions are. They are just that...their opinions. The bible states, the morning, the evening, the first day. That's pretty straight forward and two the point. You're doing something that many people do which is a huge henderance to mankind today, and that is taking the opinion of the heavily educated as being the best possible view on the matter, or as being correct because they're well schooled. But it all boils down to what the bible says. And I see a literal day which is post-marked by a morning and an evening. Sorry, but I can't see past that specific description of a day. If someone looks past that and says, "Oh, that's not a literal day...he just put the morning and the evening in there for the heck of it", the clearly, they're trying to fit their views into what science would have us believe about an old earth, and yet there is no evidence to prove an old earth or old universe. It's simply someone's best guess.

God says many many times in the Old Testament that he stretched the heavens around the earth. Well, we know that space-time is interlaced, so that when we stretch space, it accelorates time. Therefore, if God really did hang the stars in heaven just outside our galaxy, then stretched them out into the universe we see today, it would've done two important things. It would've accelorated the age of each planet and star stretched in the space-time continum they presided in. Secondly, it would've provided the light at their starting point, not their ending point. So light would've been here shortly after the starts were created...not billions of years. Why on earth would God want to describe making the heavens like that, and it just so happens that science agrees with that method. That's pretty interesting.

Also, everything on the earth looks old. And what could cause that? Well, a flood would. If you have a mile of water pressure pressing down on things covered in sediments, that much pressure would fossilize things very quickly. And when it all dried out, you'd have a very old looking world if that's how you wanted to interpret it. Fossilization is about pressure and time. More pressure, less time. Fossilization occurs when moisture carries out the living matter that make up an object, and deposits other minerals in their place. If the ground has more moisture passing through it, fossilization takes place more quickly. I've seen stakes that people have placed to build the foundation of their house, and around seven years later, they'll be digging in the yard and find one of those stakes completely fossilized. Seven years! I've seen car keys fossilized...a human finger... Fossilization happens more quickly than we've been lead to believe.

[zorro]

So you believe in the Analogical Days Interpretation? Well, if the days are supposedly an unspecified length of time, how do you explain each day ending with "The morning, the evening, the first day"? God seems to make it quite clean that one day is the morning and the evening. Also, if he creates plants on the 3rd day, but no sunlight till day 4, you would have a big problem if there was an extended period of time there. Does that make sense? I haven't heard of this theory yet, but it's easily disputible with Genesis itself.

Brian, I said I wan't going to debte on this issue. I also said my position was #2, The Day-Age Interpretation. The Hebrew exegesis is out there, if you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

The book, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, by Hugh Ross explains the Genesis passage.

Z

[DarkWolf]

That's completely ridiculous. Why else would he go into water being underneith the ground and no rain happening in those days? Why would he go into detail on what he created on which days, etc? That's WAY too much information for alegory. Sorry, but it makes no sense whatsoever. And yes, he's talking about the gap theory, more or less. Whether he ascribes to it or not, that's called the gap theory. Day Age theory is the theory where God created things in day one, and day one lasted like thousands of years, or millions of years, etc. This doesn't work either, because on day 3 he creates plants and on day 4 he creates light. Plants can't survive more than 27 days without sunlight. Again, this doesn't make sense.

If God is so inept that he's got to use evolution to create everything, I just assume not believe in a God that weak. I mean, come on...if you're almighty God and you can do anything, you'd build it all correctly the first time, and you'd do it instantly. Why would you make things REALLY old (or should I say, why would you make it so people could interpret things as very old) so people can come up with ridiculous theories to fit it and take God out of the picture? Makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, but I don't buy it...

Umm... "And god said let there be light"... this was on the first day. perhaps you should read genesis again.

[murphy54]

the flood was there

[black02mustang]

...But it all boils down to what the bible says. And I see a literal day which is post-marked by a morning and an evening. Sorry, but I can't see past that specific description of a day. If someone looks past that and says, "Oh, that's not a literal day...he just put the morning and the evening in there for the heck of it", the clearly, they're trying to fit their views into what science would have us believe about an old earth, and yet there is no evidence to prove an old earth or old universe.....

So you believe the bible word for word? You disregard science as proof, and merely opinion? I don't think anyone is going to believe your "Side" if you keep that up. If you want to argue about age then maybe you should look up carbon-14 dating. Which is nothing more than the decay of radioactive carbon. Which has nothing to do with water, or pressure, etc. I guess carbon-14 decay could just be another crazy opinion made up by those crazy scientists, and you wouldn't believe them anyways.

[Fobra]

So you believe the bible word for word? You disregard science as proof, and merely opinion? I don't think anyone is going to believe your "Side" if you keep that up. If you want to argue about age then maybe you should look up carbon-14 dating. Which is nothing more than the decay of radioactive carbon. Which has nothing to do with water, or pressure, etc. I guess carbon-14 decay could just be another crazy opinion made up by those crazy scientists, and you wouldn't believe them anyways.
How has he "disregarded science as proof?" What is the criterion of something to qualify as "scientific?"

[DarkWolf]

I never did, I said logic applies to everything, Zorro has already demonstrated that logic applies to everything, you just don't seem to like that. Might as well just end this discussion over this issue and agree to disagree.

Umm, actually I was the one that demonstrated logic does not only apply to philosophy. Zorro continually claimed I rejected logic, when my core argument/statement could not be anymore logically sound, from any standpoint. Therefore, Zorro was holding to the idea that logic could only come from philosophy, because obviously since I wasn't arguing philosophy with him, I was rejecting logic.

But it all boils down to what the bible says. And I see a literal day which is post-marked by a morning and an evening. Sorry, but I can't see past that specific description of a day. If someone looks past that and says, "Oh, that's not a literal day...he just put the morning and the evening in there for the heck of it", the clearly, they're trying to fit their views into what science would have us believe about an old earth, and yet there is no evidence to prove an old earth or old universe. It's simply someone's best guess.


You define a day as morning to evening (or one rotation of the planet). Great. Now, let's take a look at some "days".

On Mercury, a day is about 59 Earth days.
On Venus, one days is about 243 Earth days.
What about Pluto? Tiny pluto. One day on Pluto is about 6 and a half days on Earth.
Hmm... but what about giant Jupiter? One day on Jupiter is 10 hours on Earth.

Gets even more interesting when you look at years (defined as one orbit of the planet around the sun).

Mercury = 1 year is 88 Earth Days.
Venus = 1 year is 225 Earth days. No no, you didn't read wrong. It actually takes LONGER to complete one DAY on Venus, than it takes to complete one YEAR.
Jupiter = 1 year is about 12 Earth Years. Quite a few days in a Jupiter year, what being only 10 hours each. Can you imagine the novel sized calenders?
Pluto = 1 year is about 248 Earth years. Forget novel-ish calenders, we're talking the national library, here.

So, obviously we define a day and year based on our point of origin. But God has no point of origin. Conceivably, his "day" is not the same as our "day". How long his "day" is, would then depend on how long the universe takes to complete one rotation (as some schools of thought, in the physics community suggest is a possibility).

[Fobra]

Umm, actually I was the one that demonstrated logic does not only apply to philosophy. Zorro continually claimed I rejected logic, when my core argument/statement could not be anymore logically sound, from any standpoint. Therefore, Zorro was holding to the idea that logic could only come from philosophy, because obviously since I wasn't arguing philosophy with him, I was rejecting logic.
If a cogent argument is made that doesn't commit a logical fallacy, then it's a logical argument. The rejecting of logic part came about because of the logical fallacies you continuously appealed to and that's why they were deemed logically fallacious. Where was it mentioned that logic only comes from philosophy?

[black02mustang]

That would be a fallacy of guilt by association. In other words, you discredit it based on its association of being "Christian."

I don't think you read the site when you posted this. Quit jumping on the fallacy "bandwagon" :) and think before you post. This was a christian site saying that there are only a few "reports" of noah's ark, and that they have NOT found it.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html
If you would of read it it starts out like this:


"Over the last two decades the search for Noah's Ark has received international attention. Dozens of expeditions to the Ararat region of eastern Turkey, mostly by American Christian groups, have led to numerous claims - but no proof"

I have not discredited anything, these are christians saying that they have not found noah's ark, and brian is claiming that they have. So what fallacy is that? All I see is christians contradicting christians, and trying to prove a made up story as history.

Edit: Sorry just saw your post asking about which site I was talking about. I was referrring to the site I posted. Which was a christian site as well as the site brian posted. But both were saying two different things...imo.

[Fobra]

Edit: Sorry just saw your post asking about which site I was talking about. I was referrring to the site I posted. Which was a christian site as well as the site brian posted. But both were saying two different things...imo.
np, I was about to quote myself from the other page until I saw your edit. I made that comment because I didn't know which site you were addressing and I perceived it as you trying to discredit it because it was Christian, no worries though :)

[DarkWolf]

If a cogent argument is made that doesn't commit a logical fallacy, then it's a logical argument. The rejecting of logic part came about because of the logical fallacies you continuously appealed to and that's why they were deemed logically fallacious. Where was it mentioned that logic only comes from philosophy?

Which fallacies did I continue to appeal? I made one statement. I continued to repeat that statement. Occasionally I embellished with more explianation. Throughout 7 pages of the Atheism thread, and 3 pages, of the God thread... I made 1 statement. The statement was both logically sound, and irrefutable. Yet, because it wasn't a philosophical statement, Zorro continually claimed that I was rejecting logic. Which could only lead me, logically, to conclude that he basis "logic" solely on philosophy.

Mentioned outright? Not in so many words, though I do think I remember something about "logic is derived from philosophy" or something to that degree. I definitely remember "facts without philosophy are meaningless"... which is one of the most rediculous statements I'd ever seen someone make... that is until BrianC and this new Murphy54 nutjob showed up.

[black02mustang]

So i got bored and decided to question your flood theory a little more.

"water for the flood came from underneith the crust, which would explain why the bible says it didn't rain in those days...being that there was no water in the atmosphere..."

-Where in the bible do you find this? When I read it sounds like there was plenty of water, in fact I think the term used below is “seas”. Maybe I am wrong, but this part of the bible seems to contradict what you are saying.

Genesis 1:6-10
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

[black02mustang]

"Let's assume most of the water in the original creation was above the mantel, but under the crust of the earth (the earth is built just like a giant nuclear reactor: Core, Mantel, Water, Crust). However, the current configuration has changed from the old configuration. We have Core, Mantle, Crust then water."

-This is just stupid, I suggest reading this.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm

EDIT:
Just in case you don't have time to click on the link, here is a little calculation for you...not saying that it is totally accurate but something to think about.

"Suppose you placed the water under 10 km of crust, the pressure of the water would be 10 x 105 * 980 * 2.65 = 2.58 x 109 dynes= 2562 atmospheres of pressure.

The temperature gradient is 1 deg C for every 30 m so there is a 166 deg. C increase in temperature as we go deeper. 330 + 30 deg C (the surface temperature) =360 deg. C. (see below for justification of the temperature. For a layer of cave water 2 km thick all around the earth would contain 1 x 1024 cubic centimeters of water. At 360 deg C, the high temperature water would contain 3.3 x 1026 calories. (1 calorie per degree rise (330 degree rise)). The minute the pressure is released the water will turn to steam and you will cook the earth. Dividing the calories by the surface area of the earth shows that heat /cm2 = 3.3 x 1026 Calories/5.09 x 1018 square centimeters = 6.4 x 107 Cal/cm2.

This energy represents 1 year's worth of sunshine on a square centimeter at the equator. (The sun gives each square centimeter 2 calories per square centimeter per second) I don't think Noah could survive this. This enough energy to raise water to 64 million degrees C (assuming a specific heat of 1 cal/degree. Even if you use the 121 deg C value that Brown wants to use, this represents over 4 month's of solar radiation per square centimeter. No one could survive this event. It is a poor mechanism for a flood. "

[black02mustang]

"Now, if this firmament kept the longwave radiation (or was it shortwave? I forget) from the earth and it was very cold, then heat would have to come internally from the earth. Currently, the 7th layer of the atmosphere is unexplained by scientists."

The bible also refers to the firmament as where god placed the stars. Surely that must be the 7th layer you were referring too?

I'll give you some time to come up with some "answers" , before I continue.

[White trash wagon]

IAlso, you must remember that currently, scientist's best calculations at current erosion rates say that the largest mountains on earth would erode in one million years...yet supposedly it takes 65 million years for our mountains to form from uplifting due to tectonic plate activity. Please explain this one...

BrianC, please quote which scientist makes this statement about mountains eroding in a million years.

Mountians DO erode, but the rate will be determined by what the mountain is made of and annual rate of rainfall.

A dirt or sandstone mountain in a rain forest area probably would erode in a few hundred thousand years. But a granite or basalt rock mountain in a desert would last virtually forever.

When the Indian tectonic plate collided with Asia 65 million years ago to create the Himalaya mountains, it did not just stop, the plate kept pushing. So Mt. Everest is actually getting 1-2" taller every year. That growth has been verified by GPS and satellite imagery. Everest is a black basalt mountain(one of the harder forms of rock), and it never rains in the upper 2/3 of Everest, it's too cold, it only snows. In fact most mountains over 18,000 ft. in height, never see rain more than halfway up. So Everest will likely stand for a billion years or more.

And fossils on the tops of mountains ?, easy. All mountians are created by tectonic activity, so when a given area is pushed up by subduction or volcanic activity, it carries whatever is in the terrain up too.

The earths face is completely remodeled by tectonic activity, but the time scales are enormous. Where 2 plates collide, there is subduction, one side is pushed up and the other side slides underneath. The side that slides down will eventually come up again in the form of a volcanic flow, but the whole process can take 3 billion years. So NONE of the existing land masses today date back to the creation of earth.

Scott

[black02mustang]

"We find wooly mammoths in Russia and at the south pole in Antarctica that are frozen standing up and eating green vegitation. That means Antarctica was once fertile and green and warm. Hense the warmth coming from inside the earth."

Here is a “Christian” site claiming the exact opposite of what you have said about the mammoths. So I would like to see where you got your evidence.
Hope that is a little bit clearer.. fobra :)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter15.asp

Just in case you don't have time to read it:

"...The scarcity of mammoth carcasses indicates that most died a normal death and decayed. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that nearly all of the mammoths and other animals died and decayed normally before, or while becoming interred in the permafrost.12 This suggests that the rare intact carcasses are the result of unique circumstances.

Third, the carcasses often show evidence of partial decay.12 The meat is not fresh as some people have asserted. For instance, the internal organs of the Beresovka mammoth had rotted away and the stomach was badly decayed when it was found.13 The Shandrin carcass found in 1972 was composed of a complete mammoth skeleton with some preserved internal organs and over 600 pounds (275 kg) of plant matter from the gastrointestinal tract.14 The remainder of this mammoth had decomposed. Some of the abdominal parts of the Selerikan horse, found on the upper Indigirka River in 1977, were quite decayed by enzyme action.15 Much of the muscle tissue of the Yuribei mammoth, found in 1979, on the Yuribei River near the Arctic coast of northwest Siberia, was decomposed.16 If they had been quick frozen and rapidly buried, there should have been much less decay."

[black02mustang]

"Scientists also say that a 50 foot pterodactyle could not fly in our present atmosphere, because the air is far too thin. However, they say that if there is twices as much air pressure, the pterodactyle would have no problem flying. The 50 foot wingspan pterodactyle was unearthed in a desert in West Texas. Isn't it quite scientific to come to the conclusion that a prehistoric air bubble has twice as much air pressure and it would take twice as much air pressure for a prehistoric bird to achieve flight? Hmmmmm...sounds pretty scientific to me. I'd say there's enough scientific backing there."


Here is some Scientific backing..."PHYSICS".. heard of it? :D
L = CL * P * (V^2)/2 *A
• CL is the coefficient of lift,
• ρ is the density of air (1.225 kg/m3 at sea level)*
• V is the freestream velocity, (meters/per second)
• A is the surface area of the lifting surface (Meters)
• L is the lift force produced. (In newtons)

So you say 50ft wingspan and that = 15.24m, even if the height or shorter length of the wings were 5m or 16.4ft. (1/3rd of wingspan) That is an area of 76.2 m^2. Assuming Cl = .9 (pretty low for birds) Now you have 1.225 x (4.474m/s)^2 / 2 x 76.2m^2 x .9 = 840.8N / 9.81m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity and using F=ma) = 85kg or 188lbs. @ (4.447m/s or 10mph!).

So quick breakdown:
10mph
CL = .9 (Lowest one I found) pretty sure it is more.
50ft wingspan
16ft (height) of wing
Can hold 188lbs

Show me some exact dimensions of this bird and its estimated weight, and we'll see if it can theoretically fly. :)

BTW: This is just gliding, not flapping wings or any other means of lift force. Most birds this size would just open their wings and catch gust of wind in order to take-off.

EDIT: Technically its not a bird, but I used that term anyways.

[Fobra]

Here is a “Christian” site claiming the exact opposite of what you have said about the mammoths. So I would like to see where you got your evidence.
Hope that is a little bit clearer.. fobra :)

I never made any mention of this mammoth issue and I don't know where this is going :confused:

[zorro]

Here is a “Christian” site claiming the exact opposite of what you have said about the mammoths. So I would like to see where you got your evidence.
Hope that is a little bit clearer.. fobra :)



What you have to realize is just as there is not one "atheist" position, there is not one monolithic "Christian" position.

One of the of the problems with science is that its conclusions do not provide certainty; they cannot. Science is based on inductive principles; these principles only provide probability. In most cases this is not a problem. The rational man goes with the evidence and not against it, and more often than not a favorable result occurs. However, when the conclusion contradicts our worldviews, people tend to try to find some way around the evidence and the rational conclusion. We find atheists doing this and Chrsitians. This is why we must know how the logic works to help us avoid making mistakes. But even then, border line conclusions may go one way with one group and another way with another group. This decision will most likely be based on other issues, such as one's worldview.

There are actually more than two Christain positions, so it does you no good to say that this Christisn site says one thing and Forbra said something else; just as it would do no good to say that about some atheist site that disagrees with you. Unless of course there is some precondition that necessitates the position, such as in my paper about atheism's blatant contradiction.

Z

[talisman]

Funny.

[Colonel Angus]

So if Godzilla could kick Megalon's ass, why did he get punked by King Kong?

And don't give me that bullshit that Jet Jaguar softened Megalon up for Godzilla either. Jet Jaguar was a better match up for Rigan anyway.

[black02mustang]

I never made any mention of this mammoth issue and I don't know where this is going :confused:

I was just messing with you, last time you assumed I made some fallacy or something, and It was just a misunderstanding. So this time I made it clear which site I was referring to. :D

[black02mustang]

What you have to realize is just as there is not one "atheist" position, there is not one monolithic "Christian" position.

One of the of the problems with science is that its conclusions do not provide certainty; they cannot. Science is based on inductive principles; these principles only provide probability. In most cases this is not a problem. The rational man goes with the evidence and not against it, and more often than not a favorable result occurs. However, when the conclusion contradicts our worldviews, people tend to try to find some way around the evidence and the rational conclusion. We find atheists doing this and Chrsitians. This is why we must know how the logic works to help us avoid making mistakes. But even then, border line conclusions may go one way with one group and another way with another group. This decision will most likely be based on other issues, such as one's worldview.

There are actually more than two Christain positions, so it does you no good to say that this Christisn site says one thing and Forbra said something else; just as it would do no good to say that about some atheist site that disagrees with you. Unless of course there is some precondition that necessitates the position, such as in my paper about atheism's blatant contradiction.

Z

The christian site part was added on a humorous note. I just want some proof or "evidence" of these so called "wooly mammoths in Russia and at the south pole in Antarctica that are frozen standing up and eating green vegitation".

I mean if its true then thats cool, but If you state it then you need to atleast try to present some evidence regardless whether its true or not.

[Fobra]

So if Godzilla could kick Megalon's ass, why did he get punked by King Kong?

Because Chuck Norris had Kongs back, that's why ;)

Don't you know that before the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris and that Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding? :D

[zorro]

The christian site part was added on a humorous note. I just want some proof or "evidence" of these so called "wooly mammoths in Russia and at the south pole in Antarctica that are frozen standing up and eating green vegitation".

I mean if its true then thats cool, but If you state it then you need to atleast try to present some evidence regardless whether its true or not.

I totally agree with you.

What would you do if the scientific evidence pointed to a personal creator that designed this universe? Would you go with the evidence or allow your worldview to negate the argument?

Z

[jones4stangs]

Take a college level geology class.

Then ask yourself if any theory of an earth less than a million years old makes any sense.

[zorro]

Take a college level geology class.

Then ask yourself if any theory of an earth less than a million years old makes any sense.

Actually, I don't think that any theory of the earth as less than 4.7 billion years old makes any sense, do you?

Z

[jones4stangs]

Actually, I don't think that any theory of the earth as less than 4.7 billion years old makes any sense, do you?

Z
Yea I might agree with that, but that number is little to big to comprehend. A million is sufficient for easier discussion.

How the earth was originally formed, according to science, is more speculative, than how minerals have formed, moved, and erroded in the last million years.

[zorro]

Yea I might agree with that, but that number is little to big to comprehend. A million is sufficient for easier discussion.

I guess that depends on who you are talking to. 4.7 billion years is just find with me and far more accurate. I prefer the accurate dating.

How the earth was originally formed, according to science, is more speculative, than how minerals have formed, moved, and erroded in the last million years.

The last big bombardment occurred when the earth was about 3.7 billion years old. It took somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years for the earth to cool to a point where it could support any form of life. If we can see in the geology what was there even that far back (and we can), then why shouldn't we look and find out?

Z

[black02mustang]

I totally agree with you.

What would you do if the scientific evidence pointed to a personal creator that designed this universe? Would you go with the evidence or allow your worldview to negate the argument?

Z

Then obviously I would have to consider it, but as far as science goes there is still no answer. I mean IMHO, science that supports no god exists, is winning significantly. But again this is my opinion, maybe the unanswerable will be answered and we will be left only with arguments against the theories used to prove the results either way.

[Fobra]

I mean IMHO, science that supports no god exists, is winning significantly.
How does it support that no God exists? Just because the science classes in our schools don't mention God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

[zorro]

I mean IMHO, science that supports no god exists, is winning significantly. But again this is my opinion, maybe the unanswerable will be answered and we will be left only with arguments against the theories used to prove the results either way.

When it comes to science are we concerned about the evidence and the argument, and not concerned about opinion? So, do you have an argument to support this?

Thanks,

Z

[black02mustang]

How does it support that no God exists? Just because the science classes in our schools don't mention God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Where in science has there been an accepted conclusion that something otherwise unexplainable, was simply caused by the hand of "god"?
Everything that was unexplainable has been assumed to be the work of "god" or even called "god" (stars, sun, moon, rain, tides, floods, miracles, etc., etc.) and once there is an explanation for these things everyone jumps to the next thing that science cannot prove. So Like I said we are stuck at the beginning of OUR universe and everyone is claiming that nothing but a "god" could do such a thing. If turns out that god didn't create our universe what will be next on the list?

[black02mustang]

When it comes to science are we concerned about the evidence and the argument, and not concerned about opinion? So, do you have an argument to support this?

Thanks,

Z

Find me proof where scientists agree that "god" is the only possible cause of any certain event at any time in this universe?

[zorro]

Find me proof where scientists agree that "god" is the only possible cause of any certain event at any time in this universe?

You are asking me to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad consensus. Why would you accept a fallacy as proof of anything? All that is really needed to reach a rational conclusion is the evidence and a cogent argument. We are not dealing with deductive proof here, but inductive probability. The person who rejects a cogent argument based on the evidence is rejecting the very basis of science. It is the rational man that goes with the evidence and not against it.

Z

[blowpop65]

I think the creation story and the flood story are attempts by priestly writers to explain something they did not understand.

As for the flood, the bible is somewhat contradictory on that, one part of Genesis says he took seven pairs of all clean animals, and one pair of all non clean animals. Also it says in Genesis that God commanded Noah to take every kind of food that is eaten, and to store it as food.

You could take the flood story as one of fiction that has a moral in it.

[Joebum]

the flood story as well as much the "ultimate origins" stories in genesis are the perspectives of the authors who are trying to relate something...it's more than myth...but not historical facts like we expect from science books now-a-days. The writers of this stuff were writing from the theological perspective, not the historical or factual perspective.

I think it's amazing that so many other cultures in Mesopotamia have flood stories...enuma elish...but i think this really accounts for a huge flood that took place in the levant or middle east there, not worldwide.

The need to prove the flood is superflous and worth nothing more than getting yourself published or making up some ridiculous theory that is no more believable than Evolution.

There, I said it, I'm a Christian that does not believe in Evolution, the flood story as historical fact, 6 day creation, and I hope that the impression of ignorance and just goofiness (that seems to have flooded this conversation) is not given off by all christians to unbelievers.

[Casper]

I think it's amazing that so many other cultures in Mesopotamia have flood stories...enuma elish...but i think this really accounts for a huge flood that took place in the levant or middle east there, not worldwide.

It is amazing that so many cultures around the world have stories of dragons; I think this really accounts for actual dragons roaming the earth worldwide. In fact, one can examine the differences between European dragons, Central American dragons and Eastern Asian dragons and you really can discern separate species. If you examine popular period fiction you can even differentiate between subspecies on the various continents.

Seriously, is there any reason for cultures that share the same language roots, indigenous wildlife, weather patterns and longitude going back for millinea NOT to share things other than the language roots?

Your argument is deterministic, which is not a very supportive position.