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
     Noah's Mythical Flood
       Physical impossibility of that flood

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry guest, after reviewing my post I see what you mean. No, I do believe in Jesus, I just throught that "brother of james" fact out there for a tid bit, my point was simply that Jesus doesn't have anything to do with evolution or the flood. If you were jewish, you'd believe that the flood happened, but you wouldn't believe that Jesus was the Massiah, Islam claims that the flood happened, but that Jesus was just another prophet, and martyr for the cause of Allah. I just think it's besides the point of this arguement



-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 9:48 PM on April 26, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well if everyting adapted slowly, there would be WAY more transition fossils between species."

There are a huge amount of transitional fossils.
No, every link in the chain of evolution is not accounted for but fossilization is such a haphazard process one could not reasonably expect every organism that ever lived to be fossilized.  Do some research, check out the reptile to mammal transitionals, it's hard to refute evolution when you study them.  Biologists have studied the overwhelming evidence represented by the fossil record and the only conclusion they can come too, the only explaination that fits is the Theory of Evolution.

"And if these small changes lead to adaption then what about caucasians/africans/asians. All have different charcter traits due to enviroment and conditioning. Are you saying that eventually all three will become seperate species? Or would you say that because they are no longer seperated they will become more similar. They certainly should according to what you're saying. "

First off, we all are the same species.  The different characteristics are incredibly small, genectically speaking.  And I don't know why you would think I would claim that caucasians, africans, asians, whatever would become different species.  Man, unlike any other living organism, controls his enviornment, to a great extent.  We produce our own food, we build shelter for ourselves, we actively fight disease, we don't physically adapt to the enviornment, we use our intellect to adapt our enviornment to our needs.  In effect, we are one population, I see nothing that would cause the creation of new species of humanity.
On the other hand, why should they become more similar?  Don't forget there must be some natural selection criteria that would cause them to become more similar.  What would be the reprodutive advantage of a more similar looking human species?  I don't see it.
Evolution doesn't work toward some higher goal, it merely goes with what works.  So no, I don't see humanity splintering into new species or becoming more homogenized.

"Certainly no sea dwelling creature would survive on land long enough to adapt."

You're just out and out wrong here.  There are creatures living today that can survive on land and in water.  Ever hear of mudskippers, lung fish, walking catfish?  Fish that can breath in water and in air, so a population could survive on land long enough to evolve into amphibians.
Fish gills did not evolve into lungs, their swim bladders did.  They had 2 distinct methods of breathing. This is still seen today and is supported by the fossil record.  So there is a great deal of evidence that sea dwelling creatures did, in fact, do just what you said couldn't be done.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:26 PM on April 26, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well in my searching I found maybe a total of 30 "transitional fossils" some of the supposed transitional fossils found in the past have proved to be fossils inside of fossils or sites where fossils have been found on top of one another.

Biologists have studied the overwhelming evidence represented by the fossil record and the only conclusion they can come too, the only explaination that fits is the Theory of Evolution.


I would disagree with that. Most of these transitional fossils came AFTER the theory of evolution was created. I'm certianly not saying that these scientists are liars or hoaxists, but there have been incidents such as that before.

The different characteristics are incredibly small, genectically speaking

But you told me before that that is precisely what evolution is, minute changes over time. Further more if this were the case, all creatures would certainly continue to adapt, wouldn't they? And if everything adapted slowly over time, why do certain fossils apear over large portions of the historic timeline? Certainly in even a few thousand years they would have changed a little wouldn't they? Fossils, as rare as they are, well then we should hardly find two of the same should we? If everything is always changing so much.

Ever hear of mudskippers, lung fish, walking catfish?  Fish that can breath in water and in air, so a population could survive on land long enough to evolve into amphibians.


I have heard of them. So why did amphibians evolve from them? Let's take sea turtles. Certainly it would make more sense for that to have gills than lungs? Or even both? But it has only lungs, which is strange because it spends almost ALL of it's time in the water. The only reason it comes on shore is to lay eggs. Why did dolphins and whales evolve lungs and lose their gills all together? Certainly something that dwells only in the ocean would be greatly inconvenienced by the need to breath free air, instead of water. My point is why would a mud skipper devolop lungs if it hadn't already been on land? Certainly living in the water all it's life it would never have the need for lungs. It just doesn't add up.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 3:17 PM on April 28, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well in my searching I found maybe a total of 30 "transitional fossils" "

Well you have not done enough research then.  There are thousands of transitional fossils.

"Biologists have studied the overwhelming evidence represented by the fossil record and the only conclusion they can come too, the only explaination that fits is the Theory of Evolution.

I would disagree with that."

You disagree?  Then you are wrong.  Over 95% of all biologists accept the theory of Evolution.  It is the only unfalsified explaination for the diversity of life on this planet and how it developed.  Every other theory has been falsified, shown to be wrong, including Creationism.

"But you told me before that that is precisely what evolution is, minute changes over time. Further more if this were the case, all creatures would certainly continue to adapt, wouldn't they? And if everything adapted slowly over time, why do certain fossils apear over large portions of the historic timeline? Certainly in even a few thousand years they would have changed a little wouldn't they? Fossils, as rare as they are, well then we should hardly find two of the same should we? If everything is always changing so much."

Yes evolution is driven by small changes in a populations genetic structure.  But what determines if these changes are beneficial, harmful or neutral?  The environment!  Organisms that live in an environment that remains stable for 100's or thousands or even millions of years will remain relatively unchanged, there is no pressure for that population to change.  You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a goal or makes logical improvements but it doesn't.  It goes with what works, so a successful population will not eventually evolve into a more efficient population.  

"So why did amphibians evolve from them?"

Obviously there was a tremendous survival advantage to being able to stay on land for prolonged periods of time, maybe escaping predators...

"Let's take sea turtles. Certainly it would make more sense for that to have gills than lungs? Or even both? But it has only lungs, which is strange because it spends almost ALL of it's time in the water. "

Yes but the sea turtle evolved from a land dwelling animal.  Lungs were already established.  The sea turtle is quite successful living full time in the sea with lungs.  Once again, evolution doesn't look for the best solution, or the most efficient solution, or the most logical solution as you imply.  It works with what it has, it jury rigs, it adapts what is already there.  Gills were lost lost when animals evolved to live their lives out of water, so when some land dwelling animals were forced to return to the sea, evolution used what was already there, the lungs. Dolphins and whales never lost their gills, they never had them to begin with.   Obviously, the dophins, whales, sea turtles, sea snakes, ect., are not inconvienenced
by living their lives in the water and breathing air, the evidence for this is plain to see, they survive.

"My point is why would a mud skipper devolop lungs if it hadn't already been on land? Certainly living in the water all it's life it would never have the need for lungs. It just doesn't add up."

But it does add up.  Lungs in these fish didn't start out as a breathing organ, they were swim bladders for regulating the fish's buoancy.  Some fish could take in external air to inflate these bladders.  Now what would happen if some of these fish lived in oxygen poor water or in lakes or swamps that periodically dried out, or had predators that were ideally suited to hunt them down in a watery environment?  I'd call that environmental pressure, natural selection, the driving force behind the ToE.  



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:33 AM on April 29, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I tire of this argument. Show me a site, or cite me a reference where i can research these thousands of transitional fossils. Of course I'm wrong, 95% huh? How about showing me a poll of that?

Obviously there was a tremendous survival advantage to being able to stay on land for prolonged periods of time, maybe escaping predators...


Then how come gazelle didn't get wings to evolve? They are defensless before lions and leapords and cheetas, they aren't really faster, they haven't developed any defense, they just run away. This evolution must be a fickle force, favoring some and shitting on others.

It goes with what works, so a successful population will not eventually evolve into a more efficient population.

So once you've stabalized yourselves you don't lose evolved traits? How come reptiles don't have gills? They don't use them, therefore either they never had them or they did eventually go away.

Yes but the sea turtle evolved from a land dwelling animal.

Why would and animal evolve to a land dwelling creature, when it is going to evolve back into a primarily water dwelling creature? Obviously the land option that was so beneficial and convenient to it's survival, because it had to move back into the water.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a goal or makes logical improvements

But you keep saying how it makes so much sense for stuff to evolve to survive. Can't you see the difference between adaption and evolution?

Dolphins and whales never lost their gills, they never had them to begin with.

so you're saying that there has always been mamals that live in the ocean that breathe air?


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 4:21 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
Crim

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

95% huh? How about showing me a poll of that?


There's one on religioustolerance.org that said in 1997, 95% of scientists accepted evolution.  That included engineers and scientists who don't necessarily work in a field relating to evolution.  Among biologists, the number is more like 99%.  
linky link


Also, check out Project Steve

Then how come gazelle didn't get wings to evolve?

Why would gazelles get wings?  They're much too large and heavy to fly.

They are defensless before lions and leapords and cheetas

No, they're not.  They have speed.

they aren't really faster

They're much faster than lions and leopards and sufficiently fast to escape cheetahs most of the time.

haven't developed any defense, they just run away

Clearly, their speed is enough of a defense to maintain their population.   If it wasn't, there wouldn't be gazelles.

So once you've stabalized yourselves you don't lose evolved traits?

Yeah, you can lose traits.  Some people don't have wisdom teeth, tonsils, or an appendix.   Or, you the gene could just become inactive.

Why would and animal evolve to a land dwelling creature, when it is going to evolve back into a primarily water dwelling creature?

I hope we understand that it wouldn't be an individual animal, since individuals do not evolve.  
The species -or line or whatever- wouldn't have known ahead of time what its ancestors would do.

Can't you see the difference between adaption and evolution?

Genetic adaptation is evolution.

so you're saying that there has always been mamals that live in the ocean that breathe air?

I don't know the details, but I believe the current idea is that there was an animal somewhat akin to a hippo (land animal that hangs out in the water a lot) which would become more sea-friendly.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 5:09 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I tire of this argument. Show me a site, or cite me a reference where i can research these thousands of transitional fossils."

Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/

Click on "Browse the Archive", then on "Evolution" and then down the list look for "Transitional Vertabrate Fossils".  Talk Origins is a great place to learn about evolution, they reference all their sources so you can check it out.  They can teach you a heck of a lot more about Evolution then I can.

Crim handled the gazelle question nicely.  Speed and running away is their defense.  It works because gazelles survive.

"So once you've stabalized yourselves you don't lose evolved traits?"

Once a population is stabilized, they wouldn't lose the traits that allow them to survive, simple as that.  Traits that no longer give a survival advantage can, but don't have to be, lost.  Traits that become a disadvantage due to a changing environment will be selected against and that population of organisms will lose them or die off.

"Why would and animal evolve to a land dwelling creature, when it is going to evolve back into a primarily water dwelling creature?"

Again, you seem to be implying that evolution has some plan or works toward an ultimate goal, it doesn't.  Some populations of animals evolved to live their entire lives on land, never returning to the water.  It was advantageous to lose gills.  But millions of years later, the environment changed for some populations and it became advantageous for them to return to the water.  Unlike the fish whose swim bladders evolved into primitive lungs and still retained their gills, these air breathers had no gill like structures that could be co-opted to evolve into water breathing organs.  Evolution had to make due with what these animal populations had, lungs.  So aquatic air breathing animals evolved because their environment changed.  This is natural selection.

"But you keep saying how it makes so much sense for stuff to evolve to survive. Can't you see the difference between adaption and evolution?"

What is the difference? Please explain why you think they are different.   Adaptation IS evolution.  Genetic changes can be beneficial, neutral or harmful, depending on the environment they manifest themselves in.  There are literally millions of ways environments can change so after millions of years beneficial adaptaions in a population can accrue.  And thats Evolution.  




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:00 PM on April 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Free/ Dem: If you two could just get to the facts without so much added speculation, your posts would be so much easier to read.gbhwe
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:36 PM on May 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The interesting thing about the Jews is that the Lord had siad in numerous Old Testament prophesies that the land was to be broken up (again after the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C. ) For example in Ezekiel (written during the exile period, in refference to future scattering of the Israelites) 36:19 ,"And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them." Jesus also spoke of this scattering of the Israelites. In Luke 21:24 Jesus said "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles (anyone who is not of Jewish origin) until the period of the Gentiles is fulfilled." These things came to pass exactly as stated in 70 AD, approx. 37 Years after Jesus said them (Also 37 years after His death and resurrection). The Roman's came upon the land with great fury with the emperor (possibly emperor's son at that time) Titus. They annialated the Jews home land, and burned down the Jewish Temple. This, however was not the end of the prophesy as the Lord God said through Ezekiel in chapter 36:24,"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you to your own land." And Jesus had said "until the period of the Gentiles is fulfilled." Therefore, the prophesy of Ezekiel regarding the gathering of the Jewish people and them being brought back to Israel was fulfilled in May 14, 1948. However, they did not have complete control of Jerusalem. Jesus said specifically that Jerusalem had to be under Jewish control. This came to pass in the 6-day war of 1967. Although all odds seemed agianst this miraculous feat, it is now both fact and history, as well as prophetic fulfillment. "


         Thought this was so interesting I wanted to post it agian. Who is this Benjamin fellow anyway?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:40 PM on May 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two incredibly vague prophecies!  
Amazing!

,"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you to your own land."

Too bad god had no part in the process.  The Allies put them there.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:49 PM on May 3, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Free/ Dem: If you two could just get to the facts without so much added speculation, your posts would be so much easier to read.gbhwe"

What have I said that wasn't fact?  Stormcrow was asking specific questions, Crim and I were answering him.  The facts are environments change, organisms evolve.  How is that for getting to the facts...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:06 PM on May 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Two incredibly vague prophecies!  
Amazing!

,"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you to your own land."

Too bad god had no part in the process.  The Allies put them there."

     
   Dont float this garbage out there. Nothing was incredibly vague exept your understanding. You are a blind leader of the blind.

---Benjamin
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:32 AM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon--
  You weren't answering you were rambling. You run on with this phyco- babble, anti- Christ garbage, that is anything but the truth.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:34 AM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course it was vague.  
"At some point, some Jews will leave.   At some point later, a lot of Jews will come back."

Maybe you'd like to try again with "There will be wars and rumors of wars."

OMG THERE WAS A WAR IN 2003 ITS THE END OF THE WORLD
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:43 AM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You weren't answering you were rambling. You run on with this phyco- babble, anti- Christ garbage, that is anything but the truth."

It's obvious you aren't reading what I'm writing.  I have answered direct questions.  And tell me where I indulge in psycho babble.  Just because your grasp of science and the Theory of Evolution is minimal is no excuse to pass off your ignorance as problems with my responses.  

Your creationist tactics are so predictable, make vague, half assed statements that you can't back up then brand anything you disagree with or can't understand as anti-Christ. If you had any guts you'd point out where I was wrong and why, but I guess you can't do that.   You are pathetic.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:45 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  Well the fact is that Jesus is the Only Way to Heaven. I hope and pray that you all will make it, the other path is dark and gloomy. I almost was sucked down that path.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:54 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Path A: Irrational belief in contradictory religion based off of pro-suffering deity
Path B: Nonbelief in A

I'll take B, thanks.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:02 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well the fact is that Jesus is the Only Way to Heaven. I hope and pray that you all will make it, the other path is dark and gloomy. I almost was sucked down that path."

And that relates to this thread how??  I knew that as soon as you got flustered, you'd pull out the veiled threats.  Now the way I interpret this is that I have to worship Jesus exactly like you do, believe only in your interpretation of the bible or I'll go to Hell.  Man, your faith must be built on an incredibly shakey foundation for you to be this desperate!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:04 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

       All of that doesn't change that we will answer before the Great White Throne.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:53 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"All of that doesn't change that we will answer before the Great White Throne."

This is hilarious stuff!  The Great White Throne!  Sounds like something straight out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail!  Mind telling me how great a sin it is to use common sense and believe in evolution?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:14 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

<--- thinks this has gotten a little too off the subject.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 03:58 AM on May 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Great White Throne is actually in Revelation (The last book in the Bible).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:30 PM on May 7, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's try to get back on track.

Noah's mythical flood.  I think it's fair to say that science has totally falsified the myth of a world wide flood.  A flood that completely covered the surface of the Earth could never have happened.  And one boat carrying 2 (or 7) of every animal is also an impossiblity.

I won't go into every reason why but I will touch on a few important evidences that disprove Noah and his flood.

Animal distribution.  It is simply impossible that anyone could have gathered animals from all the continents and then put them back.  We see too many populations of animals that live in isolated environments and would go extinct if they lived with other species.  Marsupials in Australia, remanent species on islands like the Tuatara had to have lived in isolation, they could not have competed with other species.

Where did all the water come from/go to?  There is simply not enough water on the planet to completely cover the surface.  There is no realistic explaination of where it could have come from, no evidence that it was underground (the fountains of the deep), and a vapor canopy is patently absurd.  

The Geologic record.  A world wide flood should leave the same evidence all over the world.  Geologists have looked hard, no evidence.  In addition there are just too many natural formations that took millions of years to form that a global flood can not explain, the Grand canyon, the Burgess Shale, not to mention oil fields and coal deposits.

The fossil record.  A massive world wide flood would sort animals by size, the bigger animals would sink quicker than the smaller ones.  This is exactly what we do NOT see in the fossil record.  Certain animal fossils are found only in certain strata of the geologic column irrespective of size.  Trilobites are never found with more modern animals of similar size and environment, Icthyosaurs are never found with dolphins and whales, humans are never found with dinosaurs.  If there was a giant flood, we would expect to see some degree of mixing, but we do not.  And certainly we would not expect to see organisms segragated into the discrete strata that evolution predicts.  

So let's talk about the flood...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:56 PM on May 8, 2003 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: Noah's mythical flood.  I think it's fair to say that science has totally falsified the myth of a world wide flood.  A flood that completely covered the surface of the Earth could never have happened.  And one boat carrying 2 (or 7) of every animal is also an impossiblity.

Like many uniformitarian evolutionists, you have immediately come to the conclusion that a world wide, Noachian Deluge is impossible. Although you never did mention the mathematical dimensions of the Ark or the estimated quantity of animals as compared to the supposed dimensions. Thus your argument is as follows- An Ark of unknown size, could not carry an unknown amount of animals with an unknown quantity of food storage. This could not be referred to as scientific in any sense of the word.

The dimensions of the Ark as given in Genesis: 6:15 were 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits. A cubit being defined as atleast 17½ inches long.

Our earth's crust is seventy per cent submerged in water ("Water covers approximately 70 percent of our world’s surface."), and yet, its assumed that the hydrologically barren celestial body- Mars, was once completely sumberged in a global flood ("The immensity of the Mars Flood devastation cannot be fully appreciated until seen on a map of the entire planet.").



red= Outflow Channels
yellow= Teardrop Erosion, River Beds, and Craters between rocky outcrops where supposed water accumulation formed lakes and ponds.

If it is thought of as 'probable' that the planet Mars, which is hydrologically depraved, was once heavily eroded by global flood damage, then how much more 'probable' is it that a global Deluge occured on earth (already 70% submerged) at some point in geological history?

Demon38: Animal distribution.  It is simply impossible that anyone could have gathered animals from all the continents and then put them back.  We see too many populations of animals that live in isolated environments and would go extinct if they lived with other species.  Marsupials in Australia, remanent species on islands like the Tuatara had to have lived in isolation, they could not have competed with other species.

It is believed that the continents were not even separated before the flood, so isolated environments would not even be an issue. Even uniformitarians agree that the continents are drifting apart at an ever-slowing rate. Ironically, the originator of continental drift theory was a creation scientist by the name of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini. The original theory he proposed would be referred to more accurately as continental sprint. Even more ironically, the theory was published the same year as Darwin's Origin of Species (1859- early release 1858). Snider was also one of the first to publish the basic elements of plate tectonics theory, thus the very first context in which plate tectonics theory was presented was in a Gilgameshian Flood context.

Due to the leary environmental elements of the Flood, many animals would not be as active but would rather be in a state of hibernation. This also eliminates the problems of maintainence, such as feeding and droppings.

Demon38: Where did all the water come from/go to?  There is simply not enough water on the planet to completely cover the surface.  There is no realistic explaination of where it could have come from, no evidence that it was underground (the fountains of the deep), and a vapor canopy is patently absurd.

In the case of a world-wide flood, the crust of the earth would be re-arranged completely. Thus it would be absurd to expect to find the caverns in the crusts of the earth from which the water sprang if the crusts of the earth were re-arranged during the flood.

The deepest valleys at the bottoms of the ocean are deeper than the highest peaks of our terrestrial mountains. But if the earth were to be completely absent of mountains or valleys (as a ping-pong ball), the current amount of water the earth possesses would submerge the crust up to two miles deep. Thus the flood waters receded into the oceans as the mountains rose due to rapid plate-tectonic movement. If you will notice also that most of the deepest ocean valleys geographically parallel the tops of the highest mountain ranges.




2 Peter: 3-3 "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,

"and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

"For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

"by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."



References

1. Weighing Earths Water from Space, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/WeighingWater/

2. Mars Floods Global Map, http://www.tlonh.com/mars_floods_global_map.asp#


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 9:28 PM on February 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Thus your argument is as follows- An Ark of unknown size, could not carry an unknown amount of animals with an unknown quantity of food storage. This could not be referred to as scientific in any sense of the word."

True, this could not be referred to as scientific, more like common sense.  It is impossible for bronze age man to construct an ark to carry what, 100,000 animals? 10,000 animals? even 1,000 animals.  Simply impossible, beyond their technology.  Show us any examples of people of that time building anything remotely the size of the Ark... And eight people to care for all those animals? Totally ridiculous.  They would have to feed and water 1000's of animals by hand everyday, they would have to shovel tons of manure off the ark everyday, tons!  Many animals have special dietary needs, most snakes eat live prey, what were they feeding the big snakes?  And only eight people provided the labor force???  How many zoo's today could run with just eight people, even with all the modern advances we have, and no zoo has any where close to the amount of animals Noah and his kin were daring for!  I know there have been scientific studies done to show the impossiblity of the ark, but I don't even need them, it is clearly, obviously, impossible that 8 people could have built a boat that size, and then housed, stored and cared for that many animals.

"Our earth's crust is seventy per cent submerged in water ("Water covers approximately 70 percent of our world’s surface."), and yet, its assumed that the hydrologically barren celestial body- Mars, was once completely sumberged in a global flood ("The immensity of the Mars Flood devastation cannot be fully appreciated until seen on a map of the entire planet.")."

What does Mars have to do with the EArth???

"It is believed that the continents were not even separated before the flood, so isolated environments would not even be an issue. Even uniformitarians agree that the continents are drifting apart at an ever-slowing rate. Ironically, the originator of continental drift theory was a creation scientist by the name of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini. The original theory he proposed would be referred to more accurately as continental sprint. Even more ironically, the theory was published the same year as Darwin's Origin of Species (1859- early release 1858). Snider was also one of the first to publish the basic elements of plate tectonics theory, thus the very first context in which plate tectonics theory was presented was in a Gilgameshian Flood context."

Except for the fact that Pangea broke up 205 million years ago, kind of destroys your little theory!  No, animal distribution is a very potent arguement against Noah.  There is no way to explain places like Australia, the only continent where the platypus lives, the kangaroo, the Koala, etc....  How did they get back there, did Noah personally escort every animal back to it's home?  We do have a good idea of when the continents broke up and it is beyond reason that it occurred a mere 6000 years ago.  All your doing is desperately trying to justify your silly supernatural myths and looking at reality, it's just not possible!

"Due to the leary environmental elements of the Flood, many animals would not be as active but would rather be in a state of hibernation. This also eliminates the problems of maintainence, such as feeding and droppings."

Ha ha ha!  When was the last time you saw an elephant hibrenate??  No, many of the animals would not be hibrenating.  There was no cold spell, the vast majority of the animals never hibrenated, why would they suddenly do so now?  They wouldn't be physiologically capable of hibrenating....Once again,  a desperate attempt to justify a silly story....

"In the case of a world-wide flood, the crust of the earth would be re-arranged completely. Thus it would be absurd to expect to find the caverns in the crusts of the earth from which the water sprang if the crusts of the earth were re-arranged during the flood."

No evidence of this giant store of water???  Rock doesn't float, it is ridiculous to think that there was this amount of water in the mythical 'caverns of the deep'.  

"The deepest valleys at the bottoms of the ocean are deeper than the highest peaks of our terrestrial mountains. But if the earth were to be completely absent of mountains or valleys (as a ping-pong ball), the current amount of water the earth possesses would submerge the crust up to two miles deep. Thus the flood waters receded into the oceans as the mountains rose due to rapid plate-tectonic movement. If you will notice also that most of the deepest ocean valleys geographically parallel the tops of the highest mountain ranges."

You love to concoct these baseless stories!  Six thousand years ago, or even 6 million years ago, the earth was not absent of all mountains and valleys, we know this from all geological studies, even your own source the bible denies this.  No, the earth was never as flat as a ping pong ball!

You never commented on the lack of similar geological traces a world wide flood would most certainly leave.  Or how the fossil record clearly shows there was no flood...





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:40 PM on February 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's a real good link about mountains and the flood:floodmt

and here's an section from it:

"When Noah's flood occurred, the Scriptures say the waters of the flood covered the tops of the mountains, so the present day mountains already existed:

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
(Gen 7:18-20 KJV)

Geologic Fact: Portions of most of the earth's mountain ranges are composed of sedimentary strata or metamorphosed sediments which contain fossils (the evidence of living creatures long since dead and buried). Three examples are the Appalachian mountain range of the eastern United States (one of the older ones), the Alps of Europe, and the Himalayas  (one of the younger ones). The sedimentary layers that were uplifted to form these great mountain ranges are many thousands of feet thick in places and well above sea level today. In many places, especially in the older Appalachian range, angular unconformities abound, showing where ancient sediments have been tilted and partially eroded, with newer more horizontal sediments being deposited atop the tilted erosion contact surface.

If these mountains existed before Noah's flood (which the Bible says they did), and these mountains were formed from uplifted sediments containing fossils (go climb a mountain and see them with your own eyes), then the creatures that these fossils came from all died sometime BEFORE the great flood."

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:09 AM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's another link to a site that shows the impossiblity of that much water on the planet:
toomuchwater

And here's one point I never considered about how impossible a world wide flood would be.

"Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores."

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:32 AM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The overreactions to my statements concerning the flood and Humphrey's RATE research continue to amaze me. From your three responses (try to keep it down to one next time), and from their general un organization I could postulate that you were scrambling to Talk Origins  for a last ditch effort to accumulate a half-rational response. But, Im not, because I don't have any supporting data other than surface level observations and assumptions, although Im afraid that if I were in your shoes you wouldn't care to do the same for me. I will continue to keep this in mind.

Demon38: True, this could not be referred to as scientific, more like common sense.

If thats common sense then what is the world coming too?!

Demon38: It is impossible for bronze age man to construct an ark to carry what, 100,000 animals? 10,000 animals? even 1,000 animals.

Its estimated that the ark carried only 16,000 animals. Although, according to the mathematical dimensions of the ark:

300l x 50w x 30h= 522 standard railroad stock cars. Each stock car or 'unit' is capable of holding 240 sheep. The ark in all able to carry up to 125,000 sheep,

The 16,000 animals (ranging in size) would only take up a mere one third of the ark space.

Demon38: Simply impossible, beyond their technology. Show us any examples of people of that time building anything remotely the size of the Ark...

Were the pyramids (wonders of the world) beyond ancient man's technology? What about stonehenge? The egyptian pyramids are much larger than any ark would have been.

Demon38: And eight people to care for all those animals? Totally ridiculous.

Once safely lodged in the ark, and stalls, then fed, its very likely that they went into a stage of dormancy (hibernation). Sudden darkness and chill in the air ("the sluiceways of heaven were opened") would easily have such a physiological effect. This eliminates many maintenance problems. Only a fraction (15%) of the 16,000 animals would be of significant sizes to consume massive amounts of food. Most sizes not even exceeding the size of a dog or sheep.

Demon38: They would have to feed and water 1000's of animals by hand everyday, they would have to shovel tons of manure off the ark everyday, tons!

Exactly twelve metric tons. If we consider two main methods for reducing (daily), or dealing with excreta (transporting or accumulation), both would be practical methods as demonstrated by their more modern counterparts.

Demon38: What does Mars have to do with the EArth???

Im going to assume that you are playing dumb to the obviousness of the argument. So, allow me to repeat again, hoping this time that it will clear any prior confusion you may be experiencing.

Our earth's crust is seventy per cent submerged in water ("Water covers approximately 70 percent of our world’s surface."), and yet, its assumed that the hydrologically barren celestial body- Mars, was once completely sumberged in a global flood ("The immensity of the Mars Flood devastation cannot be fully appreciated until seen on a map of the entire planet.").



red= Outflow Channels
yellow= Teardrop Erosion, River Beds, and Craters between rocky outcrops where supposed water accumulation formed lakes and ponds.

If it is thought of as 'probable' that the planet Mars, which is hydrologically depraved, was once heavily eroded by global flood damage, then how much more 'probable' is it that a global Deluge occured on earth (already 70% submerged) at some point in geological history?

Demon38: We do have a good idea of when the continents broke up and it is beyond reason that it occurred a mere 6000 years ago.

Its perfectly reasonable that the continents were together less than 6,000 years ago. The original theory was continental sprint, but was later stolen by an evolutionist who changed it to continental drift to justify his beliefs, because 6,000 years is unacceptable to uniformitarians.




References

1. Talk Origins,
http://www.talkorigins.org

2. Mars Floods Global Map,
Mars Floods Global Map, http://www.tlonh.com/mars_floods_global_map.asp#

3. Weighing Earths Water from Space, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/WeighingWater/


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 5:10 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, too simplify- All the animals hibernated (though most of them can't), the earth was a ping pong ball (though it clearly says in the bible that the waters covered the mountains and filled the valleys), 8 people could care for that many animals(feed, water, clean up, exercise, maintain), though the average zoo staff is, what?  Anyone know for sure?  A lot more than eight, I think.
Its estimated that the ark carried only 16,000 animals. Although, according to the mathematical dimensions of the ark:
 So there's only 8,000 species of animals (less, I guess since there were seven of some) So, to clarify, you believe in evolution, as long as it occurs at light speed in the last 2500 years or so?

BTW, since you brought up the egyptians, how exactly did they build the pyramids, since there would have been, what, 9 or 10 of them around a hundred years after the flood?  If the pyramids were built before the flood, why is there no evidence of submersion?

Also, please explain how Egypt and China can both have histories dating back thousands of years with no interuption (which would be tough if they had all drowned).  While you're at it, please explain how Native Americans have an oral history stretching back 10,000 years.


BTW, your Mars flood, was a local flood, not a global one.  May want to double check that.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:57 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm.  It's interesting to see the presuppositions on both sides.  Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism can be proven scientifically.  They are both philosophical discussions, trying to interpret the same evidence...same rocks, same fossils, etc.  Both have their problems.  

Noah's ark has some interesting problems.  Of course, the evolutionists have problems too.  According to them, there was no Noah's ark, yet at the same time, they insist that spontaneous generation can happen (ignoring Pastuer).  

I guess I can handle both sides as long as neither one claims to be only scientific.




-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:12 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm.  It's interesting to see the presuppositions on both sides.  Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism can be proven scientifically.
wrong, evolution has been proven a valid scientific theory.  May want to bone up a bit there.  
They are both philosophical discussions, trying to interpret the same evidence...same rocks, same fossils, etc.  
Wtong again, see previous response.  

Noah's ark has some interesting problems.  Of course, the evolutionists have problems too.  According to them, there was no Noah's ark, yet at the same time, they insist that spontaneous generation can happen (ignoring Pastuer).  

I guess I can handle both sides as long as neither one claims to be only scientific.

Yo may want to check again what Pasteur was saying.  He was saying that organisms which caused spoilage in food did not spontaneously generate.  He said nothing about abiogenesis, which, by the way, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  Before you start saying what is and isn't scientific, you may want to do some basic reading.  Check out www.talkorigins.org for the basics and to answer your questions



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:04 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From your three responses (try to keep it down to one next time), and from their general un organization I could postulate that you were scrambling to Talk Origins  for a last ditch effort to accumulate a half-rational response.

Don't worry about how I gather my information, your only concern is answering it, and you have failed miserably to counter the arguements I have presented.

Its estimated that the ark carried only 16,000 animals. Although, according to the mathematical dimensions of the ark:

I can't believe you can't see the impossiblity of each of those 8 people caring for 2,000 animals apiece every day!  

Were the pyramids (wonders of the world) beyond ancient man's technology? What about stonehenge? The egyptian pyramids are much larger than any ark would have been.

How many thousand people built the pyramids?  How many people supposedly built the ark?  The pyramids left evidence of the work crews, what evidence do we have for the ark?  How many other giant gopher wood sailing vessels were created at that time?

Once safely lodged in the ark, and stalls, then fed, its very likely that they went into a stage of dormancy (hibernation). Sudden darkness and chill in the air ("the sluiceways of heaven were opened") would easily have such a physiological effect.

Very likely they went into a state of dormancy??  Show us some evidence of animals that never hibrenate suddenly, miraculously aquiring the ability in reaction to heavy rain???  You're just making that up in order to make your myth seem possible, sorry, reality is against you!

Our earth's crust is seventy per cent submerged in water ("Water covers approximately 70 percent of our world’s surface."), and yet, its assumed that the hydrologically barren celestial body- Mars, was once completely sumberged in a global flood/b]

provide some evidence, nowhere could I find any indications that Mars was ever completely submerged.

[b]If it is thought of as 'probable' that the planet Mars, which is hydrologically depraved, was once heavily eroded by global flood damage, then how much more 'probable' is it that a global Deluge occured on earth (already 70% submerged) at some point in geological history?


No comparison, 2 completely differnt ecosystems, 2 completely different planets, your point is refuted.

Its perfectly reasonable that the continents were together less than 6,000 years ago. The original theory was continental sprint, but was later stolen by an evolutionist who changed it to continental drift to justify his beliefs, because 6,000 years is unacceptable to uniformitarians

Sorry, you have a habit of making up things and claiming them as facts, it is not reasonable to assume the continents were together 6,000 years ago.  We can measure continetal drift, and what you claim is simply not possible.  As I said Pangea broke up 205 million years ago, the evidence is plain to see.
No evolutionist changed it to accomodate his beliefs, the facts are obvious.

I see you can't refute any of the other points I made, you seem content to claim I was in a panic and leave it at that, if you can't refute what I have to say, just admit it...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:01 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: I can't believe you can't see the impossiblity of each of those 8 people caring for 2,000 animals apiece every day!

Are animals not capable of caring for themselves to some degree? Some animals are more high maintenance than others, but most animals, such as dogs, birds, ect do not require hand feeding every day. They have a main supply, but the supply is simply refilled on a regular basis. Since only less than a third of the ark's space was occupied by the animals themselves, there is plenty of room for food, water, etc.

Demon38: How many thousand people built the pyramids?  How many people supposedly built the ark?  The pyramids left evidence of the work crews, what evidence do we have for the ark?  How many other giant gopher wood sailing vessels were created at that time?

Thousands of people built the pyramids, although the Bible does not say that only a few people built the ark. Its very possible that Noah employed workers, along with his sons. The building process took 120 years- plenty of time. The pyramids only took little more than 30 years. As far as vessels created at that time, since everything else was destroyed (even to the point that Noah himself could not recognize his homeland), the lesser vessels would be completely destroyed along with the rest of the damage in the Deluge, including evidence of working crews.

Although, there is much evidence for finding the Ark itself on Mt. Ararat:

1853: Three Englishmen were shown the Ark by two Armenian natives.

1883: Turkish avalanche investigators discovered the Ark while studying the effects of a recent earthquake. The find was published in newspapers around the world.

1887: John Joseph, Prince of Nouri, of Malabar, India, discovered the vessel by design on his third attempt. He presented his claims to the World Parliament of Religions at the Chicago World's Fair a few years later, but was unable to raise financial support for proper documentation.

1902, 1904: "Georgie," an elderly Armenian immigrant, who escaped the turmoil following World War I and fled to the United States, saw the Ark twice as a teenager. He died in 1972 but his comments and interviews are available on tape.

1915, 1916: Two Russian flyers sighted the Ark from the air. The Czar dispatched 150 Russian soldiers and scientists to verify the claim. The ground investigations found the remains and succeeded in entering the three-storied structure and documenting it fully. However, when the Communists gained control, the documents were presumably destroyed, but many of the participants escaped and lived to tell the story.

1917: Six Turkish soldiers, returning home after service in Baghdad, decided to climb the mountain. They accidentally discovered the ship.

1936: Hardwicke Knight, a New Zealand archaeologist, accidentally discovered a field of timbers, very large and obviously hand-hewn, on the upper slopes of the mountain. Mr. Knight still lives in New Zealand.

1941-1944: During World War II Mount Ararat was flown over hundreds of times by flights from the United States air base in Tunisia and the Russian facility in Erivan. At least three sightings were reported: 1) Two Australian pilots, 2) One Russian pilot, 3) Two USAF pilots, but many more were rumored. The USAF flyers took pictures of the Ark which appeared in the Tunisia edition of "Stars and Stripes."

1948: A Kurdish farmer named Resit accidentally discovered the Ark. Under his insistence many of the villagers also observed it.

1952-1955: Fernand Navarra, wealthy French industrialist, found a great mass of hand-tooled lumber under the ice at the 13,000 foot level. He dug down to it, chopped off a portion about 9" x 9" x 5' and brought it back for analysis. The wood has been shown to be of great antiquity. Mr. Navarra is still alive.

1953: George Greene, mining engineer for an American oil company, spotted the Ark about 1/3 exposed from a helicopter. He photographed it from a distance of about 90 feet. Although at least thirty people alive today remember the pictures, they can no longer be seen, for Greene was murdered in 1962 and his belongings were destroyed.

1954, 1958: John Libi, of San Francisco, and Colonel Sehap Atalay of the Turkish army discovered wood in the same area as the previous sightings. Both men are still alive.

1962: Wilbur Bishop and Lawrence Hewitt, studying the summit of the 17,000 foot mountain from an airplane, were surprised to see a portion of a wooden structure at the 14,000 foot level. These two men are
also still living.

1969: Fernand Navarra returned to Mount Ararat and guided explorers from SEARCH, Incorporated, to the spot of his discovery in 1955. Again fragments of wood were recovered.

Demon38: Very likely they went into a state of dormancy??  Show us some evidence of animals that never hibrenate suddenly, miraculously aquiring the ability in reaction to heavy rain???  You're just making that up in order to make your myth seem possible, sorry, reality is against you!

Nice misobservation, I did not limit the effects of dormancy to heavy rain ("Sudden darkness and chill in the air ("the sluiceways of heaven were opened") would easily have such a physiological effect."). Reality can only be against the Bible if the critics are in reality also.

Demon38: provide some evidence, nowhere could I find any indications that Mars was ever completely submerged.

"Scientists have speculated for some time that the desert planet [Mars] teamed with water and periodic oceans billions of years ago."
CNN.com/SPACE

Demon38: No comparison, 2 completely differnt ecosystems, 2 completely different planets, your point is refuted.

You have only strengthened my point. The surface of Mars is much less apt to retain water due to its dry ashy nature, so which planet is more geologically apt to have global flooding occur? Even if the flood on Mars was a local one (as you suggest), if a local flood on Mars (hydrologically depraved) could occur with millions of galons of water at least, why not a global flood on a planet that is already 70% covered? Yes, two different ecosystems, but which one is more suitable for global flooding? The differences in the ecosystems point clearly to earth as the best candidate for a global flood.

Demon38: Sorry, you have a habit of making up things and claiming them as facts, it is not reasonable to assume the continents were together 6,000 years ago.  We can measure continetal drift, and what you claim is simply not possible.  As I said Pangea broke up 205 million years ago, the evidence is plain to see. No evolutionist changed it to accomodate his beliefs, the facts are obvious.

I see you can't refute any of the other points I made, you seem content to claim I was in a panic and leave it at that, if you can't refute what I have to say, just admit it...

Sorry, you have a habit of making up things and claiming them as facts, it is reasonable to assume the continents were together 6,000 years ago. We can measure continental sprint, and what you claim is simply not possible. As I said the continents broke up rapidly during the flood around 4,500 years ago, the evidence is plain to see. Evolutionists changed it to accomodate their beliefs, the facts are obvious.

I can see you can't refute any of the points I made, you seem content to claim that Noah's Flood didn't happen and leave it at that, if you can't refute what I have to say, just admit it...




References

1. CNN.com,
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/08/03/mars.channels/

2. SCI/TECH
http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=31487


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 3:08 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ, You can believe that if that's your "belief system", then I guess it's true for you.  For there are no absolutes, right?

Also, sometimes you have to use logic and inference to connect issues together.  But that is a nice try at diversion.  

Either special creation of some type is true, or either spontaneous generation of some type is true.  Both require a measure of faith.  

It's fine if you believe in spontaneous generation, just don't call it science.  


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:24 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are animals not capable of caring for themselves to some degree?

In the cramped quarters of the mythical ark?  No they could not, they would be completely dependent on the 8 people there to feed them, clean there cages, supply medical care etc.  It's simply impossible for 8 people to care for 16,000 animals.

As far as vessels created at that time, since everything else was destroyed (even to the point that Noah himself could not recognize his homeland), the lesser vessels would be completely destroyed along with the rest of the damage in the Deluge, including evidence of working crews.

Ridiculous!  Here are some archaeological finds that pre date the supposed flood and were not completely destroyed:
from here:oldcity

"Excavations in the Yerevan district of Shengavit over the past two years have uncovered a city which local and some foreign archeologists believe to have been settled five thousand years before the birth of Christ. Scientists say the site has yielded some of the archeologically-richest finds in all the Caucasus, and if the dating proves accurate, it would mean that the area was settled nearly 4,000 years before the Urartus founded Yerevan."

from here:
oldercity

"Archaeologists believe they have uncovered the world's oldest city in a remote part of Syria. Dating back to 6,000BC, the discovery is 2,500 years older than any known site and will prompt a dramatic reappraisal of ancient history."

So here we see everything was not wiped out by a titanic deluge.   Needless to say these cities show no flood damage and existed before the mythical flood and continued thru when it supposedly occurred and thrived after it.

Although, there is much evidence for finding the Ark itself on Mt. Ararat:

Then show us some of this evidence, all you have are unsubstantiated stories.  If evidence exists, let's see it!

Nice misobservation, I did not limit the effects of dormancy to heavy rain ("Sudden darkness and chill in the air ("the sluiceways of heaven were opened") would easily have such a physiological effect."). Reality can only be against the Bible if the critics are in reality also.

Then show us evidence of animals that have never hibrenated suddenly being able to hibrenate!  You miss the point, or ignore it because you can't explain it.  Show us empirical evidence of horses hibrenating, or lions or elephants or hippos...Most animals do not hibrenate, and the ones that do spend months storing up reserves to live off of when they are hibrenating.  The sudden chill in the air and darkening and whatever else you claim prodded these animals into dormancy would not have allowed them enough time to prepare for hibrenation...

"Scientists have speculated for some time that the desert planet [Mars] teamed with water and periodic oceans billions of years ago."
CNN.com/SPACE


Once again you fail to respond to the point, there is no evidence that Mars was ever completely inundated...

You have only strengthened my point. The surface of Mars is much less apt to retain water due to its dry ashy nature, so which planet is more geologically apt to have global flooding occur? Even if the flood on Mars was a local one (as you suggest), if a local flood on Mars (hydrologically depraved) could occur with millions of galons of water at least, why not a global flood on a planet that is already 70% covered?

Because there is not enough water on Earth to competely cover it.  You're still not claiming the earth was as flat as a ping pong ball are you...Science and the Bible prove you are wrong...

Sorry, you have a habit of making up things and claiming them as facts, it is reasonable to assume the continents were together 6,000 years ago. We can measure continental sprint, and what you claim is simply not possible. As I said the continents broke up rapidly during the flood around 4,500 years ago, the evidence is plain to see. Evolutionists changed it to accomodate their beliefs, the facts are  obvious.

Ha ha, getting frustrated because you can't refute any of my points?  Just parroting what i said isn't going to work.  You failed to provide any evidence!  Where has continental sprint been measured?  Lie for the Lord!
As to continental drift being measured, from here:DRIFT

"We can measure how fast tectonic plates are moving today, but how do scientists know what the rates of plate movement have been over geologic time? The oceans hold one of the key pieces to the puzzle. Because the ocean-floor magnetic striping records the flip-flops in the Earth's magnetic field, scientists, knowing the approximate duration of the reversal, can calculate the average rate of plate movement during a given time span. These average rates of plate separations can range widely. The Arctic Ridge has the slowest rate (less than 2.5 cm/yr), and the East Pacific Rise near Easter Island, in the South Pacific about 3,400 km west of Chile, has the fastest rate (more than 15 cm/yr).
Evidence of past rates of plate movement also can be obtained from geologic mapping studies. If a rock formation of known age -- with distinctive composition, structure, or fossils -- mapped on one side of a plate boundary can be matched with the same formation on the other side of the boundary, then measuring the distance that the formation has been offset can give an estimate of the average rate of plate motion. This simple but effective technique has been used to determine the rates of plate motion at divergent boundaries, for example the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and transform boundaries, such as the San Andreas Fault."

the conclusion reached by this intense and highly accurate research is as follows:

" According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today."

Sorry, continental sprint has been thouroughly debunked, disproven.  There was no supercontinent a mere 6,000 years ago, unless you can show us some modern measurements and research that supports continetal sprint...didn't think so.

[b]I can see you can't refute any of the points I made, you seem content to claim that Noah's Flood didn't happen and leave it at that, if you can't refute what I have to say, just admit it.../b]

Consider them all refuted, and if you had any integrity you'd admit it...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question for all who read this. If there was no flood how is there fossilised clams on the tops of many mountains.

If you say plate techtonics and the world was all flat at one time then the mountains shot up from under water, why would the clams be on top of the mountain, clams can move and i doubt that the mountains formed so fast the clams could not get into deeper water.


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 9:14 PM on July 10, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come on!  These idiotic questions have been answered 100's of times on this forum alone!
They're ignorant questions that only the most scientifically illiterate even ask anymore.
Clam shells are on the top of mountains because at one time the mountain tops were the bottom of seas or oceans.  And clams don't move that fast. And besides, the clam shells found on the tops of mountains were all ready dead when the mountains started to rise.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:16 PM on July 11, 2004 | IP
gunslngr00

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I started reading every reply in this stream until I realised nothing new was being put forth.

Has anyone considered what a meteor strike would do to global water levels? It would be short lived but look at what the little tsunami did in Indonesia. An event like a meteor strike reshapes the face of the Earth.

As for the arguments about how fast sediment built up because this or that was still alive when it was covered, have you heard of Pompeii? A volcano, tidal wave or impact ejecta can rapidly bury living things.

No evidence of evolution? How about the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel the Mount Graham subspecies has been isolated from other subspecies of red squirrels since the end of the Pleistocene glacial periods seperated on its Sky Island from , or two of the Grand Canyon's inhabitants the Albert squirrel and the Kaibab squirrel. The Kaibab squirrel only lives on the north rim and the Albert squirrel are found only on the south rim. They shared the same ancestor, the tassel-eared squirrel separated by the canyon each has evolved into two separate and distinct species. There are other living examples I'm sure these just come to mind because they are in my home state.

I'm not a supporter of Biblical Mythology just the fact that most myth has some basis in fact no matter how distorted. What do you think will happen to any story that gets relayed for thousands of years and translated badly through numerous languages and edited by men intent on reinforcing their powerful positions?

As for the scientists in the group come up with some new answers. Knowledge is constantly advancing but all I see in here are the same arguments. Do some more research and find some new solutions. Trying to talk sense to a creationist is like beating a dead horse with the same stick, it's time you learned the cattle prod was invented.


 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:23 PM on March 29, 2005 | IP
pasha

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reading this post, I have noticed a recurring themes and I would like to adress them.
First of all evolution is happenign every singe day, even as you sit in your chair right now. Many people ask 'if evolution is true then why isn't it happening today?"
One example is of Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit flies, in 1909 he had only one species of fruit flies the "wild type"(all had red eyes) which showed no variants in it and after isolating a  population of the wild type and breeding them for a year he found one variant, a fruit fly with white eyes. after a short time period he found other mutations(SLIGHLY different from other fruit flies, genetically), 85 mutations to be more precice, and the genes of these fruit flies were passed from generation to generation(they will alway exist and may or may not be expressed in their children). Mutations are occurences that happen in nature and over a long period of time give rise to new species.  To put it in simpler and more coherent words, " The demonstration of a spontaneous, inheritable alteration in a gene had consequences far beyond the study of drosphilia(fruit fly) genetics. It suggested a mechanism for the origin of VARIATION that exists within POPULATIONS(such as humans, mice, flies, bacteria and even viruses)--evidence for a vital link in the theory of evolution. If VARIANTS of genes could arise spontaneously, then isolated populations could become GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from one another und ULTIMATELY(SOmetimes in millions of years) give rise to new species."(Cell and Molecular Biology. Gerald Karp. Fourth Edition)
Fruit flies mature in 10 days(to a sexually mature adult)and a fruit fly can produce 1000 eggs withing a lifetime, thats why, with such a population that lives, breeds and dies so quickly, variations can be followed VERY precisely(in the example a bove it took one year to find 85 mutations). Ladies and gentleman, in the following sentce I present to you evolution in all its glory: If enough of these mutations happen within a fruit fly population you can produce a new strain of fruit flies(that look different) that won't even be able to breed and produce offspring with the original fruit flies(wild type) but only with the new strain! Hence, a NEW SPECIES now exists. For mammals such as apes or whales etc. such changes are not as obvious(because we live on average 70-100 years and  produce a few offspring compared to fruit flies!) and the most remarkable or striking evidence of  change come from skeletons of early humans or for early whales(check out the evolution line for whales, its pretty amazing to know what anymal they evolved from).
By the way, fruit fly reaserch is IMMENSE today compared to 1909 and so is reaserch on other animals, so check out some papers or articles online about evolution in progress, evolution is a lot more complex than what I have explained here, I just gave you a run down of the basics. If you are wondering yes, there is an explenation of how and why mutations occur, but understanding these explenation will mean taking university biology, genetics and chemistry courses.

If you want an up to date example of evolution happening everyday(other than some guys' fruit flies in 1909) then let me tell you, it would be impossible to keep AIDS patiens alive today without knowing the theory of evolution. AIDS patients take alot of drugs wich help kill the AIDS virus, but the virus keeps adapting to drugs and ultimately becomes resistant to it, how? The virus EVOLVES!!! Lets say there is a certain virus living in your body, most of the viruses that are in your body are identical copies of one another and a few mutations(variations) of the same virus exist within that population. One drug may kill off a large population of the virus that exists in your body but might not kill, lets say 1%, of of the HIV virus. This 1% is resistand to a certain drug and thus replicates numerously and once again causes infection now we have a new population of the the HIV virus, but its resistand to one type of drug(and genetically different) so you can't use it anymore. If you try another drug, the same thing will happen, a small percentage of varients will survive and give rise to a new, drug resistand virus.

  Some people believe that evolution dictates superiority and inferiority different creatures. That is not true, according to evolution a human being is no more up the ladder than an elephant or a kangaroo, all three of these species are equally complex(biologically). The only thing that seperates us is that we are probably one of of the few species that can interact with each other, we have complex brain(allowing language, which gives us an advantage over other animals) and modify matter around us(Me..made...FIRE!)and we have a complex social structure. All in all, we are still animals, like it or not, you gotta eat, sleep, when its a hot day you will sweat, you have red blood running through your veins(hopefully) like other mammals and most importanly most of us will pass on our genes to propagate the human race, no matter what.
I read in an earlier post something that I find interesting. Anyone who proves that evolutionary theory if fundamentaly flawed, will DEFNINETELY win the nobel prize! If evolution if flawed, so is modern genetics, if thats flawed then so is basic chemistry, if thats flawed, so is modern physics, if thats flawed, so is mathematics!!

Evolution is also about natural selection, Hypothetically: If the earth was scorched today and if the seas would boil(for some reason), 99.999 percent of creatures would die, including all people, the only things left alive would be thermophiles(heat loving bacteria) and the would "win" the race to survival because they would survive to pass on their genes whereas the rest of us would be floating dust.  The modern evolutionary theory is complex, very complex and its based on facts, it is something that you have to study in University before you can comprehend(high school stuff, barely SCRATHCES the surface and in my opinion its inadequately taught in the class room, it should be taught more coherently so that student can understand what it is) you cant pass judgement on it based on preconceptions, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is today and ironically, without the theory of evolution most of you(I am sure) wouldn't be here debating!

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 8:28 PM on March 29, 2005 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You would not have to get every animal on bourd. You would only have to get the base species on. 2 dogs, not two of every breed of dog. 2 cats, not 2 house cats, two lions, and 2 tigers.

Their are also several other thing other than animals coming from the ocean to land. For instance   how does a animal evolve an eye? Think about it, how would something that has no ability to detect light develop something to do it with?

Just because you have a discrepancy between saltwater fish and freshwater fish does not mean that you always had that discrepancy.

On last note how does Canadian goose migrate to north America?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:41 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You would not have to get every animal on bourd. You would only have to get the base species on. 2 dogs, not two of every breed of dog. 2 cats, not 2 house cats, two lions, and 2 tigers.


That still leaves hundreds of millions of "base species" on the Ark.

Their are also several other thing other than animals coming from the ocean to land. For instance   how does a animal evolve an eye? Think about it, how would something that has no ability to detect light develop something to do it with?


The eye started with simple photo receptors on individual bacteria. Here's an excellent video that explains it in detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OZndaMi8c&mode=related&search=

On last note how does Canadian goose migrate to north America?


What the heck? Canadian geese are in North America.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/7/2007 at 8:58 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:57 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My point was that many animal migrate long distances. A better example may be the monarch butterfly.

How did the photo receptors evolve into being? until you had them their would be no knowlege of the existence of light. why evolve something that will have no effect until it is developed enough to detect light?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:43 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did the photo receptors evolve into being? until you had them their would be no knowlege of the existence of light. why evolve something that will have no effect until it is developed enough to detect light?


Photo receptors aren't complicated. It's a simple issue of moving towards or away from the light, depending only on how the bacteria survives. The bacteria that have these photo receptors surived to reproduce; the bacteria that did not died out.

My point was that many animal migrate long distances. A better example may be the monarch butterfly.


Sloths are not migratory whatsoever. How did they slink their way from South America to the Middle East? This would have been an arduous journey with countless thousands dead along the way. Yet we don't find any fossils of migratory sloths. Go figure.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/8/2007 at 7:57 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:56 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, however you have not told me how the receptors would come from non existence. How would the mechanics that go into simple light sensitive devises evolve.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:33 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, however you have not told me how the receptors would come from non existence. How would the mechanics that go into simple light sensitive devises evolve.


It takes a single mutation in the genetic code. When multiple bacterium receive this mutation, natural selection dictates that they will out-compete the bacterium without the mutation.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:34 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The last I checked all recorded random mutations, cause bad things to happen.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:12 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The last I checked all recorded random mutations, cause bad things to happen.


This is simply not the case. For example, how does developing darker and more sun-absorbant skin in sunny areas of the Earth bad? It's not. It's a simple alteration in the gene that controls the pigment in our skin. Far as I know, no one of any skin color experiences side effects from the color of their skin pigment.

You have to be careful when you hear generalized statements like "No muations are advantageous," or "All mutations are harmful or no better than neutral." Odds are, the scientists who have studied evolution for a living for the past 150 years have thought of ideas like that already. Propoganda like "Darwin's Black Box," "The Creationist Handbook," and Answers in Genesis are not reliable sources of scientific information.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/9/2007 at 5:58 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:57 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Developing darker skin is not the same as a person developing a hard bone like exoskeleton, or some other entirely new organ.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:23 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Developing darker skin is not the same as a person developing a hard bone like exoskeleton, or some other entirely new organ.


Irrelevant. Organs come about through more than one mutation over a much longer period in time. Skin color does not, and the fact remains that it is an example of many beneficial mutations.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:18 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, but I can think of many mutations that are bad. The least of which would be cancer.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:22 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
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.