PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Issues with the Flood

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YECs, as I understand them, believe that the world was much flatter during the time of the flood, thus requiring less water. The problem with that is to produce such massive mountains across the world in 4000+ years would require massive geological upheaval. With such upheaval, the internal heat of the planet would need to be staggeringly more then what we see today. Where did all of this heat go? Why is there absolutely no records anywhere about such truly epic geological changes happening every day? You'd think that the people living in the Indian Subcontinent would write down the happenings of huge earthquakes and massive volcanoes.

Another big problem is that of the flood. If you accept that the mountains existed as they were, the water requirements to flood the earth to the levels written in the Bible would require over 300% of the water on the planet now. Where did all of that water come from? If it came from the fountains of the deep, it would be superheated. Releasing trillions of cubic miles of superheated water into the atmosphere would have poached all life aside from thermophilic bacteria. Noah would have been dead along with everything else. If the water was in a vapor canopy, not only would it break down from UV, but it would raise pressure to the level of toxicity. Same outcome: everyone's dead.

Another big problem is the issue of hydrological sorting. You can test this in your sink. Fill your sink, and then drop in different sized and mass objects. The heavier ones sink faster. Therefore, if the flood occurred, we should see organisms sorted by mass and shape. Aka, elephants with large dinosaurs. We don't. In fact we see species that evolution predicted in the same layer. And we see species generally sorted by primitive to complex. This doesn't make any sense with a global flood.

Evolution may have a few holes here and there, but literal creationism frankly doesn't make an ounce of sense.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 01:10 AM on November 10, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thank you ovious child for bringing this and other new forums too my attention.

The great flood is probably the creationist strongest evidence. the deal with all the thermophilic bacteria is simple too me. i believe the great flood only encumbered most of the world, were human life resided. that right there would make all your statements untrue. dont forget the earth is 3/4 water. arguing 300 times the amount of water we have would be needed doesnt really make any sence. 3/4 water to earth is a huge difference, plus the ice caps!!!then you said somthing about super heated water, well the little bit of super heated water mixed with the ocean, no no no. no debate, commen sence has to take that one..and the part about pressure well i think you need to be a bit more specific, because i dont know but i think your talking about atmospheric pressure if that is the case atmospheric pressure is either miles above were the sea level would have been wich wouldnt make sence either. i believe atmosphereic pressure holds more oxygen than air wich can result in a toxicity overload for us..but were did all this air go and why exactly would it go any were??

the deal with hydrolical sorting and the layers of the earth is untrue
quote by obvious child
[random] In fact we see species that evolution predicted in the same layer. And we see species generally sorted by primitive to complex.[b]  
that quote is exactly the opposite and is so untrue it kinda pisses me off, it means either you havent doen your homwork or your believeing lies. they have found species of suposedly apeman with species of modern day man in the same layers dated earth, and actually there have been numurous counts were they find tons of different species together more often than not.. when palentologists find one they usually find more in the same area.
arguing a flood against the theory of evolution is not going to be a very good argument. you see were im from i see floods all the time, which means we already know floods are possible and happen the theory of evlution on the other hand is not somthing we see every day.. to me it is more conclusive and obviouse evidence that creation is possble than the theory of evolution. one thing we know in science is that rock erodes faster than dirt. and water causes erosion the fastest as apposed to wind and ice, with that in mind and on a very commence sence grounds. a good question for you is have you ever seen the dakotas and many other canyons in this world??? that is proof that there was once water there.. for crying out loud there is water lines on the rock were water went down... Now the dakotas are like a desert. Anyway thats somthing that is an unarguable fact and a commen sence one,
i speak of commen sence alot because i believe america has gotten away from commen sence thinking. i believe the fact that science has become so full of bullshit and we cant see clearly through it, we cant make sence of things the way american science says it is. that we go away from commen sence thinking in order to make these theories fit. when our commen sence and obvious truths dont even tell us somthing to be true we are in a bit of trouble.. but they teach these theories in our schools today and our kids are being brain washed into thinking this crap is true.. so weve also become a biased belief nation..these forums prove that there is more creationist vs evolutionist usually 3 to 1 at the least..
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:25 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you explain civilizations that start before the so called flood, continue existing during the flood and exist after the flood, like Egypt?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:05 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stealth3000:
thank you ovious child for bringing this and other new forums too my attention.
This isn't another forum. It's the same one. Look at your address bar in your browser (Internet Explorer, i assume).

i believe the great flood only encumbered most of the world, were human life resided.
Each creationist tells us something different. What should be taught in schools, according to you?

Science holds only ONE theory of evolution.

Did the Bible say that "most of the world" was encumbered?

that right there would make all your statements untrue. dont forget the earth is 3/4 water.
It's not.

The total water supply of the world is around
1,386,000,000 km³

The total volume of Earth is
1,083,206,246,123 km³.

That's 1/780, i think.

arguing 300 times the amount of water we have would be needed doesnt really make any sence. 3/4 water to earth is a huge difference, plus the ice caps!!!
The ice caps represent about 2% of the water in the world. And i took account of it in my calculation.

then you said somthing about super heated water, well the little bit of super heated water mixed with the ocean, no no no. no debate, commen sence has to take that one..
Creationists who were more into science than you HAD to come up with this hypothesis to account for the extra water needed to flood the Earth.

There's no evidence for underground water coming up to flood the Earth. It was the only way creationist found to make world flood fit current science. It would have to be a LOT of water, and it would have been superheated.

If your calculations are better than theirs (not that theirs are any good), show us.

arguing a flood against the theory of evolution is not going to be a very good argument. you see were im from i see floods all the time
"where i'm from" means local, just like all floods always are.

which means we already know floods are possible and happen
Locally, yes.

the theory of evlution on the other hand is not somthing we see every day..
No, we don't see theories. We see evolution directly. I do see it everyday.

Not only i look at every organ, every "design" and instinct in nature and find an easy evolutionary explanation for it. I also see insects that develop resistance to our poisons. And i don't see the microorganisms that develop resistance to our vaccines (and defenses) everyday, but i sure catch a cold.

one thing we know in science
Aren't you against science?

is that rock erodes faster than dirt.
Depends on the case.

and water causes erosion the fastest
Depends on the case.  

i speak of commen sence alot because i believe america has gotten away from commen sence thinking. i believe the fact that science has become so full of bullshit and we cant see clearly through it, we cant make sence of things the way american science says it is. that we go away from commen sence thinking in order to make these theories fit. when our commen sence and obvious truths dont even tell us somthing to be true we are in a bit of trouble.. but they teach these theories in our schools today and our kids are being brain washed into thinking this crap is true.. so weve also become a biased belief nation..these forums prove that there is more creationist vs evolutionist usually 3 to 1 at the least..
This is the same forum. No need to repeat it. I replied to it in the other thread.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:25 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:05 AM on November 12, 2008 :
How do you explain civilizations that start before the so called flood, continue existing during the flood and exist after the flood, like Egypt?

what ru talking about?? do you even know?? cause thats a lot of bs.. ther is no proof of before and after!!!



 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 07:54 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What year was the flood?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:09 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, tell us the details of your version of the flood.

The date, the source of the water, the climate change, etc.

Then we will proceed to refute you easily. Sorry about that part.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:13 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As wisp has covered most of stealth's...ramblings, there's not too much to cover. A few things:

Humans 6,000 years ago lived everywhere. How could the flood have selectively flooded areas where humans lived and not other places? Water doesn't work like that.

Second, your numbers are totally whacked. And the Bible specifically states that the tops of mountains were covered. To cover Everest, we need at least 300% more water then what exists on the planet now, including icebergs. That water has to come from somewhere. The creationist theories about the fountains of the deep present serious problems regarding heat.

Air is made of oxygen, nitrogen along with other gases. What are you talking about? And the pressure in the atmosphere effects us down here. Don't believe that? Look at Venus.

Please cite your alleged evidence of early hominds found in the same layer as homo sapiens. Furthermore, cite evidence of different era organisms in the same layer. I've been dealing with creationists that are far smarter then you are and none of them say that.

Rocks erode faster then dirt? You do realize that soil is made from rocks no? Water is not the fastest form of erosion. Physical friction is, aka two rocks bashing together.

Some days I think some 'creationists' put on their act to make Christanity look stupid.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 2:36 PM on November 12, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Besides the fact that geological evidence does not support a Biblical flood, there is the problem of getting all those animals into a boat large enough to contain all of them.  Then consider the logistics of taking care and feeding all these animals.

Whoever wrote the tale of Noah's Ark was only aware of a few of the local species, so such logistics would not seem too unreasonable.  They were unaware of animals from the rest of the world - North and South America, Australia, Asia, thousands of islands, etc.

Oh, maybe all the animal species were conveniently in Noah's neighborhood when God told him to gather pairs up!  And then after the flood each species migrated to the region it inhabits today!

Let's see now, there are about 5,400 species of mammals alive today.  There are 1,440 minutes in a day.  How many people were on the Ark - 9?  That would mean each person would have to take care of 600 pairs of mammals each day - about 2.4 minutes per pair of mammals around the clock.

That's only the mammals.  What about birds?  There are about 10,000 birds species in the world today.  Combining mammals and birds that would mean each person on the Ark would have to tend to 1,711 mammals and birds each day.  That's less than a minute per person per species - around the clock.  No time given to sleeping, eating, or resting.

What about reptiles?  There are over 8,000 reptile species alive today.  Granted reptiles probably don't need as much attention as mammals and birds, but they still need care.

Insects! - there are over 20,000 grasshopper species alone!  There is an estimated 30 million species of insects.  Got to get them all on the Ark.

What about freshwater fish?  A worldwide flood would cause a problem for them, wouldn't they encounter a salinity problem?

What about plants?  What about keeping everything healty during the year long flood?  What do you feed them?  How do you keep them from eating each other and wiping out entire species?  

The problems go on and on.  

You can see the absurdity of the story of Noah's Ark without even going into the absurdity of a worldwide flood geology.  

But I know Creationists who believe Noah and the Ark really happened.  

I'll take evolution any day.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:34 PM on November 12, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what ru talking about?? do you even know?? cause thats a lot of bs.. ther is no proof of before and after!!!

Once again you can't stand up to the facts.  According to the evidence, a primitive civiliization sprung up around the Nile 11,500 years ago.  Egypt has been continuously occupied ever since then.  So there couldn't have been a world wide flood that wiped out everyone in the last 11,500 years.  You  are wrong again.  From here:
AncientEgypt

"ca. 9500 BC: Wild grain harvesting along the Nile, grain-grinding culture creates world's earliest stone sickle blades
ca. 8000 BC: Migration of peoples to the Nile, developing a more centralized society and settled agricultural economy
ca. 7500 BC: Importing animals from Asia to Sahara
ca. 7000 BC: Agriculture -- animal and cereal -- in East Sahara
ca. 7000 BC: in Nabta Playa deep year-round water wells dug, and large organized settlements designed in planned arrangements
ca. 6000 BC: Rudimentary ships (rowed, single-sailed) depicted in Egyptian rock art "

Ball is in your court, coultdn't have been a flood in the last 11,500 years.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:55 PM on November 12, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about the cave paintings?

Did all of those endure the water and subsequent humidity?

I'm not an expert in pigments, but i think those would be washed away.

Will creationists say that all the caves made bubbles?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:46 AM on November 13, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seriously. Creationists should go to Jail for the sheer number of hit and runs they commit.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 02:34 AM on November 20, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's only so much cognitive dissonance a person can stand.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:47 AM on November 20, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, but when creationists reach that point, instead of leaving their beliefs behind, they reboot their brains. They lose track of the argument, and make a fresh start. Unpack all refuted arguments to use them again (but probably not with the same person).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:29 PM on November 20, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stealth 3000 it would be much easier for people to take you seriously if you would be careful with your grammar and spelling.  It is an uneducated looking mess!

"We see species generally sorted by primitive to complex.[b]  
that quote is exactly the opposite and is so untrue it kinda pisses me off, it means either you havent doen your homwork or your believeing lies. they have found species of suposedly apeman with species of modern day man in the same layers dated earth, and actually there have been numurous counts were they find tons of different species together more often than not.."

It is hard to say for sure what you are talking about.
Of course different species can be found together in the same fossil beds.  But are you saying that species that geologists say could not be found together actually are?  Like trilobites with herring or dinosaurs and cows?

What "ape men" found with modern man?  Please give one real example of fossils NOT being sorted
as geologists say they should be!   If you have a real example of species that scientists say could not have existed together that ARE found together in the fossil record, please tell us.  If you cant then look in the mirror for the one believing lies.



 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 5:38 PM on December 10, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.