I think the Great Flood is a myth. This is primarily because I have some serious concerns about the plausibility of such an event and the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence to back up this story. I decided I'd ask totse a few questions about this event.

Actually, before delving into this issue I'd like to clarify something. The Bible states in Genesis 7:12 that it did in fact rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Some scholars suggest that the at the end of the last "ice age" (technical term: glaciation, we're still in an ice age) sea levels rose, causing the inundation of what we now call the Black Sea. I dismiss this as unbiblical simply because it is not the type of flood described by Genesis 7:12. Either it rained for 40 days and forty nights, or God is rather incompetent and can't properly describe his own flood.

With that said, let's get down to business.

1: There isn't enough water on Earth for such a flood to have ever taken place. I doubt there is enough hydrogen on the surface for it to have ever taken place. However, God is omniscient and could have magically created/removed the water for this flood to have taken place. I can see the motive behind that.

Please don't try to bring up arguments that claim that the water naturally rose up out of the earth, or the earth was super humid or anything like that. You've been warned.

2: Ice Caps

So, apparently the entire world was covered in water. Everything was covered, sans Noah's ark. This includes the ice caps. Here's the problem. Ice caps and glaciers tend to keep really good historical records. The problem is, there is absolutely no evidence for a flood in these ice caps. No ice cap or glacier has shown any evidence of a global flood, such as the one described by Genesis, taking place. It is fairly easy to prove that these records go back at least 40,000 years using a number of methods (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html ). As there is no evidence in the ice caps of a great flood ever occurring, I remain rather skeptical. I'd like to see some of this evidence (or a convincing reason why there shouldn't be any evidence) before believing that Noah and his ark really existed.

3: No Scientific evidence whatsoever

This is basically an extension of #2. For me to believe in a global flood I'm going to need some scientific evidence. Present it to me and I'll look over it and give you my opinion on it.

4: Animals

How many animals do you guys believe were on the ark? I just want a number, for now.

5: Logistics

First of all, all the animals would have had to eat. Food would have had to be brought aboard (although Genesis conveniently fails to mention this). Some animals, such as the koala, need specialized types of food. The bible makes no mention of this. Also, how did a pair of koalas get from Australia to Asia? In fact, there are thousands of animals that are geographically isolated. The bible would have us believe that they left their homes, made an intercontinental journey, boarded noah's ark, waited the flood out, and returned to their island. Why should I believe such patent nonsense?

6: Plants

Many plants cannot survive underwater. Granted, I suppose the seeds could, so I'm not saying that plants should be extinct. However, there would be very little living vegetation for the survivors of the flood to eat. So, uh, what did the survivors of the flood eat? What about the carnivores? I should probably sort that out before believing this story.

7: Coexistence

Um, many of the animals on the ark are natural predators/prey. Explain to me why none of the animals on Noah's ark got eaten.

8: The Ark

I want to know how Noah built this ark. He had only stone age tools. As far as I can tell, the bible basically says he built this 450 foot ark with logs and pitch (and probably rope, but that isn't mentioned explicitly). Even with modern technology, we cannot build wooden ships longer than 300 feet, and when we do, they are braced with steel and must be pumped constantly to avoid sinking (source: talkorigins). So, before getting exploring a possible labor/resource shortage, I want to get a basic idea of how this ark would have been built.

9: Fossils

This isn't biblical, but many christians like to claim that fossils and many types of rock were deposited by the flood. Does anyone here actually believe this?

I've omitted a ton of what I wrote, simply so I could ask you guys some basic questions and get your side of the story, rather than make a bunch of assumptions. Any answers to these questions are greatly appreciated.

I don't understand why anyone would think the Great Flood was anything more or anything less than a large but localized flooding of Mesopotamia.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I don't understand why anyone would think the Great Flood was anything more or anything less than a large but localized flooding of Mesopotamia.

That's exactly my thinking as well. They do say that the "world" flooded. Now way back then the only civilized cultures on the planet were in mesopotamia. At the time that was the world to those people.

I've yet to be dazzled by the psuedo-science that supports the Great Flood and I don't think I ever will. Believing in that is tantamount to insanity.

Good post.

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

That's exactly my thinking as well. They do say that the "world" flooded. Now way back then the only civilized cultures on the planet were in mesopotamia. At the time that was the world to those people.

Compare the Hebrew word for "world" and compare it to the Hebrew "region".

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

That's exactly my thinking as well. They do say that the "world" flooded. Now way back then the only civilized cultures on the planet were in mesopotamia. At the time that was the world to those people.

But that's not what the bible says, and the bible's always right!

Genesis 7:17-20

17 For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground and lifting the boat high above the earth. 18 As the waters rose higher and higher above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface. 19 Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, 20 standing more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.

If this was a local flood, God failed to describe it properly and is bloody incompetent.

Edit: I hate the insert key...

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 08-24-2005).]

So, has it been said yet that the biblical flood was most likely stolen from earlier flood stories, and that there is evidence those earlier flood stories were about a local flood?

Or that the bible shows evidence it was written from an uneducated human perspective as it often speaks of all the countries or people of the world, yet ignores the Americas, and even closer locations such as China.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

So, has it been said yet that the biblical flood was most likely stolen from earlier flood stories, and that there is evidence those earlier flood stories were about a local flood?

I don't think 'stolen' is the right word. More like 'evolved from.'

As in the story of the Biblical Flood evolved from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was passed down from generation to generation , and could have conceivably been told to Abraham, as well.

quote:Or that the bible shows evidence it was written from an uneducated human perspective as it often speaks of all the countries or people of the world, yet ignores the Americas, and even closer locations such as China.

I don't think anyone today thinks that the Bible isn't more than a collection of stories about the people of the Fertile Crescent and Mesopotamia.

Also, as to the 'uneducated human perspective,' I always found it interesting that Bible sets the maximum age that humans could reach at 120 years. While we have seen and still have humans that have lived longer(not by much though,) I always was intrigued that the 'uneducated' people of the Bible almost hit the nail on the head.

Rabbi, I'm going to assume you don't live in the US, or at least don't follow the news. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I should say that "uneducated" is not meant to be an insult to those who wrote the bible, just a statement that they didn't know what we know now. Just like Newton was "uneducated" compared to scientists of today. I probably should have said lacking knowledge.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-24-2005).]

First, I want you to listen to what Russ Miller has to say: http://creation ministries.org/seminars.asp

This will set the stage for why I refuse to believe the veritable swiss cheese that is the Evolutionary Theory.

He also talks about the strata layers and rock formations, which support the global flood theory.

He is very simplistic...but he is just a regular guy. He has access to texts that anyone does. This guy just proves how easy it is to disprove evolution, when you put forth just a TINY bit of effort in locating contradicting information.

Don't let his mannerisms and geeky voice prevent you from listening to his information, please.

I am still working on my post. It is already 4 paragraphs long, and I have to go home, so...patience, Daniel-san.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-25-2005).]

Great, I can't wait to see how you prove one of the most supported theories in all of science wrong, Digital.

Well, then...you are in for a treat, PL !

Watch the seminars, please. They are interesting, at the very least.

We are still waiting for you to prove ID.

Will this post be as good as your copy and pasted "proof" of ID in that other thread.

*clears throat*

WATCH THE SEMINARS. You skeered ?

I will expound on all of it after you have watched them. I am on my way home from work. I can't do it right now.

And yes, this will answer most of the questions about ID as well.

Stay tuned.

I have noticed,

•Creationists seem to assume we haven't heard the information they provide, yet it always ends up being the same old crap. Why is that?

•Creationists tend to throw large copy and paste/sites at people that often have little to do with the topic saying, "that will prove it" yet never can explain things themselves.

•The amazing evidence is always just around the corner, yet we never actually make it around the corner. When this is pointed out, they ignore it (like Digital is ignoring the ID thread for this one).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*clears throat*

WATCH THE SEMINARS. You skeered ?

I will expound on all of it after you have watched them. I am on my way home from work. I can't do it right now.

And yes, this will answer most of the questions about ID as well.

Stay tuned.



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You've made countless promises, saying that you'd provide evidence of intelligent design, that you'll provide evidence of how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, that you'll show how creationism is fact... and yet you end up providing absolutely nothing; as the ID thread, and the late Thermodynamics thread, and the Creationism thread in Mad Sciencets have all shown.

We're not scared, what we are is tired of the same tactics.



In the interest that this debate finally produce some responses from creationists/IDers, I will be transcribing the "Global Flood" part of the "Seminar" you provided in the links. This should speed up any responses from our resident evolutionsts, which hopefully will net us the much asked for responses from the creationists/IDers. If anyone knows of a transcript of this seminar, then please let me know -- I'm doing this because I do not know of any transcript of this particular one.

[EDIT: I have made a new post containing the full transcript, as this one was getting too long].

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-25-2005).]

So much crap I feel sorry for anyone who believes that stuff.

I was right though, nothing I haven't heard a good 50 literal times before and nothing that hasn't been debunked.

Interesting idea of a transcript, although I'm not sure you should be helping her. She needs to learn that she needs to move her ass and back up her claims or get laughed at... again.

Digital, quick question. Yes or no: do you stand behind everything Russ Miller says?

Rust: thanks for transcribing that. It's incredibly beneficial.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



Interesting idea of a transcript, although I'm not sure you should be helping her. She needs to learn that she needs to move her ass and back up her claims or get laughed at... again.

She's going to claim that seminar is 'her backing up the claims'. That's exactly why I want to transcribe it, so that it helps reference the seminar, and so that there is absolutely no doubt of what she is claiming through it.

Hmm... not a bad point.

I wonder if she runs away from this thread as well. Or posts something completely unrelated to the flood (similar to the unrelated post proving ID).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, I want you to listen to what Russ Miller has to say: ht tp://creat ionministr ies.org/se minars.asp (http: //creation ministries .org/semin ars.asp)

This will set the stage for why I refuse to believe the veritable swiss cheese that is the Evolutionary Theory.

He also talks about the strata layers and rock formations, which support the global flood theory.

He is very simplistic...but he is just a regular guy. He has access to texts that anyone does. This guy just proves how easy it is to disprove evolution, when you put forth just a TINY bit of effort in locating contradicting information.

Don't let his mannerisms and geeky voice prevent you from listening to his information, please.

I am still working on my post. It is already 4 paragraphs long, and I have to go home, so...patience, Daniel-san.



I love how Russ keeps this debate purely in tune with Science.



quote:

4. When did Satan fall?

At the end of the six day creation, God called His creation, "very good". Satan was still an angel at this time. Corinthians tells us that death is an enemy to God’s creation. The creation was certainly not full of death at the end of the sixth day and Romans tells us that death came due to man’s original sin. This sin separated us from God and required a Redeemer to reunite us with God. That Redeemer is the Lord Jesus Christ. Death before sin would eliminate any need for Jesus. Ezekiel 28:13-15 tells us that Satan walked in the garden, created on day six, till iniquity was found in him. This was sometime between day seven and one hundred years later. We can surmise this due to Adam being booted from the garden prior to the births of Cain and Able, and the birth of Seth when Adam was 130 years old. This destroys the Gap Theory, Day Age Theories, Progressive Creation, pre-Adamite men, death before sin, etc.



What kind of logic does this teach us? That powers we can't understand control everything so science is pointless. That's where we are going on this trip of creationism.

quote:

7. Why do Creationists fight science?

Creationists do not fight science.

Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, study and testing of evidence. Most branches of modern science were begun by Creation believing scientists. Real science is a Christian’s best friend because observable, testable facts support Creation and destroy evolution. Darwinian Macro-evolution is unobservable and non-testable so it is not science but rather a religious philosophy which rids the world of its Creator.





You can't retest the bible. It is not a history book. If you could retest the bible the only thing it could prove is that the bible is wrong about PI, among countless other things. The bible is not a scientific document so quit trying to pass it off as one.

Full transcript. Please let me know of any errors:

"Things must be buried very quickly to become fossils. We're told that the fossils form slowly as the strata layers from one inch per thousand years. We killed millions of buffalo on the American Plains about 160 years ago yet you do not find fossilized buffalo everywhere, why not? Because it laid on the surface, they rotted away or were eaten by scavengers. Things must be buried in mud quickly to form fossils in the type of numbers we find in the strata layers. This ithcazor[?] was buried so suddenly it was buried while giving birth. Things have to be buried quickly. In the flood theory part AA [?] during the first few months of the flood the land mass began to part. And upwardly exploiting waters eroded the edges of the cracks producing a muddy flow. Plants and animals were buried in stratified sedimentary layers to become today's fossils. They could not have formed slowly. Fossilized dinosaur skin was found in Utah a couple of years ago, and the swirling waters deposited great piles of dead plants and animals to form today's coal and oil deposits and natural gas and fossil graveyards. Fossil graveyards exists were literally thousands of critters were found in small geological regions, buried often times on top of each other, sometimes thirty, forty, fifty feet thick. Often times the bones are intertwined, how could this have happened slowly? They were caught up in whirlpools and deposited in the same location, often times mixing their bones together during the global flood. Yet students are taught that strata layers form slowly and that the fossil sequences prove some sort of evolutionary relationship; this from Science. Fossils are not well sorted like the text-books teach. It states: 'Christians have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression'; it does not. Those fossils are found all out of order. Here's a claw doll that was discovered in Idaho in rock that had been dated 12 million years old.

Here's a shoe sole that was found in rock that had been dated 250 million years old. Evolutionists say humans evolved in the last couple, or so, million years depending on which day of the week it is, and that they only started wearing shoes the last few thousand years; something is wrong, those layers were laid down during the global flood. You can go to a toy store and get one of these glass devices with the different colored sands in them, flip the device over and immediately you get hundreds of finely stratified layers, flip the structure over again and instantaneously you got hundreds of finely stratified layers. It doesn't take millions of years for strata layers to develop, they develop very quickly.

This are polystrata fossils, one of my favorite fossils. Polystrata fossils traverse multiple strata layers. These are tree fossils which are found around the world; some of those trees are upside down, how could this have form slowly? You would have to believe that a tree stood upside down for millions of years for strata to develop around it. That just doesn't make sense. These were laid down in the global flood. And in our Mt. Saint Helens and Grand Canyon presentation, I show you exactly how polystrata tree fossils form during a cataclysmic, aclious[?] event. Only a global flood viably explains the fossils and the strata layers.

But we're told that Science can accurately date things by Carbon Dating. But they admit that all carbon-14 should decay away in between 50 and 70 thousand years. Well accelerator mass spectrometer testing has shown that organic samples from all fossil bearing layers, from the top layers all the way down to the supposed up to 600 million year old Cambrian layer, still have carbon-14 in them! That means they can't be but a few thousand years old; those layers were laid down within the past few thousand years. And even more of a problem for old ages is that the amount of of carbon-14, the range of carbon-14, in this items is same range from the upper to the lower levels. That means that the layers were not only laid down a few thousand years ago, but they were laid down during the same year -- during that year long global flood-- and that's a scientific fact.

The impact and weight of the ice on the poles caused the earth to wobble for a few thousand years. The book of Jasher says, 'on that day the lord caused the whole earth to shake... and the foundations of the world raged, and the whole earth was moved violently...'. Have you ever seen a spinning top? You spin it and it spins in a vertical position very quickly, but if you threw something, like a piece of mud that hit and stuck to the top, it would cause it to wobble back and forth violently; it would continue to spin and eventually stabilize and lose that wobble, but it will be spinning at a tilt. If you graphed out a spinning top that was struck by something it would look like this: it would spin and wobble violently and eventually lose the spin. The earth's tilt as it orbits our sun, causes the solstice. Stonehenge was apparently built to track the solar solstice shadow. An astronomer from Australia did a study of Ancient Greece solstice shadow recordings from Exodus, Amon-Ra, Stonehenge, et cetera; by graphing out the earth's wobble according to the ancient solstice shadow recordings he says it appears something struck the earth about 4,350 years ago, fitting perfectly with the biblical accounts. This from Essentials of Geology: 'The Earth's axis wobbles as that of a spinning top'. This from Associated Press: 'Scientists have found evidence that the earth may have wobbled like an out of balance ball, 44 million years ago' -- that's their religious bias -- it was about 4,400 years ago and probably lost the wobble a little over 2 thousand years ago. The Flood Theory, 9b, is that the earth's wobble stabilized at a tilt. Today the earth is stilted 23 and a 1/2 degrees, this is what causes our seasons. Cold, and heat, and summer, and winter are not mentioned in the bible until after the global flood. Summer occurs when the hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, winter when it is tilted away.

Towards the end of the flood, the fractured plates of the earth shifted. Now evidence given to support 'millions of years' continental drift, are that the continents appear to be moving. They're not really sure because these mainly come from infrared photos, they may be moving an inch or less a year, or they may just be wobbling back and forth; no one is really sure. They also say the shapes of the continents appear to fit. This text book says that Africa and South America seem to be a perfect fit, well they do in the picture but what they don't say to the kids is that Africa had to be shrunk by 40% to make the perfect fit. That's misleading isn't it? I say that Africa didn't need to be shrunk, it's that South America is so small today because a lot of it was eroded away by the erupting fountains of the deep, and that eroded the continent and created a lot of the strata layers which buried the plants and animals we found fossilized today. Plate tectonic processes are taught as building mountains over millions of years of time, but the bible says at the end of the flood, they go up by the mountains and down by the valleys. This means that the mountains arose and the valleys sank down towards the end of the flood. If you look at the crust of the earth, you'll find that the crust under the continents averages 30 miles thick, but under the ocean floor, those crusts only average around 3 to 4 miles thick. I would suggest that those thin crusts, in the pre-flood world, were above the fountains of the deep, with the water underneath, but as the fountains of the deep erupted to the surface toward the end of the flood, this now heavy water was on top of these thin layers that were now on top of these empty chambers and at the end of the flood, they collapsed, and the mountains arose, and the valleys sank down in a cataclysmic tectonic event. If you clime to the top of the world's tallest mountains, like Mount Everest, you'll find it littered with sea shells. I live at Flagstaff [?] Arizona at 7,000 feet above sea level, and yet I can show you trolobyte fossils and shark teeth and clam fossils, all around the city of Flagstaff [?]. This textbook tries to tell the kids that, 'Clams would have needed far longer than the 40 day biblical duration of the flood to move up a steep mountainside'. Well if they are going to try and teach kids that the bible is not true, they could at least get the biblical accounts correct. It rained down 40 days and 40 nights, but the flood lasted more than a year and the clams didn't climb up the mountainside, they were vaulted there at the end of the flood when the mountains arose and the valleys sank down.

The textbooks correctly explain that you can't bend rock, it will snap. Then how do evolutionists and 'millions of years' believers explain geologic compression? This is where entire mountain ranges are "squished" together like an accordion. Thousands of feet of strata layers are bent, sometimes in 160 degree bends, yet the rock isn't broken. It is because they were still moist sediment layers after the flood; when the mountains arose, and the valleys sank down, this massive tectonic event smashed plates together around the world, bending the still moist sediment layers without breaking them; they hardened into rock within the past 4,400 years.

And the runoff after the flood eroded canyons in the soft sediments. Submarine canyons are found where most major rivers empty from the continents into the ocean. Under the water surface are submarine canyons, sometimes three times the size of grand canyon, yet the currents may only be 1 mile an hour under the surface, and flowing in the wrong way to have eroded the sediments, and the sediments are nowhere to be found. You see, the last time that the water was rushed off of the continents at the end of the flood, they dug up those canyons from the moist sediment layers and the sediments got dispersed -- they are nowhere to be found today.

The global flood explains strata layers, fossil graveyards, mountain ranges, coal and oil deposits, the frozen mammoths, the submarine canyons, the ice age effects, and geologic compression. The global flood also explains the formation of the Grand Canyon, as we cover in the Grand Canyon and Mt. Helens presentation; yet those with the closed evolutionary mindset will scoff at the overwhelming evidence of the global flood. Anyone's belief in the age of the earth, comes down to how they believe the strata layers formed. We can prove to you, and we do it in our dating method seminar, that the dating methods don't work -- they are unreliable. The belief that you have in the age of the earth come down to how you believe the strata layers formed: quickly in a global flood or over millions of years of time.

The biblical world view is that god created a perfect universe and that it was man's original sin that let death enter god's perfect creation. This original sin separated man from god, and required Jesus' eventual sacrifice on the cross so that we could be re-united with god. All of the old age beliefs in the humanistic view are based on those strata layers having formed slowly over millions of years of time, and man evolving over billions of years of death and suffering. Any belief in slow strata formation puts death before man's sin, and eliminates any reason for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross; and that's what evolution and 'millions of years' beliefs are really all about. I realize many Christians have been fooled into believing in millions of years, and I used to believe the same thing until I learned the information I now share with others. The evidence is overwhelming that the bible is true word for word, and cover to cover. This college text states that it is a fact that life has evolved on earth, and it says on page one that this depended on an immense length of time for life to arise and evolve. Millions of years is the magic ingredient for evolution. Now if the strata layers formed during a global flood, we should find sedimentary layers in a mixed order around the globe. Millions of fossils in the layers and no transitional fossils of any sort being found, and ocean-floor dwelling creatures in the lower layers, with predominantly marine fossils throughout all the layers and more and more land dwelling creatures in the upper layers. We should find polystrata fossils that traverse multiple strata layers and we should find carbon-14 in roughly the same amounts throughout all of the sedimentary rock layers. This is exactly what is found. Real Science always supports the bible, lest you think we have to be unscientific to believe the bible, if you look at the geologic timescale the only difference in the strata layers and in the timescale would be your belief on how long they took to form. I believe the pre-Cambrian represents the original creation and the Cambrian layers begin with the flood, that's the reason you have what they call the "Cambrian explosion" where all the basic body types are found in the lowest strata layers that contain fossils and the biblical time frame fits perfectly with what we find in the earth.

The end of the flood theory is that the world was divided in the days of Peleg. But who was Peleg? The bible says that under Eve were born two sons, one was Peleg, for in his days the world was divided -- Peleg means divided. Well certainly the languages and the people were divided in the Tower of Babble during Peleg's days, but also the melting ice caps filled in the ocean and separated people under the various continents and islands that they had moved to; separating them dividing them -- the earth was divided during the days of Peleg. The textbooks say that 20,000 years ago, the sea level was more than 400 feet lower than it is today, but ice masses melted and the sea level rose. But it wasn't over 20,000 years ago, it was over the last 4,400 years. Over Peleg's lifespan the melting icecaps filled in the sea, dividing the high places and the islands and continents. Jesus says that in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking and marrying, until the day that Noah entered into the Ark and they knew not until the flood came and took them all away. Jesus also says, 'But as the days of Noah were so shall also the coming of the son of man be'. Flood evidence should remind us of god's past and coming judgments of sin. Many people have influenced my thinking on the global flood, I'd like to thank them for their information and study. god bless. I hope this information will be edifying to you and get you to realize that we can believe everything the bible says, word for word and cover to cover; god bless."

Good job. Now refute it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I do have to say, what do they think we are, morons? In the internet age, where many things can be looked up. Lying to us is not a good thing to do.

"Africa had to be shrunk by 40% to make the perfect fit."

Bullshit. Hey look, I can look up an animated GIF of continental drift. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pangbrk.gif

(one of the many). Doesn't look like africa was shrunk at all.

It does give us an understanding of their target audience.

I can't read another word of that bullshit, at least not today. I'll post something tomorrow hopefully.

^ I'm going to do the scientific thing and call for more research. Interesting ideas, but I'd want to see some studies into what he's claiming.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I'm no genius, but even I can tell that there's no fucking way the Grand Canyon could have been formed by a flood.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 08-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



Bullshit. Hey look, I can look up an animated GIF of continental drift. http ://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pangbrk.gif (http: //www.clea rlight.com /~mhieb/WV Fossils/Pa geMill_Ima ges/pangbr k.gif)

(one of the many). Doesn't look like africa was shrunk at all.

I don't buy it much either, but don't you see a little bit of a problem with that map of the earth?

That guy does not even know the Bible. He says the flood was fourty days long when the Bible says that Noah was on the ark for about a year.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I don't buy it much either, but don't you see a little bit of a problem with that map of the earth?

At first glance I don't see any problems. Aside from distortions caused from trying to flatten a sphere.

Of course that isn't the only drift map that can be found. You can even find QTVR and flash versions that allow you to play with the time, and None adjust the size of africa.

MasterPython: He also did some creative interpeting with Peleg. Reading the entire chapter makes it pretty clear that it was groups that were divided, not physical continents.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

That guy does not even know the Bible. He says the flood was fourty days long when the Bible says that Noah was on the ark for about a year.



MasterPython, please re-read the end of the same paragraph that the 40% is in. He says, "It rained down 40 days and 40 nights, but the flood lasted more than a year "

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I do have to say, what do they think we are, morons? In the internet age, where many things can be looked up. Lying to us is not a good thing to do.

"Africa had to be shrunk by 40% to make the perfect fit."

Bullshit. Hey look, I can look up an animated GIF of continental drift.

(one of the many). Doesn't look like africa was shrunk at all.



I apologize for the condescending tone of this post. I just cant think of a better way to get my feelings across..

You do realize that the internet is not "All Truth", right?

You do realize that that a "GIF" is not an actual picture so it can make "africa" or what ever, any size that the "GIF maker" wants to make it?



As for the "africa and south america 40% smaller"; that is speculation. It is no different than any other scientist/professor/teacher of science, when they say, "we think it happened this way" and then go on to explain a theory.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



You do realize that the internet is not "All Truth", right?

You do realize that that a "GIF" is not an actual picture so it can make "africa" or what ever, any size that the "GIF maker" wants to make it?





Which would leave us with what? The same evidence that seminar gave us that we had to shrink it? Yes. Actually no. That gif as more credibility than that whole seminar.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-25-2005).]

It was either this or posting some information from some crack pot discredited scientist or biologist. Same story new people.

[This message has been edited by Atomical (edited 08-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, I want you to listen to what Russ Miller has to say: ht tp://creat ionministr ies.org/se minars.asp (http: //creation ministries .org/semin ars.asp)

That didn't answer a single question I asked you about the flood. I'm at work right now, and after work I'm going to go see a movie, but when I get home I'll rip that argument to shreads (if someone hasn't already). Again, many thanks to Rust for listening to that seminar multiple times just so he could provide totse with a transcript of it.

You assholes give us rational creationists a bad name. The thought that men walked with Dinosaurs and that the flood created the grand canyon is not only wrong, but really fucking irritating. Next you're gonna say that the earth is the center of the universe simply because the bible doesn't say it isn't.

Fucking superstitious motherfuckers. http://www.valleyskeptic.com/fuck_creationist.html

Since I have had people say that, and they weren't being sarcastic, I thought I would answer it. Even though it's drawn, africa does appear to be the correct size. A 40% reduction would be noticable.

No, it is not given as speculation, it is given as fact. Miller lied (or he is incompetent and probably shouldn't be giving seminars on science).

When scientists figured this out it wasn't just speculation, it's based on evidence. For example, mountain ranges just end in the ocean, but amazingly on a different continent, the same fossils, the same rock, the same strata, is found, almost like the mountain range continued there at one point.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I apologize for the condescending tone of this post. I just cant think of a better way to get my feelings across..

You do realize that the internet is not "All Truth", right?

You do realize that that a "GIF" is not an actual picture so it can make "africa" or what ever, any size that the "GIF maker" wants to make it?



As for the "africa and south america 40% smaller"; that is speculation. It is no different than any other scientist/professor/teacher of science, when they say, "we think it happened this way" and then go on to explain a theory.

The Great Flood...ahhh a good topic. Call me nuts but I have read in many text that the Nephilim were one of the reasons why God flooded the world. Since it was overwhelmed at the time by both them and other "super naturals". This is all interesting stuff. I suggest everyone read up on them if they would like know a bit more about this subject. The world was a different place back then. They were the result of rouge angels having children with human women...Genesis 6:2-4

[This message has been edited by xoctopusx (edited 08-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

That guy does not even know the Bible. He says the flood was fourty days long when the Bible says that Noah was on the ark for about a year.

Um...think about what you just said.

The FLOOD was 40 days in duration...then it stopped, and the water began to evaporate. It took a little over a year, I believe, for that to occur.

Come on now, Python...

EDIT: I looked it up, and in verse 12 of chapter 7, the Bible states that the rains fell on the earth for forty days. In verse 17, it states "the flood was forty days on the earth", meaning that the flood waters increased steadily for a month and tens days.

This does not mean that the flood only lasted for forty days, but that the water was continually rising for the first forty days. Note verse 18. The waters "prevailed", meaning they did not stop, but increased continually. The Ark, with all safely aboard was lifted and floated on the waters. Noah was in the Ark for over one year.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HomerJay603:

You assholes give us rational creationists a bad name. The thought that men walked with Dinosaurs and that the flood created the grand canyon is not only wrong, but really fucking irritating. Next you're gonna say that the earth is the center of the universe simply because the bible doesn't say it isn't.

Fucking superstitious motherfuckers. http ://www.val leyskeptic .com/fuck_creationist.html (http: //www.vall eyskeptic. com/fuck_c reationist .html)

And you believe that a murdering polygamist that can read special magic golden plates is a messenger (self professed !) of God....

So much for being rational.

Tap, tap, tap. Digital, so, the evidence... ?

Um, no the rain was 40 days and 40 nights (odd that the rain lasts for the same amount of time as other special events in the bible), but the flood lasted until the dove came back with the olive branch. A flood is the covering of land by water.

Yes, Beta...I am writing the "evidence" as you heckle.

Do you want a halfassed, unsupportable, weak argument ?

Actually, you will claim that no matter how eloquent or concretely supported I make my post...oh, well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Unlike some, I actually think through my arguments.

I am not even going to address the incomprehensible mangling of the scripture you just posted. Just read it again...Genesis chapters 6 through 9.

*sighs*

What scripture, I haven't posted about any scripture in this thread. Or are you talking about getting the flood time correct?

Yes, I would be very happy if you wrote something (by yourself) that was more than half assed.

If the flood encompassed the entire earth why didn't the insects die out because of a lack of vegetation? Did they keep those on the ark too? Has anyone ever done a study on the feasibility of creating an ark to hold two of every animal?

Yes, Atomical, and I will get to that, too.

3 words : Epic of Gilgamesh. Sumerian civ.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

I think the Great Flood is a myth.

This is primarily because I have some serious concerns about the plausibility of such an event and the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence to back up this story. I decided I'd ask totse a few questions about this event.

One cannot find evidence of a cataclysmic event if one does not look for it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

This is the same reason why a robber cannot find a policeman…

"Complete lack of evidence" ? (what about evolution’s complete lack of verifiable evidence ? http://globalflood.org/earthage/index.html

If you believe that to be true, you haven't been looking too hard. (A simple Google search on “Global flood” produced 4,330,000 sites ! Granted, most are crap, but surely in that enormous number of sites you could have come across one shred of reliable scientific evidence that a global flood occurred ! I did. And I am about to assimilate it into something coherent, and noteworthy. I think you are capable of this, but you choose not to...why ?)

I would also like to point out that if there IS a God, it is not up to you to define what is plausible for Him and what is not. If God exists, He can do whatever He wants, to include flooding the earth from both the sky and the ground (as He said He did), and drying it all up again.

Genesis 7:11 & 12 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

“Great deep” translates from the Hebrew ‘rab t@howm’, which means “much, many, great” “deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea”. (Strong’s reference 08415 and 07227)

Genesis 8:13 - By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth.

Flooded - then dried up. Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. It is true to us, cover to cover. God said He flooded, and that the water receded. We believe that. I will spend the rest of the post proving it, as best as I possibly can. I am no scientist, so much of this will be from other people who ARE scientists. That does not mean I do not understand their scientific evidence, but that I shall leave the intricacies and details to the experts. I can read what they write, and either agree, or disagree, based on the evidence presented by them.

If your only attack against me is that I “don’t come up with anything myself”, I am satisfied. I haven’t earned a PhD in any related scientific fields of study, but then…neither have most of you (or any of you ?). I am as qualified to comment on these topics as any of you, I should think.

You should also try to remember that every single thing we as humans do is a replication of something we saw someone else do. Talking, walking, eating…it’s all a copy. I don’t think it nullifies my position that I rely on expert scientists to support my theory of Creation. If it does, then it certainly nullifies yours on evolution.

On with some “proof”.

quote:Actually, before delving into this issue I'd like to clarify something. The Bible states in Genesis 7:12 that it did in fact rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Some scholars suggest that the at the end of the last "ice age" (technical term: glaciation, we're still in an ice age) sea levels rose, causing the inundation of what we now call the Black Sea. I dismiss this as unbiblical simply because it is not the type of flood described by Genesis 7:12. Either it rained for 40 days and forty nights, or God is rather incompetent and can't properly describe his own flood.

With that said, let's get down to business.

Yes. Lets.

I have never heard any Christian try to claim that the flood can be attributed to the rising waters as a result of the end of the ice age. That is preposterous...that's Old Earth Creationism for ya (I am assuming that this theory comes from Old Earth Creationist’s. I have never heard this, but that is who I imagine would say such a thing, since they often grasp at straws to make evolution and Creation fit together).

God has no trouble describing the events He caused.

quote:1: There isn't enough water on Earth for such a flood to have ever taken place. I doubt there is enough hydrogen on the surface for it to have ever taken place. However, God is omniscient and could have magically created/removed the water for this flood to have taken place. I can see the motive behind that.

NOTE: The Flood didn't have to cover the present Earth, but it did have to cover the pre-Flood Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully restructured the earth.

2 Peter 3:6 - The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

If the flood CAUSED mountains to form, then the amount of water necessary to flood the earth prior to their formation is not as difficult a thing to accomplish, by YOUR standards (again, ignoring God’s ability to do whatever He wants).

Science can easily be used to provide a best guesstimate as to how mountains came to be formed (and for all you evolutionist's out there, "guesstimates" are apparently just as good as cold, hard facts, so don't be hypocritical and claim that Creation theory cannot be proven by "guesstimates", since evolution can't be proven by "guesstimates" either, yet it is the only explanation regarding our existence given in our public schools, thus purporting it to be "the truth" to young, impressionable minds, and based almost entirely on “guesstimates” !).

There is evidence the high mountains such as the Himalayas and the Great Rocky Mountains were most likely formed during the flood. In Genesis 10:25, God says in the days following the flood, a descendent of Shem (Noah’s son), named Peleg, stated that "the earth was divided". This is understood by most to be a reference to the separation of the continents.

A plausible explanation for the formation of mountains, separation of continents, and tectonic plate shifts: Cavitation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation (again, this is just as provable as the “millions of years in the making” theory that evolutionist’s hold fast to, if not moreso, since this phenomena can be replicated and observed, whereas millions of years of random events [which are never actually detailed] cannot)

There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that these mountains were, at some point, submerged in water.

‘Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of being a result of cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.

No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them. Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence.’ [2]

‘Mount Everest has a wide band of marine limestone near its summit. The sedimentary rock had its origin beneath water, and is present in many mountain ranges. Igneous and metamorphic rock masses are also interspersed within mountains. Marine fossils such as shells and coral are common on the earth's high mountain summits.’ [3]

Now, for the biblical explanation of how the water receded…

As you have pointed out, God can do all things (assuming He is all powerful, which Christians do).

Psalms 104:6&7 (NKJV) - Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Hmm. God caused the waters to recede. We could stick with pure science to try and prove this, but that is virtually impossible, since there isn’t a way to measure such an enormous occurrence (being that no one was there to observe it except Noah and his family, and I don’t think they were experts on plate tectonics and the rate at which water evaporates, anyway). We can formulate a hypothesis, but this usually isn’t good enough for evolutionist’s, unless of course it supports THEIR theory.

What this verse is saying, however, is that the receding of the water was “forced”. It was a supernatural event. God caused it.

There is great evidence that the continents were once joined into one great land mass which later separated. Geologists called this the "continental drift theory". http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html



When the foundational plates on which the continents rest shifted on the earth's mantle, the high mountain systems of the earth were formed. It is interesting to note that most geologists understand that the continents are still moving today, but very slowly. The present movements of the continents do not seem adequate to explain how the mountains of the earth were formed. Scientists have observed that neither the Moon, Mercury or Mars have similar folded mountains belts like we have here on Earth. This is in direct contradiction to their assumption that similar forces after the Big Bang formed all the planets (The Earth's Dynamic Systems, by W. Kenneth Hamblin, Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minn., 1975, Chapter 22, "Evolution of the Continents", page 362.) [1]

Is it merely coincidence that Earth has such incredible rock formations of this kind ? Perhaps this is because Earth experienced a supernatural global flood ! Thus, we can safely conclude that what is found to be scientifically observable in nature is easily paralleled to the Biblical record that God has given us.

quote:Please don't try to bring up arguments that claim that the water naturally rose up out of the earth, or the earth was super humid or anything like that. You've been warned.

Oh, so...now you get to pick and choose which scriptures are relevant to Christian beliefs, and which aren't ?

The scripture tells us that waters rose up from the deep.

‘Verse 11 states that "the great fountains of the deep broke up, and the windows of heaven were opened".

One example of a vast underground cavern is Mammoth Cave in southern Kentucky. This cave has passages extending over 150 miles, with fantastic limestone formations, lakes and rivers. The corridors of the caves occur in five different levels and many large chambers are connected by narrow passages. (The Illustrated Colombia Encyclopedia, William Bridgwater and Symour Kurta, Colombia University Press, New York & London, Volume 13, 1956, pg 3851.)’ [1]

To be continued....

1. http://www.bible-truth.org/GEN7.HTM#N_5_

2. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=520

3. http://www.wasdarwinright.net/flood-f.htm

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-26-2005).]

Since Rust took the time to write that, and since I keep calling it crap I thought I would explain why it's crap, for anyone who is interested.

I thought I would post it in Rusts old Mad scientist thread to bump it.

It can be found at the bottom of that thread,

Refuting Creationist Arguments (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)



Digital: I very much like that you wrote it yourself.

I do find it interesting you admit creation science is not really science since any problems can be explained away by God did it.

I would recommend you read the reply I posted in the link above, it addresses some of what you have said and linked to.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you believe that to be true, you haven't been looking too hard. (A simple Google search on “Global flood” produced 4,330,000 sites ! Granted, most are crap, but surely in that enormous number of sites you could have come across one shred of reliable scientific evidence that a global flood occurred ! I did. And I am about to assimilate it into something coherent, and noteworthy. I think you are capable of this, but you choose not to...why ?)

You'd first have to prove those sites withstand scrutiny to claim that they are "evidence" so please do not get ahead of yourself.

quote:I would also like to point out that if there IS a God, it is not up to you to define what is plausible for Him and what is not. If God exists, He can do whatever He wants, to include flooding the earth from both the sky and the ground (as He said He did), and drying it all up again

If you claim that it was done via an act of god, then please do not claim it has any scientific evidence supporting it. Science doesn't deal with what an unobservable, unverifiable, and illogical being decided to will.

quote:If the flood CAUSED mountains to form, then the amount of water necessary to flood the earth prior to their formation is not as difficult a thing to accomplish, by YOUR standards (again, ignoring God’s ability to do whatever He wants).

You would first have to prove that the "mountains arose and the valleys sank"... and then you'd have to substantiate that it would be a "difficult" thing to accomplish.

quote:Science can easily be used to provide a best guesstimate as to how mountains came to be formed (and for all you evolutionist's out there, "guesstimates" are apparently just as good as cold, hard facts, so don't be hypocritical and claim that Creation theory cannot be proven by "guesstimates", since evolution can't be proven by "guesstimates" either, yet it is the only explanation regarding our existence given in our public schools, thus purporting it to be "the truth" to young, impressionable minds, and based almost entirely on “guesstimates” !).

Sorry, but "guesstimate" is certainly not what textbooks provide. They provide scientifically verifiable theories. That's what we expect here.

quote:There is evidence the high mountains such as the Himalayas and the Great Rocky Mountains were most likely formed during the flood. In Genesis 10:25, God says in the days following the flood, a descendent of Shem (Noah’s son), named Peleg, stated that "the earth was divided". This is understood by most to be a reference to the separation of the continents.

Well then provide the evidence... the bible doesn't serve as any form of evidence, at least as much as any other fictional book.



quote:plausible explanation for the formation of mountains, separation of continents, and tectonic plate shifts: Cavitation -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation (again, this is just as provable as the “millions of years in the making” theory that evolutionist’s hold fast to, if not moreso, since this phenomena can be replicated and observed, whereas millions of years of random events [which are never actually detailed] cannot)

1. "Plausible" doesn't really cut it. We need evidence, and verifiable one at that.

2. This is most certainly not "plausible". Just a quick read of the article shows the flaw in your argument:

"Cavitation is the formation of pockets of vapor in a liquid. This process is caused by low pressures in the liquid. When the local ambient pressure at a point in the liquid falls below the liquid's vapor pressure, the liquid undergoes a phase change to a gas, creating "bubbles," or, more accurately, cavities, in the liquid."

Care to explain the how the low pressure occurred in such a humongous amount of water needed to flood the entire earth?

Moreover, care to tell us how caviation explains the formations of mountains and continental drift at all? How can air pockets (provided they even formed, which you haven't showed how they would have) below strata layers (I assume this is were you're claiming they would form -- all other alternatives are even worse) form mountains and move tectonic plates? I can partially understand sunken valleys, but mountains and continental drift.... ?

quote:Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of being a result of cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.

No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them. Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence.’ [2]

‘Mount Everest has a wide band of marine limestone near its summit. The sedimentary rock had its origin beneath water, and is present in many mountain ranges. Igneous and metamorphic rock masses are also interspersed within mountains. Marine fossils such as shells and coral are common on the earth's high mountain summits.’ [3]

1. There being marine fossils in mountains does not refute or pose a problem to evolution, or "old age" at all. Plate Tectonics explain these.

2. Where's the evidence? The articles you reference give absolutely no evidence. They simply reiterate the claim. Provide evidence or the claims remain baseless.

quote:Hmm. God caused the waters to recede. We could stick with pure science to try and prove this, but that is virtually impossible, since there isn’t a way to measure such an enormous occurrence (being that no one was there to observe it except Noah and his family, and I don’t think they were experts on plate tectonics and the rate at which water evaporates, anyway). We can formulate a hypothesis, but this usually isn’t good enough for evolutionist’s, unless of course it supports THEIR theory.

Great. So the Flood theory is not based on scientific evidence, but on magic. You just removed any scientific credibility your argument supposedly had.

quote:Is it merely coincidence that Earth has such incredible rock formations of this kind ? Perhaps this is because Earth experienced a supernatural global flood ! Thus, we can safely conclude that what is found to be scientifically observable in nature is easily paralleled to the Biblical record that God has given us.

Wrong. You cannot "safely" conclude that at all, since not only have not not supported it with any evidence, but it is refuted by all the scientific evidence we have (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD740.html), and moreover, has countless problems as a hypothesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html).

quote:One example of a vast underground cavern is Mammoth Cave in southern Kentucky. This cave has passages extending over 150 miles, with fantastic limestone formations, lakes and rivers. The corridors of the caves occur in five different levels and many large chambers are connected by narrow passages. (The Illustrated Colombia Encyclopedia, William Bridgwater and Symour Kurta, Colombia University Press, New York & London, Volume 13, 1956, pg 3851.)’

So? This is already explained by Science. You have to show how this somehow supports your particular hypothesis, and yours alone. You have to show how your particular hypothesis is special. Until you do, you have done nothing but provide evidence for us, as this is already explained by Science.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"Complete lack of evidence" ? (what about evolution’s complete lack of verifiable evidence ? ht tp://globa lflood.org /earthage/ index.html (http: //globalfl ood.org/ea rthage/ind ex.html)

Point 1: This thread is not about evolution. If you'd like to discuss evolution, Rust created a thread in Mad Scientists to discuss just that. If you'd like to discuss evolution, feel free to post a reply to Rust's thread and I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you believe that to be true, you haven't been looking too hard. (A simple Google search on “Global flood” produced 4,330,000 sites ! Granted, most are crap, but surely in that enormous number of sites you could have come across one shred of reliable scientific evidence that a global flood occurred !

Your reasoning is absurd. Google "evolution." There are more than 80,000,000 results. Surely one can find some verifiable evidence in support of this theory (by your logic). But then again, you just said that evolution has a "complete lack of verifiable evidence."

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I would also like to point out that if there IS a God, it is not up to you to define what is plausible for Him and what is not. If God exists, He can do whatever He wants, to include flooding the earth from both the sky and the ground (as He said He did), and drying it all up again.

I stated this quite clearly in my initial post. I'll even quote myself.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

God is omniscient and could have magically created/removed the water for this flood to have taken place.



Flooded - then dried up. Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. It is true to us, cover to cover. God said He flooded, and that the water receded. We believe that. I will spend the rest of the post proving it, as best as I possibly can. I am no scientist, so much of this will be from other people who ARE scientists. That does not mean I do not understand their scientific evidence, but that I shall leave the intricacies and details to the experts. I can read what they write, and either agree, or disagree, based on the evidence presented by them.

If your only attack against me is that I “don’t come up with anything myself”, I am satisfied. I haven’t earned a PhD in any related scientific fields of study, but then…neither have most of you (or any of you ?). I am as qualified to comment on these topics as any of you, I should think.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You should also try to remember that every single thing we as humans do is a replication of something we saw someone else do. Talking, walking, eating…it’s all a copy. I don’t think it nullifies my position that I rely on expert scientists to support my theory of Creation. If it does, then it certainly nullifies yours on evolution.

No, I don't simply choose to believe one scientist over the other. I understand basic high school math. I use this knowledge to make order of magnitude estimates to test any given theory's plausibility. I also try to challenge nearly everything I come by. This thread is the perfect example of this. I have posed nine questions (so far) challenging the flood myth. I didn't post links to someone else's site. I did a bit of research (from both sides, I've spent time reading articles from the *shudder* ICR, I've even emailed them, and gotten no response). In short, I think, I don't simply repeat someone else's argument without first challenging it and accepting it myself

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

NOTE: The Flood didn't have to cover the present Earth, but it did have to cover the pre-Flood Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully restructured the earth.

2 Peter 3:6 - The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

If the flood CAUSED mountains to form, then the amount of water necessary to flood the earth prior to their formation is not as difficult a thing to accomplish, by YOUR standards (again, ignoring God’s ability to do whatever He wants).

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

God is omniscient and could have magically created/removed the water for this flood to have taken place.

I should note that I appreciate you outlining your position. I will keep this in mind in future posts.

I should also note that your position gives a whole new meaning to "flat earth."



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Science can easily be used to provide a best guesstimate as to how mountains came to be formed (and for all you evolutionist's out there, "guesstimates" are apparently just as good as cold, hard facts, so don't be hypocritical and claim that Creation theory cannot be proven by "guesstimates", since evolution can't be proven by "guesstimates" either, yet it is the only explanation regarding our existence given in our public schools, thus purporting it to be "the truth" to young, impressionable minds, and based almost entirely on “guesstimates” !).

Please give me an example of a creationist "guesstimate" and a evolutionist "guesstimate." In my experience, evolutionist "guesstimates" have had far more supporting evidence than creationist "guesstimates." I'll use the ice age as an example. There is a plethorea of evidence in support of the ice age. (I can elaborate on this in Mad Scientists, if you'd like). In fact, I'd go as far as to say there is more evidence in support of the ice age "theory" than there is for any creationist theory.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There is evidence the high mountains such as the Himalayas and the Great Rocky Mountains were most likely formed during the flood. In Genesis 10:25, God says in the days following the flood, a descendent of Shem (Noah’s son), named Peleg, stated that "the earth was divided". This is understood by most to be a reference to the separation of the continents.

A plausible explanation for the formation of mountains, separation of continents, and tectonic plate shifts: Cavitation - http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Cavita tion (again, this is just as provable as the “millions of years in the making” theory that evolutionist’s hold fast to, if not moreso, since this phenomena can be replicated and observed, whereas millions of years of random events [which are never actually detailed] cannot)

Uh, I must have missed something. What does cavitation have to do with any of this? Please elaborate.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that these mountains were, at some point, submerged in water.

‘Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of being a result of cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.

I'd like to point out that the "theory" of plate tectonics explains this quite well. The layering of rock and fossils alone make this "theory" more plausible than the flood. If you'd like, I can eventually explain this in Mad Scientists (I'm making a lot of promises here, it won't happen immediately).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them. Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence.’

Here's your reasoning correct me if I'm wrong:

1: The Earth may have been far flatter before the flood.

2: There are marine fossils at the summit of many mountains.

3: Therefore, Noah's flood must be true and is backed by solid evidence.

This seems like quite a jump. Your first mistake is that you have no evidence to back point 1. Perhaps you could start by elaborating upon this point?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Psalms 104:6&7 (NKJV) - Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Please clarify your position. You earlier stated that the "flood created the mountains." You are now claiming that Earth had mountains at the time of the flood.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hmm. God caused the waters to recede. We could stick with pure science to try and prove this, but that is virtually impossible, since there isn’t a way to measure such an enormous occurrence (being that no one was there to observe it except Noah and his family, and I don’t think they were experts on plate tectonics and the rate at which water evaporates, anyway). We can formulate a hypothesis, but this usually isn’t good enough for evolutionist’s, unless of course it supports THEIR theory.

Such a traumatic event would have left some evidence. The fact is that if this happened, it did not happen by natural means. If it happened it happened through supernatural means. We appear to be in agreement upon this point.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There is great evidence that the continents were once joined into one great land mass which later separated. Geologists called this the "continental drift theory". http://pub s.usgs.gov /publications/text/historical.html (http: //pubs.usg s.gov/publ ications/t ext/histor ical.html)

When the foundational plates on which the continents rest shifted on the earth's mantle, the high mountain systems of the earth were formed. It is interesting to note that most geologists understand that the continents are still moving today, but very slowly. The present movements of the continents do not seem adequate to explain how the mountains of the earth were formed. Scientists have observed that neither the Moon, Mercury or Mars have similar folded mountains belts like we have here on Earth. This is in direct contradiction to their assumption that similar forces after the Big Bang formed all the planets (The Earth's Dynamic Systems, by W. Kenneth Hamblin, Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minn., 1975, Chapter 22, "Evolution of the Continents", page 362.) [1]

Slow down. The continents are still moving today. We have proven this using satellite laser ranging techniques. Perhaps an earthquake is a more convincing argument?

Also, the present movements of the continents DO seem to adequately explain how the mountains of the earth were formed. Surely, accepted scientific theory provides a far better explaination of this than the flood does. For example, why are all mountain ranges on fault lines? Why are some ranges more weathered than others? Creation science does not account for this (AFAIK, please correct me if I am wrong). Accepted science does.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Is it merely coincidence that Earth has such incredible rock formations of this kind ? Perhaps this is because Earth experienced a supernatural global flood ! Thus, we can safely conclude that what is found to be scientifically observable in nature is easily paralleled to the Biblical record that God has given us.

Let me walk through your logic:

1: There are rock formations that humans find fascinating

2: A global flood explains this using little to no evidence AND does a far better job than accepted science. In fact, a global flood is such a good explanation that we can simply disregard accepted science!

3: Therefore we can safely conclude that the flood is scientifically observable and parallels The Bible.

I'm convinced

[/sarcasm]

I look forward to hearing your answers for the next eight questions.

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 08-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by QStrange:

3 words : Epic of Gilgamesh. Sumerian civ.

1 word: Ur.

quote:You'd first have to prove those sites withstand scrutiny to claim that they are "evidence" so please do not get ahead of yourself.

The point was not whether or not I could prove that any of them had verifiable data in them. The point was that he made a pretty strong statement that there is ABSOLUTLEY NO EVIDENCE IN ALL THE WORLD that supports a global flood. NONE.

That is not only preposterous, but it is biased, to the core.

Notice that I said, “Granted, most of them are crap.”

CAN WE PLEASE NOT PLAY THE SEMANTICS GAME ?!!

quote:If you claim that it was done via an act of god, then please do not claim it has any scientific evidence supporting it. Science doesn't deal with what an unobservable, unverifiable, and illogical being decided to will.

If there is a God, and there was a global flood, the evidence would be observable and testable, thus scientific. That is what Creation Science is doing…it is compiling data, based on observation and tests. Does that remind you of any other kind of science you know ?

Please tell me why “acts of God” and “science” cannot coexist ? If these things happened, whether caused by God or not, the evidence would be there to be tested.

I never said that science DID support something unobservable, unverifiable, and illogical.

If you read my entire post, I give plenty of references that show the data that is observable.

You also completely missed the point.

He was placing human limitations on God, as if God is not capable of all things. His questions, and my responses, are supposing that there is a Christian God, which means He is an all powerful being.

quote:You would first have to prove that the "mountains arose and the valleys sank"... and then you'd have to substantiate that it would be a "difficult" thing to accomplish.

Are you just going to tell me how my argument is flawed, or are you going to try and refute it with data of your own ? I know you can. Come on…try, please ?

That was a hypothetical statement. You know it, and I know it. Giving the qualifiers for how it could actually become fact is not necessary. It illustrates that JSax’s misconception that there isn’t enough water CURRENTLY on the Earth to flood it is nothing more than a blatant disregard for not only the Biblical account, but MANY different scenario’s that can either prove or disprove the global flood theory.

I specifically said “If this happened” then your theory would be nullified. I wasn’t trying to prove anything with that statement, other than his logical fallacy.

Sure, there may not be enough water NOW, if you imagine the earth was exactly the same then as it is right TODAY. Except…it wasn’t.

He also ignores the fact that WATER EVAPORATES. Just because the water isn’t here TODAY, doesn’t mean it wasn’t ever here !

I am pointing out that he is seeing what he wants to see, blinded by his bias. This same mentality is simply not allowed amongst the Christian circles (a demand of the evolution community), so the hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

This proves that his motives aren’t to seek truth. His motives are to try and make me look stupid.

quote:Sorry, but "guesstimate" is certainly not what textbooks provide. They provide scientifically verifiable theories. That's what we expect here.

Well, we can disassemble evolution another time. I am bringing evolution into this discussion only as a tool to support Creation, which in turn supports a global flood. There are intricately related. This is NOT a debate about evolution.

There is a ton of evidence supporting my opinion on evolution and it’s many “guesstimates”. There are still some textbooks out there that teach Haeckel’s embryo theory as truth ! So, it would be wise for you not to use blanket statements in support of evolution’s reliability.

It is interesting that you still used the word “theory” to describe evolution as scientifically verifiable. Most of what evolution claims cannot be verified, as there is no data to compile, due to lack of ability to replicate or observe the supposed occurrences that evolution claims to have taken place.

As I have said already, evolution’s lack of verifiable evidence doesn’t make it any more true than creation’s lack of verifiable evidence. Which means, we can do the best we can, and that is all. There is NO concrete proof for either side. At a certain point, it becomes “faith” based, no matter which side of the fence you are on.

quote:Well then provide the evidence... the bible doesn't serve as any form of evidence, at least as much as any other fictional book.

The evidence I gave was that the flood caused the mountain formations. (see Cavitation)

quote:1. "Plausible" doesn't really cut it. We need evidence, and verifiable one at that.

Then I need evidence that this theory is any less reliable than evolution’s theory of MILLIONS OF YEARS IN THE MAKING (which CANNOT be proven).

Evolution is nothing more than a conglomeration of plausible theories. I smell hypocrisy again.

I never said that cavitation was THE explanation for the formation of mountains, movement of tectonic plates, or separation of continents. I said it was a plausible theory, and easily investigated by those who are curious about it.

You could like…ya know…study what cavitation is, and put 2 and 2 together to try and comprehend how it coincides with the theory that the flood caused mountain formations. *shrugs*

That’s what you could do.

My ultimate point was that while Christians (notice I said “Christians”, and not “Creation Scientist’s “ or “Supporters of Intelligent Design) do mostly reside under the pretense that the flood happened because “the Bible said so”, scientific theories could be postulated to support it, if necessary (enter Creation Science and ID).

quote:2. This is most certainly not "plausible". Just a quick read of the article shows the flaw in your argument:

"Cavitation is the formation of pockets of vapor in a liquid. This process is caused by low pressures in the liquid. When the local ambient pressure at a point in the liquid falls below the liquid's vapor pressure, the liquid undergoes a phase change to a gas, creating "bubbles," or, more accurately, cavities, in the liquid."

Care to explain the how the low pressure occurred in such a humongous amount of water needed to flood the entire earth?

Moreover, care to tell us how caviation explains the formations of mountains and continental drift at all? How can air pockets (provided they even formed, which you haven't showed how they would have) below strata layers (I assume this is were you're claiming they would form -- all other alternatives are even worse) form mountains and move tectonic plates? I can partially understand sunken valleys, but mountains and continental drift.... ?

There you go…out of the realm of semantics, and into the realm of the actual debate at hand. *whew !*

AS if I didn’t know that question was coming…thanks for asking !

~ http://creationministries.org/media/factsvsevolution_hi.asx

I am not sure if you saw this one…it explains all of that.

I am going to paraphrase from the seminar here…

Massive water flow can cause the formulation of cavitation bubbles. Cavitation bubbles implode at 440,000 psi. This is arguably enough force to turn rock to dust instantaneously (as Russ explains). Plucking is the hydraulic lift of large slabs of rock, which were then quickly “torn up” by the force of fast flowing water.

In 1983, an occurrence of such an event took place at the Glen Canyon Dam spillway at the top of the Grand Canyon. The cavitation bubbles that formed as a result of the force of the water blasted a hole clear through a 3 foot thick cement wall (reinforced by solid steel) and 25 feet into the bedrock below. This all occurred in a matter of minutes.

If they hadn’t shut down that natural spillway, the Grand Canyon would be twice the size it currently is today.

Another example of the effects of massive water flow is that of Grand Coulee. It was formed by a massive dam breach. The result was a canyon that is 50 miles long, 6 miles wide, and 900 feet deep.

The cavitation theory is a little more than plausible, but I was giving the opposition of the flood theory the benefit of objectivity (using word like “plausible” and “if”).

I am extremely tired, and leaving for California tomorrow, so if I missed anything, please forgive me, and know that I will pick it back up when I return on Monday.

quote:1. There being marine fossils in mountains does not refute or pose a problem to evolution, or "old age" at all. Plate Tectonics explain these.

Really ? The movement of tectonic plates littered the tops of the highest mountains in the world with shells, marine mammals, and lime sediments ?

Erm…I think you need to expound on that a little more, if you could, please.

quote:2. Where's the evidence? The articles you reference give absolutely no evidence. They simply reiterate the claim. Provide evidence or the claims remain baseless.

Marine Fossils on Top of the Andes Mountains. More than 500 giant fossilised oysters were found 3000 metres (about 2 miles) above sea level in Peru in 2001 by Arturo Vildozola, palaeontologist with the Andean Society of Paleontology. - http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/jeck/ (references for these findings listed at the bottom of the page. You can find these books at any local library, I think.)

“The presence of marine fossils on mountaintops was profoundly perplexing to 18th century scientists and philosophers. It wasn't until the emergence of modern geology in the first half of the 19 th century that scientists widely accepted the idea of mountains forming from marine deposits as a result of "some great convulsion of nature". – Academy of Natural Sciences, http://www.acnatsci.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/notes_samples.html

Somewhere else in my first post, I stated that mountains continue to grow at a slow rate.

Well, here is proof: http://www.mos.org/Everest/exhibit/platetectonics.htm

Just as a side note to support my many claims that some evolutionist’s will say whatever they want, regardless of the truth, just to support their story: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/february26/ichthyosaur-25.html

Of particular interest is that scientist’s were either wrong about the region that the ichthyosaur supposedly resided in, or they are not considering that a flood carried this dinosaur south.

Also, the good geologist Shultz says of the fossil, “It was fun to discover it and then realize that we could make an important tectonic story out of it.”

*blinks*

Does that statement strike ANYONE besides me as odd ?!

“Tectonic uplift is another important factor in local geography, and marine fossils are often found on Andean peaks exceeding 5000m.”

http://www.kladventure.com/eng/centralandes/

It seems to be…common knowledge. There are marine fossils and shells on almost every mountain range known to man. That is, as far as I can understand it.

quote:Great. So the Flood theory is not based on scientific evidence, but on magic. You just removed any scientific credibility your argument supposedly had.

Supernatural occurrences are not foreign to those who believe in God. Since we believe He exists, it is not “magic” to us for Him to have accomplished these things.

My point is that science can only get us so far. In the case of evolution, it is guess work beyond a certain point in history. In the case of creationist’s, our history is identified within the pages of the Bible, which we believe is the perfect word of God.

There are two dynamics here. I already stated that science cannot prove either side completely.

Our belief in God does not somehow nullify our scientific credibility. We are still searching for more evidence and verifiable data, just as evolutionist’s are. Neither theory is complete, nor has either side stopped looking for new evidence.

quote:Wrong. You cannot "safely" conclude that at all, since not only have not not supported it with any evidence, but it is refuted by all the scientific evidence we have, and moreover, has countless problems as a hypothesis.

It is a safe conclusion that when the verifiable data we can observe agrees with the way the Bible describes our history, it may very well prove that there is a God, and that the Bible is accurate.

The evidence is that a massive amount of water could have caused the tectonic plate shifts, the continent separation, and the creation of mountains. There is evidence of a flood (the shells on top of mountains, the ocean floor sediment found at the tops of the highest peaks, etc.), so if there was a flood, the Bible is accurate.

I will need to look at your links (Monday ?). I am sleepy.

quote:So? This is already explained by Science. You have to show how this somehow supports your particular hypothesis, and yours alone. You have to show how your particular hypothesis is special. Until you do, you have done nothing but provide evidence for us, as this is already explained by Science.

Ok, Let’s play connect the dots…

This example of an underground cavern supports the idea that there were many of these prior to the great flood. These caverns could have housed the water that is described as “coming up from the great deep” during the flood.

I didn’t say science couldn’t explain the caverns. I am showing that these underground caverns exist, which shows that it is very plausible that the water “from the great deep” came up from them.

Many were probably destroyed during the flood (tectonic plates crashing about).

Thank you for pointing out the holes in my argument…I will try to do better. Keep it coming.

The questions you guys are asking show that you didn't listen to all of the seminars, if any.

PLease listen to this one: http://creationministries.org/media/mshgc_hi.asx

Rock formation, dating methods, etc. are contained in this one.

We ARE debating evolution to an extent, as it is the primary reason why the flood theory is not more widely accepted.

Here's a news flash for ya: this is not just a one sided debate...I need to refute the claims of evolution, so that I can have a base from which to prove creation, which includes the flood account.

This debate is not ABOUT evolution. Evolution is an integral value in the determination of whether the earth was flooded or not. It must be touched upon.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The questions you guys are asking show that you didn't listen to all of the seminars, if any.

PLease listen to this one: http:/ /creationm inistries. org/media/mshgc_hi.asx (http: //creation ministries .org/media /mshgc_hi. asx)

Rock formation, dating methods, etc. are contained in this one.

We ARE debating evolution to an extent, as it is the primary reason why the flood theory is not more widely accepted.

Here's a news flash for ya: this is not just a one sided debate...I need to refute the claims of evolution, so that I can have a base from which to prove creation, which includes the flood account.

This debate is not ABOUT evolution. Evolution is an integral value in the determination of whether the earth was flooded or not. It must be touched upon.

One can attack the flood without using evolutionist arguments/science. Just look at questions 4-9. Surely these can be answered without bringing up evolution. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: I'm not watching a single seminar until you state your opinion on them. Do you believe that the seminars are 100% fact or do you believe that they may contain some inaccuracies?

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 08-26-2005).]

As if whe had to watch those seminars when she refused to read the links we have provided in other threads... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Watching seminars is even worse, not only since the links have exactly what refutes you, with sources and references and not with irrelevant rambling, but also because they are much shorter than these seminars.

You have declined to read our links when we post "many", now I'm declining to watch all of those seminars when you post "many". I watched, numerous times, the one about the flood. That's it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-26-2005).]

quote: Digital_Savior

Please tell me why “acts of God” and “science” cannot coexist ? If these things happened, whether caused by God or not, the evidence would be there to be tested.

You said, "Hmm. God caused the waters to recede. We could stick with pure science to try and prove this, but that is virtually impossible, since there isn’t a way to measure such an enormous occurrence "

The reason why you can't use God or supernatural in science is because without proof it is just an excuse.

You now need to scientifically prove God exists before you can say he is doing things in a scientific theory. Or you have to admit you are not doing science and creation "science" is a false name.

Lets say you go into your Doctors office with a cough. Your doctor (after reading an old book on fairies) says, "That is a clear case of fairy attack." "It is a known fact fairies hate steel. Here wear this steel necklace for one week and the fairies will stock attacking and you will be cured."

Why thanks Doc.

Unfortunately the cough was really pneumonia and you die.

Using the super natural as a way to shore up your ideas or theories is not a good idea.



quote: Digital_Savior

Really ? The movement of tectonic plates littered the tops of the highest mountains in the world with shells, marine mammals, and lime sediments ?

Erm…I think you need to expound on that a little more, if you could, please.

I explain that in my post to the other thread. Maybe you should go to it,

Go to the bottom for my response to the transcript (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)

quote: Digital_Savior

The questions you guys are asking show that you didn't listen to all of the seminars, if any.

PLease listen to this one: link

So we are expected to go and waste our time listening to seminars because you can't seem to explain it here. But you have shown you are unwilling to read things that we write. Um, ok.

Oh and I bet I can predict most of what is said in those seminars. To repeat myself (I seem to do that a lot with you) This is not new to some of us, you may think these seminars are new and amazing information, but we have heard it all before.

For example, I can bet the dating methods seminar will heavily attack K/Ar dating by using dating of recent lava flows to "prove" K/Ar dating is unreliable, since it will date these flows at millions of years. They will either gloss over or never mention Ar/Ar dating. They will also bring out the standard list of "assumptions" made by radiometric dating.

How am I doing so far?



Maybe you should go read my post,

Go to the bottom for my response to the transcript (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-26-2005).]

You guys asked me to give evidence and support my side. THE SEMINARS ARE SOME OF MY EVIDENCE, AS THEY ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING CREATION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Also, the flood.

If you don't want to watch them, then there is nothing more to conclude than that you don't care about the evidence or proof. You just want to see how well I debate my point, and nothing more. That's pretty damn stupid.

What's the matter ? Nobody has anything to say regarding cavitation ? What about plucking ? What about the shells and the marine fossils at the TOP OF THE WORLD'S TALLEST MOUNTAINS ? Nothing ?! Psh. (I'm not even close to done giving the evidence, that's just as far as I have gotten so far !)

You requested that I defend/prove/debate creation, evolution, and the flood. Part of my debate relies on those seminars because, as Rust can attest to, it would be a supreme pain in the ass for me to go through them and transcribe them all. (Russ Miller makes the points better than I can, so I figured it would be best for you all to get the information from him first, and then allow me to expound upon it)

If I do take the enormous amount of time to do that (when it is YOU who wants to know...I already know this information), you will heckle me and say that I am taking too long because I haven't got an argument. (JSax has been doing this in IRC on a daily basis. "It's been two whole days, and she hasn't responded.")

Basically, you asked for me to support my belief in Creation, and thus global flood theory, and then when I start to give the evidence you simply say, "Not good enough." ??!!

There is no double standard here. I had about 14 links from Rust, and 8 from various other people. Do you think I am really going to go read all 20 something links, that are each approximately 5 paragraphs long, and address them all point by point ? I could do that, but it would not only take forever, it wouldn't make a difference. You would do the same thing with that data that you are doing now...ignore it, and then attack the messenger.

You all have made up your minds. Your desire to have me "prove creation" has nothing to do with proving creation. You will never accept Creation theory. (which is ironically unscientific, since all theory should be considered, tested, and observed)

I am also not a scientist. And neither are any of you. You read the data, and formulate opinions from what you have read. I do the same thing. For some reason, when I do it, it is not acceptable, because I didn't go out and head an archeological dig of my own !

What have any of YOU done, besides read the propoganda of a "religion" of liars ? Russ Miller gives MANY details in his 50 Facts vs Evolution seminar that prove that evolution is not only full of holes, but how the evolution community will do anything to push it's agenda. Lies, manipulations, and purposefully published fallacy's is what the theory of evolution is riddled with and relies upon. If it were merely science, there would be no need to make "guesses" and "fill in the holes".

Creation science is NOT merely science (so don't go and get all huffy on this point), and I never said it was. There is a supernatural element, since Creationist's believe in God. OH, THE HORRORS ! That doesn't mean that every shred of evidence we discover, using the SAME methods as evolutionist's do, is wrong. To say that "God caused something = not scientifically verfiable" is idiotic.

Interestingly, it is obvious from your responses that you have only read literature on evolution, and refutations of Creation Science, not any literature on Creation Science.

I hear claims that Creation Science isn't published in peer reviewed journals, and that's a lie.

I hear that Creation Scientist's are pseudo-scientist's, and that's a lie.

I hear that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a global flood, and THAT is a lie.

Is there ever going to be a point that you recognize your blatant bigotry and bias against anything other than evolution ? Were you afforded the opportunity to study ANY other theory, while you were in school ?

You want to talk about us being brainwashed ? BY WHAT, exactly ? Since every single one of us here learned nothing outside of evolutionary theory in high school (aside from the select few of you who may have attended a religious school), I would say that the majority of YOU are brainwashed into believing it, not the other way around...Christians have to SEEK out the information. Creation Science was not readily available (UNTIL THE INTERNET). The only exception to this may be Rust, because I don't know how the public school system works in Puerto Rico. I don't know what they teach, so I won't presume that evolution was the only theory taught.

There are books out there, but if you don't know what exactly you are looking for, how can you get an authoritative, concise explanation of Creation ? It's nearly impossible.

A theory's acceptance is no measure for it's accuracy (many "proofs" of evolution have been undeniably refuted, and abandoned by it's own supporters, yet they were all widely accepted at one point [and subsequently published in school textbooks, to warp young minds by purporting these fallacies as "fact"]...what does this tell you ?

It's a process, and it is ongoing, just as Creation Science is !). Creation Science has, and will continue, to discover and study more evidence proving Creation theory. Just as evolution tries to do for of itself.

I will continue to debate JSax's arguments, when I return from California on Monday.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What about the shells and the marine fossils at the TOP OF THE WORLD'S TALLEST MOUNTAINS ? Nothing ?!

Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

1. Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

2. In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood.

3. Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

Holy virgin mary fucking christ on a pogo stick.

quote:If you don't want to watch them, then there is nothing more to conclude than that you don't care about the evidence or proof. You just want to see how well I debate my point, and nothing more. That's pretty damn stupid.

You see, you need to post your own thoughts and use the seminars to support them. Not the other way around.

To repeat myself, again, many here have heard everything in those seminars. Why should we waste our time downloading them until you can show there is something new?

Quite frankly I bet I know more about creationism than you.

quote:here is no double standard here. I had about 14 links from Rust, and 8 from various other people. Do you think I am really going to go read all 20 something links, that are each approximately 5 paragraphs long, and address them all point by point ?

So you expect us to download seminars, but you refuse to read. Yes there is a double standard here, if you can't see that you are a moron.

quote:What about the shells and the marine fossils at the TOP OF THE WORLD'S TALLEST MOUNTAINS ? Nothing ?! Psh. (I'm not even close to done giving the evidence, that's just as far as I have gotten so far !)

Way to show you don't visit links.

Maybe you should go read my post,

Go to the bottom for my response to the transcript (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)

Here, I will copy it for you since you are obviously too lazy to go there yourself. In bold so you can't miss it.

• Mount everest is littered with sea shells.

Correct, wrong conclusion.

Mount everest isn't just littered with sea shells, they are actually imbedded inside the mountain. Amazingly there are only sea shells, the flood somehow didn't cause fossils to become out of order enough to place any bones on the mountain. Bones of modern animals would be quite damaging to the current understanding of geology, yet they aren't there.

Beyond that, these shells are all from the same standard geological ages that match how old they should be if Everest rose out of a sea, like modern geology says. [Based on plate tectonics]

Now maybe you should actually read things for a change.

You could learn things. Such as the fact that just like Miller you have taken the bible out of context twice. Go read.

Here is the link again,

Mybe you should go read my post,

Transcript refute (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)

Didn't see that? Here it is again,

Transcript refute (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)

Again,

Transcript refute (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html)

Is your finger able to click?



On a side note, I'm almost tempted to challenge you to a debate on creationism about creationism. Not sure how it would go but I seriously bet I know more about creationism than you (which would kind of shut up the whole "You guys don't read/listen to my amazing arguments.")

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Digital, quick question. Yes or no: do you stand behind everything Russ Miller says?

Rust: thanks for transcribing that. It's incredibly beneficial.

Third time I'm asking this. Yes or no, one word, that's all I want.

Wow, JSax...you and your cohorts expect me to deliver evidence of a global flood (and by extension, Creation) without the assistance of anyone else ("Can you think for yourself ?" I believe was the pointed accusation I received), and yet after reading your thread starter and then this: http ://www.tal korigins.o rg/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/faq -noahs-ark .html) I have to wonder who in this whole wide world really, truly thinks for themselves ?

Your thread starter is almost verbatim to what TalkOrigins has said. Interesting.

Mark Isaak from TalkOrigins.com - "How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped." http ://www.tal korigins.o rg/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/faq -noahs-ark .html)

JSaxton: - "Even with modern technology, we cannot build wooden ships longer than 300 feet, and when we do, they are braced with steel and must be pumped constantly to avoid sinking (source: talkorigins)."

You cite where you got this idea from, but...it was verbatim. I mean...???????????

Casting stones in a glass house makes for an uncomfortable barefooted walk to the exit.

quote:

Ice Caps

So, apparently the entire world was covered in water. Everything was covered, sans Noah's ark. This includes the ice caps. Here's the problem. Ice caps and glaciers tend to keep really good historical records. The problem is, there is absolutely no evidence for a flood in these ice caps. No ice cap or glacier has shown any evidence of a global flood, such as the one described by Genesis, taking place. It is fairly easy to prove that these records go back at least 40,000 years using a number of methods (see http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/ice cores.html ) As there is no evidence in the ice caps of a great flood ever occurring, I remain rather skeptical. I'd like to see some of this evidence (or a convincing reason why there shouldn't be any evidence) before believing that Noah and his ark really existed.

You just assumed that there were ice caps PRIOR to the flood. From whence does this erroneous assumption come ?

Creationist's would say that there were no ice caps prior to the flood, since the environment was nothing more than a hyperbaric chamber - a greenhouse, as a result of the water canopy surrounding the earth, and the massive underground water caverns.

How can you say with confidence that there is NO evidence of a global flood contained in the ice caps ? Where is your evidence ? Are you just going to post a bunch of opinions, and nothing more ? From your link at TalkOrigins.com regarding ice cores, "After the eruption of volcanoes, the volcanic ash and chemicals are washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation. These eruptions leave a distinct marker within the snow which washed the atmosphere."

Well, evolutionist's and Creationist's seem to agree for once !

From Answersingenesis.com - "The creationist meteorologist Michael Oard proposed that the Ice Age [possibly referred to in Job 37:10 and 38:22 ] was an aftermath of Noah’s Flood. 18 [Oard explains this in his technical book An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, ICR, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1990. He has also shown that evidence for alleged Precambrian, Ordovician and Permian ‘ice ages’ is best explained as underwater debris flows, in his book Ancient Ice Ages or Submarine Landslides?, Creation Research Soc., Chino Valley, AR, USA, 1997. Oard also wrote Life in the Great Ice Age (co-authored with Beverley Oard, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1993), which combines a colourful children’s novel with a simplified scientific explanation.] and 19 [See also Batten, D. (Ed.), Ham, Ken, Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C., The Answers Book, ch. 16, Answers in Genesis, Queensland, Australia, 1999.] When ‘all the fountains of the great deep’ broke up, much hot water and lava would have poured directly into the oceans.

This would have warmed the oceans, increasing evaporation. At the same time, much volcanic ash in the air after the Flood would have blocked out much sunlight, cooling the land.

So the Flood would have produced the necessary combination of lots of evaporation from the warmed oceans and cool continental climate from the volcanic ash ‘sunblock’. This would have resulted in increased snowfall over the continents. With the snow falling faster than it melted, ice sheets would have built up. - http://tinyurl.com/cujsh

Hmmm...volcanic ash. Plausible ? Oh, yeah.

Why, it's just as plausible as say...spontaneous existence of life (al a evolution, which can provide nothing more than conjecture to prove that this is how we all began) !

"This ice buildup would probably have lasted several centuries. Eventually, the seas gradually cooled, so evaporation would decrease, therefore the snow supply for the continents would also decrease. And as the ash settled out of the atmosphere, it would allow sunlight through. So the ice sheets began to melt. Sometimes the melting would have been rapid enough for the rivers that drained these ice sheets to flood. These catastrophes would have happened about 700 years after the Flood." - http://tinyurl.com/bllnu

Just for fun, here's an article defending the Ark against TalkOrigins.com's attacks - http://tinyurl.com/aatdc

I will reference that website MANY times in my posts, so...I won't be referencing it again. Just read it, and you will know where my points are coming from.

Or....is it "not good enough" ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

As another side note, the ice is melting, and the sea level rising. Did you take into consideration the fact that there is a whole lot of water in this ice, just waiting to melt, when you made your assumption that there isn't enough water in the world for the flood to have happened ? http://tinyurl.com/9agbs



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

First, I would like some proof that the shells and marine fossils got to the tops of these mountains as a result of "uplift".

Second, you just completely contradicted yourself, and then proved my case for me.

I have said that these mountains didn't exist pre-flood...that they were CAUSED by the flood. You just said that these mountains were under the ocean at some point, because they weren't always mountains.

Why is evolution a more plausible explanation for this than the global flood ? The answer is bias.

The contradiction lies in your insinuation that the shells and marine fossils did not come to be on the tops of the mountains as a result of submersion under water, but then you go on to say that the sediment that these mountains are composed of were in fact under water at some point.

So, the question really is, which theory do you believe (submersion due to flood, or submersion due to pre-mountainous formation), and why ?

What proof exists that eliminates the flood theory, in this case ?

quote:A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

1. Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

2. In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood.

3. Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

I say again, cavitation. Rock and sediment exploding caused the tectonic plates to shift, among various other cataclysmic events, and the mountains formed quickly. Any and all marine life (including shelled creatures) would have been captured within the sediment as it rose upward.

This does NOT prove that there was no flood.

If the region was once under the sea, where is the proof to show that it was not the mountain itself that was under the sea, and not the pre-mountainous formation that was under the sea ?

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Third time I'm asking this. Yes or no, one word, that's all I want.

No.

As I have not verified every single thing Russ Miller has said (I am still studying everything with great scrutiny), I cannot say that I can honestly believe every single word.

However, everything that I have checked (his sources, and the natural occurrences he references) thus far has proven correct. That does not mean I won't find some errors, though.

Do you believe every single thing that evolution claims as "proof" ? How about TalkOrigins.com, since that seems to be your weapon of choice ?

Yes, or no. One word. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow, JSax...you and your cohorts expect me to deliver evidence of a global flood (and by extension, Creation) without the assistance of anyone else ("Can you think for yourself ?" I believe was the pointed accusation I received), and yet after reading your thread starter and then this: http ://www.tal korigins.o rg/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/faq -noahs-ark .html) I have to wonder who in this whole wide world really, truly thinks for themselves ?

Your thread starter is almost verbatim to what TalkOrigins has said. Interesting.

You site where you got this idea from, but...it was verbatim. I mean...???????????

Casting stones in a glass house makes for an uncomfortable barefooted walk to the exit.

Firstly, it wasn't verbatim. It was paraphrased. I can't use basic order of magnitude estimates to determine how big a wooden ship can be. Therefore, I chose to cite observable evidence. I think this is the logical thing to do. I'll give you an example of one of these order of magnitude estimates shortly.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You just assumed that there were ice caps PRIOR to the flood. From whence does this erroneous assumption come ? Creationist's would say that there were no ice caps prior to the flood, since the environment was nothing more than a hyperbaric chamber - a greenhouse, as a result of the water canopy surrounding the earth, and the massive underground water caverns. How can you say with confidence that there is NO evidence of a global flood contained in the ice caps ? Where is your evidence ? Are you just going to post a bunch of opinions, and nothing more ? From your link at TalkOrigins regarding ice cores, "After the eruption of volcanoes, the volcanic ash and chemicals are washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation. These eruptions leave a distinct marker within the snow which washed the atmosphere." Well, evolutionist's and Creationist's seem to agree for once !

I made this assumption as there are a number of dating tests that can be used to determine the age of the ice. I'll create a thread on the ice age later this weekend in Mad Scientists.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

From Answersingenesis.com - "The creationist meteorologist Michael Oard proposed that the Ice Age [possibly referred to in Job 37:10 and 38:22[/b]] was an aftermath of Noah’s Flood. 18 [Oard explains this in his technical book An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, ICR, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1990. He has also shown that evidence for alleged Precambrian, Ordovician and Permian ‘ice ages’ is best explained as underwater debris flows, in his book Ancient Ice Ages or Submarine Landslides?, Creation Research Soc., Chino Valley, AR, USA, 1997. Oard also wrote Life in the Great Ice Age (co-authored with Beverley Oard, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1993), which combines a colourful children’s novel with a simplified scientific explanation.] and 19 [See also Batten, D. (Ed.), Ham, K., Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C., The Answers Book, ch. 16, Answers in Genesis, Queensland, Australia, 1999.] When ‘all the fountains of the great deep’ broke up, much hot water and lava would have poured directly into the oceans.

This would have warmed the oceans, increasing evaporation. At the same time, much volcanic ash in the air after the Flood would have blocked out much sunlight, cooling the land.

So the Flood would have produced the necessary combination of lots of evaporation from the warmed oceans and cool continental climate from the volcanic ash ‘sunblock’. This would have resulted in increased snowfall over the continents. With the snow falling faster than it melted, ice sheets would have built up. - http://tinyurl.com/cujsh

Hmmm...volcanic ash. Plausible ? Oh, yeah.

Why, it's just as plausible as say...spontaneous existence of life (al a evolution, which can provide nothing more than conjecture to prove that this is how we all began) !

"This ice buildup would probably have lasted several centuries. Eventually, the seas gradually cooled, so evaporation would decrease, therefore the snow supply for the continents would also decrease. And as the ash settled out of the atmosphere, it would allow sunlight through. So the ice sheets began to melt. Sometimes the melting would have been rapid enough for the rivers that drained these ice sheets to flood. These catastrophes would have happened about 700 years after the Flood." - http://tinyurl.com/bllnu

Just for fun, here's an article defending the Ark against TalkOrigins.com's attacks - http://tinyurl.com/aatdc

I will reference that website MANY times in my posts, so...I won't be referencing it again. Just read it, and you will know where my points are coming from.

Or....is it "not good enough" ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)[/B]

When I get home I'll do the math and make some order of magnitude estimates to determine how plausible I believe this theory is.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As another side note, the ice is melting, and the sea level rising. Did you take into consideration the fact that there is a whole lot of water in this ice, just waiting to melt, when you made your assumption that there isn't enough water in the world for the flood to have happened ? http://tinyurl.com/9agbs

Yes, I have considered that there is a whole lot of water in this ice. Here's a very simple order of magnitude estimate I originally made in April, long before I became really interested in evolution vs. creationism:

quote:Originally posted in jsaxton14's blog:

For this to be true, one needs to assume that the entire world was flooded. The base of the canyon is 2000 feet above sea level. For this to be true, one has to assume the sea level rose 2000 feet/609 meters (an über conservative estimate). This requires 3.04X10^9 km^3 of water (in addition to what is already in the oceans and whatnot). Even if the ice caps were to melt, we would approach approximately 1% of that value. There isn't enough water on Earth for that theory to make any sense at all. You know algebra. Use it before believing something stupid.

Of course, at this point I was not aware of the fact that creationists like to claim that the Earth used to be flat (contrary to what you quoted from Psalms). This assumption pretty much voids my estimate. However, that isn't the point. The point is that I use my own brain to challenge ideas, not someone else's.

As to whether or not I believe in the infallibility of talk origins, I don't. Their reasoning is lacking (or at least not explained in enough depth) in a number of places, even on the noah's ark page. Example: Talk Origins claims that a global flood would have lifted the ice caps off of their surfaces, as the density of ice is lower than that of water. They are making the assumption that the buoyant force is significant enough to lift the ice caps. I really don't know how to create proper mathematical models to simulate all the forces at work, so I don't know whether or not they have a valid point.

So, in a word: no, although they do raise a number of excellent points.

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 08-26-2005).]

quote:Any belief in slow strata formation puts death before man's sin, and eliminates any reason for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross; and that's what evolution and 'millions of years' beliefs are really all about.

So Ross's god is a god that enjoys suffering above all else?

Why do I get the feeling I'm being ignored.

So, digital, clicked on that link yet?

Read my post here maybe?

Give it a try.

quote:"The contradiction lies in your insinuation that the shells and marine fossils did not come to be on the tops of the mountains as a result of submersion under water, but then you go on to say that the sediment that these mountains are composed of were in fact under water at some point.

So, the question really is, which theory do you believe (submersion due to flood, or submersion due to pre-mountainous formation), and why ?

What proof exists that eliminates the flood theory, in this case ?"

To repeat myself, again, again, again. This time I will only bold what relates to your question,

• Mount everest is littered with sea shells.

Correct, wrong conclusion.

Mount everest isn't just littered with sea shells, they are actually imbedded inside the mountain. Amazingly there are only sea shells, the flood somehow didn't cause fossils to become out of order enough to place any bones on the mountain.Bones of modern animals would be quite damaging to the current understanding of geology, yet they aren't there.

Beyond that, these shells are all from the same standard geological ages that match how old they should be if Everest rose out of a sea, like modern geology says. [Based on plate tectonics]



Your big problem here is that you like to make claims but have obviously not taken the time to do much research either way. Your arrogance that you are right without study is amazing. If you did the research you wouldn't be asking most of these questions (the questions that aren't really questions but attempts to stick your nose in the air).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The point was not whether or not I could prove that any of them had verifiable data in them. The point was that he made a pretty strong statement that there is ABSOLUTLEY NO EVIDENCE IN ALL THE WORLD that supports a global flood. NONE.

That is not only preposterous, but it is biased, to the core.

Notice that I said, "Granted, most of them are crap."

CAN WE PLEASE NOT PLAY THE SEMANTICS GAME ?!!

What does this have to do with semantics? Could you please stop using that word when it's not even appropriate? Where do you see me arguing a definition? Nowhere.

I'm simply stating that you do not show him evidence (and hence that he was not wrong) until you: 1. provide the alleged "evidence" itself, and 2. when that alleged "evidence" stands up to scrutiny. Until then you haven't proved him wrong.



quote:If there is a God, and there was a global flood, the evidence would be observable and testable, thus scientific. That is what Creation Science is doing…it is compiling data, based on observation and tests. Does that remind you of any other kind of science you know ?

Please tell me why "acts of God" and "science" cannot coexist ? If these things happened, whether caused by God or not, the evidence would be there to be tested.



You also completely missed the point.

He was placing human limitations on God, as if God is not capable of all things. His questions, and my responses, are supposing that there is a Christian God, which means He is an all powerful being.

There's a huge difference. If a god suddenly wills me to explode, Science would never in the world arrive at that conclusion, since there is no evidence supporting it. That's exactly what would happen here. There may be evidence for some of the flood, but you admit there are parts of it done by a god, then Science will never arrive at that conclusion, unless you provide some evidence that god exists in the first place. You have not.

And no, I did not miss the point. What I did is follow that point to completion: If you say that he has no limitations and did whatever he wanted in the flood, don't claim this will be supported by evidence. That's not missing the point, that's knowing the point and then showing how it affects your argument.

quote:Are you just going to tell me how my argument is flawed, or are you going to try and refute it with data of your own ? I know you can. Come on…try, please ?

Sorry but what is there to refute? That's right, a big pile of nothing. First provide the "evidence", then I can refute.

quote:That was a hypothetical statement. You know it, and I know it. Giving the qualifiers for how it could actually become fact is not necessary. It illustrates that JSax's misconception that there isn't enough water CURRENTLY on the Earth to flood it is nothing more than a blatant disregard for not only the Biblical account, but MANY different scenario's that can either prove or disprove the global flood theory.

Read what you yourself said. You said that if the waters caused the mountains to arise, then that the water needed before that happened (before they arose) was not a "difficult thing to accomplish". How does that in any way shape or form refute what he said? Do you think they current water we have now, was somehow enough (prior the alleged creation of mountains with that very water) to flood the earth?

quote:He also ignores the fact that WATER EVAPORATES. Just because the water isn't here TODAY, doesn't mean it wasn't ever here !

Great. Then say that, and not what you did say.

And that has more problems for your hypothesis.

Please explain how the atmosphere held that enormous amount of water vapor. Right now, the atmosphere can't even hold a fraction the water vapor that would have been produced by the enormous amounts of water required by the global flood.

quote:The evidence I gave was that the flood caused the mountain formations. (see Cavitation)



That's not evidence, that's a hypothesis. Evidence is what supports the hypothesis. Please provide evidence.

quote:Then I need evidence that this theory is any less reliable than evolution's theory of MILLIONS OF YEARS IN THE MAKING (which CANNOT be proven).

Evolution is nothing more than a conglomeration of plausible theories. I smell hypocrisy again.

How is that hypocrisy? Read what I said. I want exactly what Science provides, which is theories with scientifically verifiable evidence. Not just something "plausible".

quote:I never said that cavitation was THE explanation for the formation of mountains, movement of tectonic plates, or separation of continents. I said it was a plausible theory, and easily investigated by those who are curious about it.

Thank you. That's exactly my point. Plausible doesn't cut it. Not only is not not evidence, but "plausible" is subjective.

Since "plausible" is subjective, it needs verifiable evidence to make it credible; to remove the subjectivity inherent in "plausible" via the addition of facts and evidence which corroborate the hypothesis. Simply stating a hypothesis and claiming that YOU think it is "plausible" means nothing.

For example, it is completely plausible that a race of aliens from an undiscovered planet came to earth can carved out the Grand Canyon. Plausible? Of course. What makes it a ridiculous hypothesis is the fact there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis. We don't only want the hypothesis, but the evidence supporting it. This is exactly your problem below. You have a hypothesis of the Canyons possibly being formed with cavitation yet have no evidence of it.

quote:Massive water flow can cause the formulation of cavitation bubbles. Cavitation bubbles implode at 440,000 psi. This is arguably enough force to turn rock to dust instantaneously (as Russ explains). Plucking is the hydraulic lift of large slabs of rock, which were then quickly “torn up” by the force of fast flowing water.

Nobody is debating the possibility of cavitation happening. What is up to debate is whether or not it could have happened in the flood, whether or not it could have formed such Canyons, which are mainly made up of granite, and whether or not you have evidence supporting that this happened. You do not.

quote:n 1983, an occurrence of such an event took place at the Glen Canyon Dam spillway at the top of the Grand Canyon. The cavitation bubbles that formed as a result of the force of the water blasted a hole clear through a 3 foot thick cement wall (reinforced by solid steel) and 25 feet into the bedrock below. This all occurred in a matter of minutes.

If they hadn’t shut down that natural spillway, the Grand Canyon would be twice the size it currently is today.

See above. Nobody is debating whether cavitation can happen, it of course can. We're debating your unsubstantiated claims.



quote:Another example of the effects of massive water flow is that of Grand Coulee. It was formed by a massive dam breach. The result was a canyon that is 50 miles long, 6 miles wide, and 900 feet deep.

Once again, nobody is debating that massive water flow can have an effect on geological formations. It does. How? With erosion; something that takes a very long time to do. That's exactly what modern geology supports. It does not, on the other hand, support a Canyon of the magnitudes you've mentioned and containing hard rock such as granite, being created in a day or two, or even a year. The Grand Coulee canyon was not formed in a day or a few days, it took a very long time, with many occurrences of the nearby lake periodically spilling into it to erode it.

quote:Really ? The movement of tectonic plates littered the tops of the highest mountains in the world with shells, marine mammals, and lime sediments ?

Erm…I think you need to expound on that a little more, if you could, please.

Beta already took care of this. But to reiterate it and to provide a very simple explanation: http://www.mountain.org/education/subexplore/explore02.cfm

quote:Marine Fossils on Top of the Andes Mountains. More than 500 giant fossilised oysters were found 3000 metres (about 2 miles) above sea level in Peru in 2001 by Arturo Vildozola, palaeontologist with the Andean Society of Paleontology. - http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/jeck/ (references for these findings listed at the bottom of the page. You can find these books at any local library, I think.)

“The presence of marine fossils on mountaintops was profoundly perplexing to 18th century scientists and philosophers. It wasn't until the emergence of modern geology in the first half of the 19 th century that scientists widely accepted the idea of mountains forming from marine deposits as a result of "some great convulsion of nature". – Academy of Natural Sciences, http://www.acnatsci.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/notes_samples.html

[...]



I'm not asking for evidence of marine fossils in the mountains. I know that is true; that's exactly why I said it isn't a problem for geology, because geology already explains it completely.

What I'm asking for evidence is for, in specifically, this statement:

"No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them. Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence.’[2] "

There is absolutely no evidence in either of those links that support the Himalayas being created by the flood. Oh, they reiterate the claim, but they provide absolutely no evidence for that claim.

quote:Our belief in God does not somehow nullify our scientific credibility. We are still searching for more evidence and verifiable data, just as evolutionist’s are. Neither theory is complete, nor has either side stopped looking for new evidence.

It most certainly does, since, once again, Science does not deal with the supernatural. It deals with the material, not the immaterial. Hence, if at any point you claim that your explanation is based on magic, on the supernatural, or the immaterial, you cannot claim it is Science at all. You lose that claim immediately.

That's exactly why the Intelligent Designers are trying to fool people into believing it is a Science and that it is not based on something supernatural. They know it wont get deemed a Science.



quote:It is a safe conclusion that when the verifiable data we can observe agrees with the way the Bible describes our history, it may very well prove that there is a God, and that the Bible is accurate.

The evidence is that a massive amount of water could have caused the tectonic plate shifts, the continent separation, and the creation of mountains. There is evidence of a flood (the shells on top of mountains, the ocean floor sediment found at the tops of the highest peaks, etc.), so if there was a flood, the Bible is accurate.

Of course if there was a global flood the bible would be accurate. The problem is there wasn't one, or at least nobody in the world has shown any credible evidence supporting that hypothesis. Hence, it's not "safe" to conclude what you did at all.

quote:I didn’t say science couldn’t explain the caverns. I am showing that these underground caverns exist, which shows that it is very plausible that the water “from the great deep” came up from them.

Many were probably destroyed during the flood (tectonic plates crashing about).

Err no. You just did a humongous leap. How does the existence of underwater caverns show that water could have risen the way the bible describes? It does not.

The only way the water could rise up "from the deep" is if god willed it, and in that case, why the hell are the caverns necessary? If god exists and is omnipotent, he could make water come from Noah's penis if he wants to.

Mentioning the caverns is therefore irrelevant, unless of course you claim there is a scientific explanation of how the waters could have risen so (scientific as in "not magic") and you haven't provided any.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You guys asked me to give evidence and support my side. THE SEMINARS ARE SOME OF MY EVIDENCE, AS THEY ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING CREATION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Also, the flood.

If you don't want to watch them, then there is nothing more to conclude than that you don't care about the evidence or proof. You just want to see how well I debate my point, and nothing more. That's pretty damn stupid.

You declined to read our links, which takes less time than watching all of those seminars, and yet we cannot do the same to you, when those seminars take much more longer than reading all of our links? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You made your own bed, now sleep in it. This has nothing to do with us wanting to ignore evidence, it has everything to do with you wanting it your way every single time. That's not how it works.

quote:What's the matter ? Nobody has anything to say regarding cavitation ? What about plucking ? What about the shells and the marine fossils at the TOP OF THE WORLD'S TALLEST MOUNTAINS ? Nothing ?! Psh. (I'm not even close to done giving the evidence, that's just as far as I have gotten so far !)

Yes. Nobody has to say something because they haven't replied in less than a day. Way to go!

quote:You requested that I defend/prove/debate creation, evolution, and the flood. Part of my debate relies on those seminars because, as Rust can attest to, it would be a supreme pain in the ass for me to go through them and transcribe them all. (Russ Miller makes the points better than I can, so I figured it would be best for you all to get the information from him first, and then allow me to expound upon it)



Who said you had to transcribe them? Paraphrase them. Post a brief sentence explaining the claim. You don't need to transcribe them at all.

quote:Basically, you asked for me to support my belief in Creation, and thus global flood theory, and then when I start to give the evidence you simply say, "Not good enough." ??!!

You haven't given ANY evidence. You have given possible scenarios. Who the hell asked for possible (and I say possible loosely) scenarios? Nobody. We want EVIDENCE.

quote:There is no double standard here. I had about 14 links from Rust, and 8 from various other people. Do you think I am really going to go read all 20 something links, that are each approximately 5 paragraphs long, and address them all point by point ? I could do that, but it would not only take forever, it wouldn't make a difference. You would do the same thing with that data that you are doing now...ignore it, and then attack the messenger.

BULLSHIT.

There is a humongous double standard, you just ignore it because it helps your case.

The fact is we gave you many links, and you decide to not read them because they were too long. Yet you give us many seminars, seminars which would take much more longer to watch/hear than to read the links we gave you, and then we can't say the same thing -- that we wont watch them because they are too many?

The rest of your post is your usual self-martyrdome. The fact of the matter is that you have not posted any evidence. What you have posted is possible explanations: hypotheses. That's not what was asked for. We want evidence that supports that possible explanation.

Yes, you have posted evidence of caverns, and of sea shells on everest... yet all of those are already easilly explained by geology. They do not support your hypothesis as much as they support ours. That makes your "evidence" useless. You need evidence that only supports your own. That would evidence that actually supports what you said, and that's exactly what you haven't provided.

I would like to bring up a point on something. Every year the Earth gets an inch bigger(Proven fact). The reason why is because the earth picks up "space dust or particles from space". So by the estimated time the Bible predicts the flood happening the Bible predicts the earth would have been smaller. Also the atmosphere has a gap between it. Theories from scientist predict we once had an aquatic atmosphere. If look at other religions. From Christianity to even the Greeks. Most mention a flood. Do you see my point here?

1. While the earth is constantly increasing it's mass because of space debri/dust/etc. it's dishonest to say that it gains an inch per year as that implies it rests evenly on the surface, which is not really the case.

Moreover, even if we take that assumtion as true, you're still left with an enourmous amount of water, the difference is hardly noticeable.

2. "Aquatic atmosphere"? Please explain what you mean, and more importantly how that supports your conclusion...

The atmoshpere of earth, was never "aquatic" save for water vapor, and even then that was predominently in the past, not the current atmosphere we have today (though there is some water vapor).



3. They mention floods. So? What should we conclude... that a worldwide flood happened which goes against all the knowledge we have accumulated so far, and would defy the laws of physics, or that a big, local flood occured in one area, and other cultures have take from that to create their myths?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-28-2005).]

Many cultures have talking animal myths.

but if I go around trying to talk to animals I'll get thrown in a padded cell.

let me start out by saying that i've read very little in this thread, so i'm not sure what has been address, refuted, or countered. So if the link that i share, has been mentioned, addressed, refuted or countered... then, my apologies.

I've had very little time to spend with all of you lately. I've had just a little time today (that i mostly spent reading TJ, and a few web sites.)

One of the articles that i read today was in reguards to the Flood, so i figured i'd throw it into the mix. It is a rebuttal of Mark Isaak's rebuttal of John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study:

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

I hope you all enjoy.. time for me to get some of lawn cut, so i have less to do tomorrow. Hopefully work will mellow out soon, to a reasonable pace so i can come visit more.. tons of catching up to do.

Xtreem: Some reasonable arguments against the TO arguments, other false claims. In this case I think an understanding of the science behind what they are talking about is needed to fully understand either side.

Reading it a couple things came to mind that I thought might be of interest to those that actually read what is posted.



Ad Hom and non thinking buzzwords.

Right off the bat I almost didn't want to read the rest because it starts off with Ad hominem and non thinking buzzwords. An Ad hom is basically attacking the writer and not the argument. This happens a lot on forums, but this is supposed to be a professional scientist and a professional paper.

His attack is based on a non thinking buzzword (or just buzzword). This is something I heard while doing research into cults and found it interesting. Basically it is where a word or phrase is used to make someone dismiss someone or something else without taking the time to think about it. People do it all the time and it's an effective weapon in the politicians arsenal. Everytime a politician or political advocate says "Liberal wacko." "Right wing nut." "Agenda." etc. it's an attempt to make people jump to a conclusion without considering the evidence. Religious debates have their own set of non thinking buzzwords and it's very important to learn them and to realize they shouldn't color your vision.

Sarfati starts out by painting Talk origins as evil atheists who want to destroy christianity and who need help. He is effectively trying to color your view of the other side to make you believe him over them even before you have heard the arguments.



Check the details.

In this case it's the truth and not the devil that are in the details.

I addressed a couple of his claims (such as shells on everest) in my points about the transcript. It's the details that change it from flood evidence to standard geology evidence. The same can be said for many other claims, such as Mt St Helen formed quick canyons so the grand canyon could have been formed quickly. The details say they are nothing a like.

A bird can fly.

A plane can fly.

Thus birds are planes. Right?

Nope. Remember the details.

Many arguments for creationism seem to suffer from this problem, they don't dig deep enough, often because the details just don't match.



The bible says what?

Many creationists say that they put the bible first yet there are multiple cases of the bible being taken out of context to fit a creationist view. Sarfati takes psalms 104 out of context just like the transcribed media did. This is a poetic description of the water receding. The mountains "rose" when the water level lowered and revealed their tops. This verse is interesting, having multiple translations, means that we can't just go by the word but need to understand exactly what is going on.

Beta: I'm surprised I haven't noticed you until now. You're fast becoming one of my favorite posters.

I have been away, but I will get to responding.

JSax, there seems to be a striking coincidence between the people you admire, and the people who can win your arguments for you...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Why do I get the feeling I'm being ignored.

So, digital, clicked on that link yet?

Read my post here maybe?

Give it a try.

You powers of observation are astonishing...and reveal a lot about this debate.

quote:Posted by Digital_Savior

I will continue to debate JSax's arguments, when I return from California on Monday.

Yes it reveals that you seem to be willing to ignore information just because you have decided to ignore the person who gave it.

Seems a bit dishonest don't you think?

And a bit hypocritical to boot.

What I mean't that there is a theory about a gap between the atmosphere actually had water in it. I forgot where I heard the the theory. I'm not saying the theory is true but it does make ya think about things.

Beta, don't be an idiot.

I am pointing out that I said MANY posts ago that I was not going to be here, and yet you STILL found it acceptable to try and heckle me, as if I were avoiding the debate.

You can wait.

Though I couldn't be bothered to read much of the second page because my head is beginning to hurt, I'd just like to raise a couple of questions: Sorry if they have been asked before, and please refer me to the appropriate posts.

1) If God for some reason saw fit to put so much water in these "underground water caverns", then why is it not mentioned in the book of Genesis. Such a large body of water to me would seem worthy of at least a side note.

2) If God DID put so much water in underground caverns... then why? For use to smite the human race if they acted evily (as shown in the flood). Therefore, wasn't God anticipating the fall of man? If so, why didn't he use his omnipotent power to stop this before it happened?

IF he didn't put so much water in underground caverns for his smiting purposes, WHY did he do it?

3) If the water suddenly rose out of the deeps to help flood the Earth, then how did it go against the laws of gravity to do so? Can you say that gravity doesn't exist?

Using your example of the underground caverns in America, this would suggest that somehow the water decided to uplift itself.

If you are going to attempt to use logic and say that the water caverns all collapsed, which helped create mountains and valleys, then why didn't all of them collapse? (such as the one you described).

If said caverns did collapse, then why? This could only point to tectonic activity in the Earth's crust, which therefore means that it was chance as opposed to God's work.

4) When this water went away, where did it go? It couldn't return to the collapsed underground caverns as they weren't there, and if it evaporated then it would have to fall somewhere.

Furthermore assuming that the caverns collapsed, this would mean that the water level would fill the gap, thus meaning that there was no rise in water level in the first place. To myself this sounds very vague. I know what I am trying to say and will explain it better if asked, but right now all of these posts are making me see double.



I like this thread though, for the most part it has been very intelligent. *Two thumbs up*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have been away, but I will get to responding.

JSax, there seems to be a striking coincidence between the people you admire, and the people who can win your arguments for you...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I have made plenty of my own arguments, many of them nearly a week ago, and I have defended every single one of them that you have bothered to respond to. Also, please attack my arguments and not my ability to argue. You have yet to refute a single one of my arguments (In my original post I conceded that if god existed, he would have a motive to use supernatural forces to flood the Earth. You put together a lengthy post trying to scientifically explain how the flood could have happened, only to arrive at the same conclusion I did: science alone cannot explain the entire flood.)

Edit: typo

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 08-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

That's exactly my thinking as well. They do say that the "world" flooded. Now way back then the only civilized cultures on the planet were in mesopotamia. At the time that was the world to those people.

wow,..you took the words right out of my mouth...um,er..my post i mean.hehe

So... Atheism wins?

Nope.

Science wins, fundementalist christians lose.

the great flood along with other catastrophes did happen, but because planet x passed by earth on it's orbit causing a pole shift. we're due for another pretty soon

And here I thought that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ deserved to be defended...

This thread is older than Christ.

It must be the day of the dead.

Old threads are rising from the grave. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I'm far from all knowledgeable in such matters, but common sense dictates that if all human life but Noah and his immediate family was destroyed at such a late stage, would there not be far less genetic variation amongst humans?

I read a theory in a science text once that the reason there is so little variation in the cheetah population is because, at one stage, all but one breeding pair were killed off. Would the same thing not happen to the human race if the great flood theory, as in the Bible, is correct?

I'm not a scientist and and I am not a theologian so I do not know how long it would take for such great genetic variation as is found in the human race to re-establish itself, nor do I know how long ago the great flood is said to have happened. So my argument could be utter crap. But I just wondered what you guys though on the matter.

quote:Originally posted by penguinofdoom:

I'm far from all knowledgeable in such matters, but common sense dictates that if all human life but Noah and his immediate family was destroyed at such a late stage, would there not be far less genetic variation amongst humans?

Most likely, and to every other animal on the planet. Creationists (knowingly or not) believe in a type of hyper evolution. Only a set of each animal "kind" (think kindergarten animal classifications) was brought onto the ark. After the ark every animal kind "devolved" into the many we see now. Take the cat kind for example, only a couple Cat kind animals were saved, from there they not only propogated enough in the time to spread accross the world but mutations adjusted them and they speciated into lions, tigers, cheetahs, hous cats, etc. The amount of mutation and sex to do this for every animal is stagering

Ironically some creationists often attack their own claim by saying that beneficial mutations almost never happen and that harmful mutations kill the animal.

quote:Originally posted by penguinofdoom:

nor do I know how long ago the great flood is said to have happened.

4000-4500 years ago, depending on who you ask.



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-02-2005).]

those in favour of the flood have come out and given evidence to support their claim. Now let's hear those opposed to, not just poke fun at the flood theory, but formulate their own theory. That is the scientific way. If you think a theory is no good, then come up with a better one.

I'm waiting.

Huh?

Come up with a better theory for what?

The only thing the flood "theory" attempts to explain is a fairy tale in the bible. If one doesn't believe the bible to be literally true, then there is no need for a theory to explain that fairy tale since the ones claiming that it is the literal truth are the world-flood supporters.

Your request is illogical.



Edit: And if you mean a theory explaining the development of mountains, valleys, canyons and the like, then the science behind that has already been explained in this very thread.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Huh?

Come up with a better theory for [b]what?

The only thing the flood "theory" attempts to explain is a fairy tale in the bible. If one doesn't believe the bible to be literally true, then there is no need for a theory to explain that fairy tale.

Your request is illogical.



Give me your theory backed up with evidence as to why the bible is a fairy tale.



[This message has been edited by p106_peppy (edited 11-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by p106_peppy:

Give me your theory backed up with evidence as to why the bible is a fairy tale.



I believe the majority, if not all of the stories in he bible are fairy tales because they have not been proven to be truths.

A "truth" (i.e. the opposite of fairy tale in this context) has to be proven so, until it has been proven as something that actually represents reality, it remains an unsubstantiated statment and nothing else.

Thus it is you or any other biblical creationists that have to prove the allegation that the bible represents reality, until you do it remains just a story: a fairy tale.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-02-2005).]

Science doesn't exactly work that way. Science works through falsification. You come up with a theory that fits all the current evidence and people try to shoot it down. If they are successful then scientists either go back to the drawing board, move to a competing theory or modify the old theory to match the new data.

So let's say there was absolutely no other theory about geology. Even if the flood theory was the only one it wouldn't be considered because it has already been disproven and shot down.

People have done just what you are asking over 100 years ago. The first people to disprove flood theory were creationists in the early 1800's (before Darwin). The geological revolution occurred and more evidence was found. By the end of the 1800's the scientific geological community had falsified creationists geological beliefs. If you want a better theory I would recommend studying modern geology.

Oh and I see no evidence that supports only the flood and can stand up to scrutiny.