|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
None of those links explain why such a catastrophic event such as the ice age was omitted from the bible. Better yet why would god unleash another apocalypse on heels of the great flood? Was this to keep man on his toes?
|
Yeah, my bad, you had to click two whole links to get to them... heh. I suggest http://www.google.com if you want an answer faster than I can type.
| quote: |
I'm still curious how Noah was able to catch, keep, and feed ferocious t-rexs and velociraptors. The links sight that teenage dinosaurs were used, but even a teenage t-rex would be more than a handful. Teenage t-rexs have a quite an appetite gain 5 lbs/day. How in the heck could you feed two hungry t-rexes and keep them contained in a boat full of animals? T-rex's are carnivores so you have to stock the boat not only with two animals of each but animals enough to feed all the other carnivores and plants for the herbivores. Its more than a stretch of the imagination envision such scenario as possible given man's technology around 2000 bc.
|
I find it interesting that you somehow know a teenage t-rex gains 5 lbs a day. Whatever though... Let's pretend your weird guesses at dinosaur growth rates are correct.
First off - this Noah's Ark operation had the personal guidance of God. He used Noah to preserve his creation (man) and also everything else he created (animals, earth). He used a Flood because it would leave a long standing mark on the entire world of exactly what God thought about sin. I hate to use the "God did it!" cop out here - but I mean come on man - I think God is able to keep a couple of newly hatched carnivore dinosaurs from eating every chicken that comes by. How did Noah feed everything? Not sure, maybe he caught fish, used seaweed, whatever. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on these matters; what we do know is God was there to make sure everything went smooth.
As for the ice age and the Flood, I'll use direct links for you:
[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification. But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp <-- a good Noah's ark defense
| quote: |
That micro evolution thing doesn't even make sense because if you don't take all species on to the boat then they need to re-evolve with in less then 2000 years. It says creationist also believe that the flood was followed directly after by the ice age. So even less time for animals to evolve because ice has to travel down, stay for a while, retreat, then the animals need time to recover then re-evolve. Then for the next 2000 years evolution has to put on the brakes and screeched to a crawl.
|
Re-evolve? Why? The current animals on earth, in 2004, are a representation from the "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the Ark. Two wolves on the Ark, 4,000 years ago could create a variable wolf-like animal kingdom (dogs, wolves, whatever) - actually, with 4,000 years, it could create an exponentially more diverse kingdom than we see now. This is provable by evolutionary theory, in fact. We have discussed this before in this thread (Opus went into great detail on Germ theory) - I suggest reading that.
| quote: |
Oh I didn’t see any mention of why evolution works only on animals and not humans? My head is starting to hurt reading all that convoluted reasoning how the laws of nature contort themselves to fit the stories of the bible. |
Who said the humans aren't changing? They're aren't evolving in a "macro" sense, into some other "kind" (macroevolution has yet to be observed or proven, it is merely speculation). Do you think Adam had kids that were black, white, chinese and arabic?
The convoluted reasoning you are reading is just ways evolutionary theory has brainwashed you because it's treated as fact. You're proving it by showing your biased toward evolution, when I can tell you haven't even heard any of the pro-Biblical science arguments. I suggest doing some serious reading on the subject and make your own decision.
Ask yourself why you don't believe there is a God; if it's because you think evolution explains why we are here (and we've mentioned that abiogenesis, or life from nothing, is not even a part of evolutionary theory) - I ask that you give both sides of the story a fair chance before you take a side. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I find it interesting that you somehow know a teenage t-rex gains 5 lbs a day. Whatever though... Let's pretend your weird guesses at dinosaur growth rates are correct.
I hate to use the "God did it!" cop out here - but I mean come on man - I think God is able to keep a couple of newly hatched carnivore dinosaurs from eating every chicken that comes by. How did Noah feed everything? Not sure, maybe he caught fish, used seaweed, whatever. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on these matters; what we do know is God was there to make sure everything went smooth. |
I didn't come up with the growth rates, they're from respected experts in the field http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGHB86G4Q1.DTL One of your own links said teenage dinosaurs. Just remember t-rex is a fully grown, six ton, killing machine by age 20.
its kind of pointless to argue if you're going to use the god made so to explain the impossible.
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
As for the ice age and the Flood, I'll use direct links for you:
[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification. But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age. |
You're not addressing the question i posed why isn't it in the bible not whether i like the timeline that non-creationists have layed out.
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Re-evolve? Why? The current animals on earth, in 2004, are a representation from the "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the Ark. Two wolves on the Ark, 4,000 years ago could create a variable wolf-like animal kingdom (dogs, wolves, whatever) - actually, with 4,000 years, it could create an exponentially more diverse kingdom than we see now. This is provable by evolutionary theory, in fact. We have discussed this before in this thread (Opus went into great detail on Germ theory) - I suggest reading that.
|
Edit: That's right you don't believe in an initial evolution, so after the flood you would consider starting point of the first evolution. Since you agree its impossible to fit all species on the ark. You're contending that Noah would only take base species. But if you embark upon this notion you begin to encounter a whole host of problems:
1. It's ludicrous to imagine Noah could figure out which are the base species. You can only explain this is by relying on your trump card of intervention by god.
2. Even if Noah can decide which is the base species then you have to have enough time after the flood to fill in all the gaps. And like I said you've got to contend with an ice age on the heels of the flood that doesn't allow for enough time for even microevolution or the re-population and distribution of animals through out the planet.
For example god creates zebra and horse, then Noah decides to take base species, let's say zebra, horse dies in flood, Noah reintroduces zebra and then zebra needs to micro-evolve into horse. Sounds crazy but that's your theory not mine.
3. Then there is the whole logistical nightmare of picking up all the land animals. Remember they are scattered through out the globe on every continent. Also this is around 2000 BC, no maps of the world have been made yet. For example Noah would have to travel to Australia to pick up the Kangaroo and any other unique animals to that region, then do the same for each continent. Oh and after the flood he would have to sail around the world drop off each animal where he picked them up. Here again I think you need to use your trump card of god's intervention to explain this.
4. Finally if I remember my bible correctly Noah took all land animals. He didn't select only base species. I quote "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Hahaha, it cracks me up to see how the best explanation to disprove the theory of evolution is sped up "micro"evolution :) |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Just remember t-rex is a fully grown killing machine |
It's been a topic of debate in paleontology lately as to whether T-rex were predators or scavengers. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
You're not addressing the question i posed why isn't it in the bible not whether i like the timeline that non-creationists have layed out.
|
And you're not addressing my point, which was evolutionists are assuming when it happened. I stated clearly:
the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model
I can try using smaller words for you if you wish...
| quote: |
Edit: That's right you don't believe in an initial evolution, so after the flood you would consider starting point of the first evolution. Since you agree its impossible to fit all species on the ark. You're contending that Noah would only take base species. But if you embark upon this notion you begin to encounter a whole host of problems:
1. It's ludicrous to imagine Noah could figure out which are the base species. You can only explain this is by relying on your trump card of intervention by god.
|
Try to imagine some great people of the past being *gasp* smarter, and wiser, than you.
| quote: |
2. Even if Noah can decide which is the base species then you have to have enough time after the flood to fill in all the gaps. And like I said you've got to contend with an ice age on the heels of the flood that doesn't allow for enough time for even microevolution or the re-population and distribution of animals through out the planet.
|
An interesting, yet completely incorrect, statement. Hell, evolutionists don't see a problem with this - why do you? Get your facts straight. You're calling both sides wrong with this completely ignorant statement.
| quote: |
For example god creates zebra and horse, then Noah decides to take base species, let's say zebra, horse dies in flood, Noah reintroduces zebra and then zebra needs to micro-evolve into horse. Sounds crazy but that's your theory not mine.
|
Hahah... your logic, or lack there of it, astounds me. Try backing up your statements with something that can be at least construed as fact and not some idiotic rant...
| quote: |
3. Then there is the whole logistical nightmare of picking up all the land animals. Remember they are scattered through out the globe on every continent. Also this is around 2000 BC, no maps of the world have been made yet. For example Noah would have to travel to Australia to pick up the Kangaroo and any other unique animals to that region, then do the same for each continent. Oh and after the flood he would have to sail around the world drop off each animal where he picked them up. Here again I think you need to use your trump card of god's intervention to explain this.
|
Ok I'm beginning to think you either have dyslexia or just don't want to try and think.
Once again, and this is the last time I'm going to reply to your post if you keep posting pure ignorance - read a Creation model. You obviously have not understood or even read anything I posted earlier.
I have done the respects of reading, understanding and respecting the evolutionary model. You have not done the same.
| quote: |
4. Finally if I remember my bible correctly Noah took all land animals. He didn't select only base species. I quote "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." |
Completely taken out of context. It says before that, clearly:
Genesis 6:19–20:
‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’
Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’
---------------------------------------------
Opus... come back! Hehe. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
And you're not addressing my point, which was evolutionists are assuming when it happened. I stated clearly:
the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model
I can try using smaller words for you if you wish... |
If I'm not mistaken, the great flood is explained by creationists as the breaking of firmament which holds upper waters away from the lower waters (because the water had to come from somewhere). If that was the case, it would mean that the Earth was encircled in a great sphere of water. Such a sphere would prevent large amount of sunlight, and the only result from that water falling down would be an increase in the temperature, as the barrier would be removed.
One more thing about the great flood is that if we consider that it was raining for 40 days, and the hight of Mt Everest is about 9km, the water level was globally supposed to rise at 10m/h or 2.5mm/s. I'm kinda wondering how such a flood didn't fill Noah's boat with water too...
| quote: | | Try to imagine some great people of the past being *gasp* smarter, and wiser, than you. |
Are you proposing that people 5000 years ago had greater knowledge of biology and species relations than they do now? Because even now there are approximately a million or two undiscovered species. Why then do we not have any historical record of a systematic organized table of every existing species on Earth (plus the extinct ones, like dinosaurs, homo erectus, autsralopithecus afarensis, neanderthal...)?
| quote: | | An interesting, yet completely incorrect, statement. Hell, evolutionists don't see a problem with this - why do you? Get your facts straight. You're calling both sides wrong with this completely ignorant statement. |
We can analyze historical records and see that species didn't change much over the last few thousand years. A lion on a babylonian statue looks exactly the same as a lion looks today. You are proposing that every single species on Earth evolved in the last 5000 or so years from several key species. How do you explain then that the oldest drawings of species present exactly the same species we see today? Because, as I've said in my earlier post to which you haven't replied, if evolution of big mammals was happening at such a great pace, we would notice changes in the last several hundred years.
Another thing that disproves your theory is that by analyzing the amount of crossing over and random mutations in fertilization, we can pretty much approximate the amount of time needed for species to evolve from the same common ancestor. And guess what? Those analyses all show that creatures miraculously took longer time to evolve than your theory would suggest, and even more miraculously, those estimated times fit perfectly with observed fossile records and carbon dating.
| quote: | | Hahah... your logic, or lack there of it, astounds me. Try backing up your statements with something that can be at least construed as fact and not some idiotic rant... |
Well, from your theory we can either conclude that which igottaknow said, or that horses infact didn't exist at all prior to flood and evolved afterwards.
| quote: | Ok I'm beginning to think you either have dyslexia or just don't want to try and think.
Once again, and this is the last time I'm going to reply to your post if you keep posting pure ignorance - read a Creation model. You obviously have not understood or even read anything I posted earlier.
I have done the respects of reading, understanding and respecting the evolutionary model. You have not done the same. |
Eh, which creation model? There are various different contradicting ones. Please provide a link.
| quote: | | Opus... come back! Hehe. |
While you're waiting for Opus, you may reply to my previous post about the age of the universe which you conviniently skipped. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
If I'm not mistaken, the great flood is explained by creationists as the breaking of firmament which holds upper waters away from the lower waters (because the water had to come from somewhere). If that was the case, it would mean that the Earth was encircled in a great sphere of water. Such a sphere would prevent large amount of sunlight, and the only result from that water falling down would be an increase in the temperature, as the barrier would be removed.
|
It's theorized it would create a hyperbaric chamber like effect on the earth.
As for the increase in temperature... a worldwide catastrophe like the Flood would change world climate severely (once again, theorized) - causing said Ice Age.
| quote: |
One more thing about the great flood is that if we consider that it was raining for 40 days, and the hight of Mt Everest is about 9km, the water level was globally supposed to rise at 10m/h or 2.5mm/s. I'm kinda wondering how such a flood didn't fill Noah's boat with water too...
|
You're assuming Mt. Everest was there before the Flood. I'm not saying it wasn't (because we can't ever really know) - it's theorized that the breaking of the firmament caused geologic shifts (as you can imagine) - mountains rising, canyons forming, etc etc.
| quote: |
Are you proposing that people 5000 years ago had greater knowledge of biology and species relations than they do now? Because even now there are approximately a million or two undiscovered species. Why then do we not have any historical record of a systematic organized table of every existing species on Earth (plus the extinct ones, like dinosaurs, homo erectus, autsralopithecus afarensis, neanderthal...)?
|
I'm proposing that Noah had the intelligent to do what he was told by God. Some guidance on "kinds" as in a Biblical sense:
(By the way you are confusing "kind" with "species")
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...v22n3_liger.asp
http://www.trueorigins.org/arkdefen.asp
| quote: |
We can analyze historical records and see that species didn't change much over the last few thousand years. A lion on a babylonian statue looks exactly the same as a lion looks today. You are proposing that every single species on Earth evolved in the last 5000 or so years from several key species. How do you explain then that the oldest drawings of species present exactly the same species we see today? Because, as I've said in my earlier post to which you haven't replied, if evolution of big mammals was happening at such a great pace, we would notice changes in the last several hundred years.
|
What do you expect, extra limbs? Once again, you're trying to refute something that pretty much every evolutionist agrees with.
And if you're trying to use ancient "drawings" of creatures to prove they are exactly the same now as then... that's a bit insane don't you think?
| quote: |
Another thing that disproves your theory is that by analyzing the amount of crossing over and random mutations in fertilization, we can pretty much approximate the amount of time needed for species to evolve from the same common ancestor. And guess what? Those analyses all show that creatures miraculously took longer time to evolve than your theory would suggest, and even more miraculously, those estimated times fit perfectly with observed fossile records and carbon dating.
|
This is taken from: http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp
“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
“Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
[For the reader’s benefit, a tautology is equivalent to defining an idea simply by restating the same idea in different terms (=circular reasoning)]
“As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding.” [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist), “The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]
| quote: |
Well, from your theory we can either conclude that which igottaknow said, or that horses infact didn't exist at all prior to flood and evolved afterwards.
|
We can readdress his extremely illogical statement after you've read the above articles, if you wish.
| quote: |
Eh, which creation model? There are various different contradicting ones. Please provide a link.
|
Let's use this one for now:
http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.asp
You'll find refutes to said theory at:
http://www.talkorigins.org
And you'll find refutes to said refutes at:
http://www.trueorigins.org
| quote: |
While you're waiting for Opus, you may reply to my previous post about the age of the universe which you conviniently skipped. |
There was nothing to discuss, since you merely stated your opinion on the matter. If you wish to readdress this, let me know, and what part.
I agree that methods used to calculate star distances are impressive, and the best that we have right now. While impressive, I wouldn't consider these imperical or infalliable by any means. A study of the changes to the technology and the consistant improving of methods to do such has brought such varied results that you can't help to be skeptical.
We can discuss the speed of light decrease, techniques used to measure distances of distant stars/galaxies, or the "curved space" theory if you wish. Just let me know - it'll get a bit long winded. ;) |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Let me reiterate my questions and a good one Tito mentioned:
1. Concerning the flood:
a) Where did all the water come from and then go to?
b) How could only 40 days of rain cover the earth?
2. You still haven't answered my question... Why isn't the ice age mentioned in the bible?
3. Another question you didn't answer, how did Noah pick up all land animals? You said there was no need to go to the North Pole for the polar bear because a local bear could be substituted. I'll go along with that but what about species that have no similar counter parts like the Kangaroo? So what if god tells Noah about the Kangaroo. He still needs to sail around the world and find Australia then catch them. It would take more than a lifetime to do this for each content. If I asked you to do the same thing, how long would it take you?
You keep asking us to stop making up assumptions because we were not there we can’t postulate what happened. If you’re going to ask us not to do this would it not be fair to ask the same of you?
How did Noah convey his recollections of the great flood? Maybe he kept a journal? Not possible. Why not? Writing hadn’t been invented yet. So from Adam and Eve all the way past Noah the only way to pass information would be orally from one generation to the next. Not the most reliable method if you ask me. That’s also assuming they had a spoken language. Then the bible is written thousands of years after these events occurred and you treat the account as if you were there yourself.
The prevalent belief of religious and non-religious people today is that biblical stories are parables intended to teach people morals and spirituality, not as a factual, historical record. Sure some are based on real events but many are not. It’s like if someone thousands of years in the future found the story of Santa Claus and constructed theories to prove he existed and used flying reindeer to deliver presents around the globe. That’s what you are doing and it’s sounds really crazy. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Let me reiterate my questions and some good ones Tito mentioned:
1. Concerning the flood:
a) Where did all the water come from and then go to?
b) How could only 40 days of rain cover the earth?
|
I answered this with the links above. You obviously have not read them.
Simply, "the fountains of the deep" (water from under the crust of the earth) and "rain from the heavens" (meaning the layer of water/ice theorized to be surrounding the planet).
| quote: |
2. You still haven't answered my question... Why isn't the ice age mentioned in the bible?
|
I've answered this twice actually. This will be the third time.
But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.
There is no "ice age" in the Bible because it did not last 10,000 years like evolutionists say. (At least from a Biblical point of view). The effects of a "high-energy catastrophic Flood" are what brought us "ice-age-like" geological events, such as huge chunks of ice scraping up through Canada and stuff like that. We can discuss these if you want, however I must stress they are clearly covered on any main Creationist site. I've listed these above.
| quote: |
3. Another question you didn't answer, how did Noah pick up all land animals? You said there was no need to go to the North Pole for the polar bear because a local bear could be substituted. I'll go along with that but what about species that have no similar counter parts like the Kangaroo? So what if god tells Noah about the Kangaroo. He still needs to sail around the world and find Australia then catch them. It would take more than a lifetime to do this for each content. If I asked you to do the same thing, how long would it take you?
|
I responded to this with an excellent article that you obviously did not read. Once again, I implore you to read Creation theory (which I've also linked above).
As for kangaroo biological "kinds" and interbreedable creatures, I'd have to research that.
| quote: |
You keep asking us to stop making up assumptions because we were not there we can’t postulate what happened. If you’re going to ask us not to do this would it not be fair to ask the same of you?
|
I've never claimed to have empirical or falsifiable evidence for a Creation. (although the subject is debatable)
You're twisting my argument around completely - it was me asking you guys to not do that.
| quote: |
How did Noah convey his recollections of the great flood? Maybe he kept a journal? Not possible. Why not? Writing hadn’t been invented yet. So from Adam and Eve all the way past Noah the only way to pass information would be orally from one generation to the next. Not the most reliable method if you ask me. That’s also assuming they had a spoken language. Then the bible is written thousands of years after these events occurred and you treat the account as if you were there yourself.
|
Interesting how you assume ancient people are your intellectual inferior.
"According to Judaism the Pentateuch (e.g., the Five Books of Moses; the first five books of the Bible) were dictated through prophecy by God to Moses, who penned them."
This was estimated to take place around 1400 BC. It is believed that the stories of legend were passed down through culture, and the finalized version (Scripture) to be done by the prophet Moses.
| quote: |
The prevalent belief of religious and non-religious people today is that biblical stories are parables intended to teach people morals and spirituality, not as a factual, historical record. Sure some are based on real events but many are not. It’s like if someone thousands of years in the future found the story of Santa Claus and constructed theories to prove he existed and used flying reindeer to deliver presents around the globe. That’s what you are doing and it’s sounds really crazy. |
100% incorrect. Give me sources, statistics, or something. Until then, I'll treat this as yet another off the wall opinion stated as fact from you. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
"According to Judaism the Pentateuch (e.g., the Five Books of Moses; the first five books of the Bible) were dictated through prophecy by God to Moses, who penned them." |
You have said earlier in this thread that the bible is a more accurate source of historical information because it was composed by people who observed those events first hand. But here you admit that events of the Old Testament were indirectly communicated by god thousands of years later to Moses not by the actual participants, so they are NOT first hand accounts.
| quote: | | But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age. |
My interpretation of that quote is that the ice age was the aftermath of the flood, meaning it occurred after the flood. ie cloud cover for an extended duration would lower the earth's temperature triggering an ice age.
| quote: | | Simply, "the fountains of the deep" (water from under the crust of the earth) and "rain from the heavens" (meaning the layer of water/ice theorized to be surrounding the planet). |
So your explaination is water bubbled up from under the crust of the earth and after the flood the water seeped back under the crust? Don't you know lava is under the crust not water? Furthermore if the bible doesn't specifically say that this occurred then, what reason do you assume this to be true? Do you realize that all your explanations fly in the face of accepted natural laws. Speed of light isn't constant, radiation decay, red shift,...
Btw, I just skimmed an interesting article on problems with the flood theory
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html
It's quite long and complex but one point that is quite striking is that all plant life would be killed by the flood. How would any of plant eating animals survive afterwards? What about the supply of oxygen with no plant life on the planet? |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Yeah, my bad, you had to click two whole links to get to them... heh. I suggest http://www.google.com if you want an answer faster than I can type.
I find it interesting that you somehow know a teenage t-rex gains 5 lbs a day. Whatever though... Let's pretend your weird guesses at dinosaur growth rates are correct.
First off - this Noah's Ark operation had the personal guidance of God. He used Noah to preserve his creation (man) and also everything else he created (animals, earth). He used a Flood because it would leave a long standing mark on the entire world of exactly what God thought about sin. I hate to use the "God did it!" cop out here - but I mean come on man - I think God is able to keep a couple of newly hatched carnivore dinosaurs from eating every chicken that comes by. How did Noah feed everything? Not sure, maybe he caught fish, used seaweed, whatever. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on these matters; what we do know is God was there to make sure everything went smooth.
As for the ice age and the Flood, I'll use direct links for you:
[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification. But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp <-- a good Noah's ark defense
Re-evolve? Why? The current animals on earth, in 2004, are a representation from the "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the Ark. Two wolves on the Ark, 4,000 years ago could create a variable wolf-like animal kingdom (dogs, wolves, whatever) - actually, with 4,000 years, it could create an exponentially more diverse kingdom than we see now. This is provable by evolutionary theory, in fact. We have discussed this before in this thread (Opus went into great detail on Germ theory) - I suggest reading that.
Who said the humans aren't changing? They're aren't evolving in a "macro" sense, into some other "kind" (macroevolution has yet to be observed or proven, it is merely speculation). Do you think Adam had kids that were black, white, chinese and arabic?
The convoluted reasoning you are reading is just ways evolutionary theory has brainwashed you because it's treated as fact. You're proving it by showing your biased toward evolution, when I can tell you haven't even heard any of the pro-Biblical science arguments. I suggest doing some serious reading on the subject and make your own decision.
Ask yourself why you don't believe there is a God; if it's because you think evolution explains why we are here (and we've mentioned that abiogenesis, or life from nothing, is not even a part of evolutionary theory) - I ask that you give both sides of the story a fair chance before you take a side. |
One major flaw in the flood story that is not brought up often is, what did the carnivores eat to stay alive after the flood? Think about it - if Noah took 2 of each land animal (or 7 depending on which story you choose to read today) then they would not have enough food to last a month post-flood. It is an impossibility. Do you have any clue how much a lion or any other large carnivore eats in a single month. Common sense people, common sense.
Here are passages from some thing i read once about the ark::
This boat would of been bigger than a super-tanker!
The ark would have to be the single largest ship ever in the history of the world. Modern technology could not possibly create a ship large and stable enough to act as Noah's Ark
Many species of land animal require highly specialised habitat and food to survive. Koala bears, for instance, eat one kilogram of fresh Eucalyptus- tree leaves per day, which provide all their water and nutrition (some people have suggested Noah had a year's supply of dried Euc. leaves. But Koalas need the leaves for their water. What did Noah do? Rehydrate them? With what, a desalination plant? Hold them out in the rain every morning?) Also, no matter what time of year it was, many creatures would be hibernating (it's always winter somewhere on the globe). Many creatures are only found on one continent, indeed some are limited to a small island/forest/mountain. It's a neat trick to be able to walk thousands of miles to the Middle East if you're hibernating on a remote island near Alaska.
Where did Noah find the pitch to waterproof the Ark with? Flood theorists say that all the world's oil / petroleum deposits were formed during the Flood. How could Noah find and use pitch to waterproof the Ark before the Flood, when the pitch was formed during the Flood? Did he have SCUBA gear as well, and kept diving down to gather fresh pitch from the ocean floor and apply it to the Ark while it was floating around? Pitch is a petroleum deposit, which takes more than a couple of thousand years to form. (Some people argue that "wood-pitch" was used instead, although the commonly held belief is that it was petroleum-pitch).
Using modern equipment, it can take a good shipyard years to build a large ship, using hundreds of men. Noah (five hundred years old at the time) apparently had himself, a few helpers and a lot of gopher-wood trees. We are expected to believe that he built the Ark, using crude hand-tools, over a period of many years in a world filled with evil, scheming criminals. ("The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.")
Some people might find it a little odd that God, omnipotent being who can create entire galaxies in an instant, takes weeks and weeks to flood the planet. Perhaps water is a bit fiddly to create?
Assuming it was fresh water (as it rained) this would have severely diluted the oceans, causing devastation among the marine creatures. Ask anyone with a marine fish-tank just how sensitive reef-fish and corals are to changes in water conditions. Virtually all sea-life that could not stand brackish water would have been destroyed.
Then, after the waters subside (where to?) there are still more problems with the story. What happened to all the corpses of the countless numbers of animals and humans that died? Surely there would have been terrible plague and disease caused by all that rotting meat.
Many claims are made for sighting of the remains of the Ark in the mountains of Turkey. These Ark-pieces are supposed to be about nine thousand feet up the side of one precipitous mountain or another (usually Ararat). Now, these mountains are not gently rolling hills. They're huge great things covered with snow and full of jagged crevices. The mountain-goats, birds and flying squirrels could have probably got down safely (as long as they didn't freeze or starve on the way), but elephants, penguins, camels and crocodiles are not noted for their natural mountaineering ability.
How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?
As there were only two of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialised) food supply?
Many of the animals hibernated, or went into some sort of suspended animation.
As mentioned above, how the already-hibernating beasties get there in the first place? Was this a natural form of hibernation (which requires the build-up of large fat reserves first), or some sort of miraculous state? How did the animals build up enough fat whilst walking thousands of miles to the Ark (which would be quite good exercise)? If it was all done with miracles, then why do creationists insist on explaining everything in naturalistic terms? Which is it? Magic or mundane?
Once Noah had seen all the animals off, he then had to set about repopulating the world. Again, incest in the bible rears it's ugly head. Noah's family had to inbreed to have children. Sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, first cousins and first cousins (as Noah's sons had their wives with them - eight people altogether) all nicely mixed together
There was no flood and the bible was made up to scare the ignorant masses so they stay in line.
Oh ya..to bible huggers...here's a question i have still never heard an answer to.
DID TREES HAVE RINGS IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN? |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| almost forgot...i do beleive in a god...just not your mass-murdering, baby killing sadistic old man in the sky that is described in the bible.:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
