Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
No. What I am saying is that all essential "elements" in the description of Noah's Flood are, in fact, scientifically true, or possibly be true. But it would be troublesome to put all of them together unless we invoke some other factors we do not know at this moment.
Wut?
The flood as described in Genesis is a scientific impossibility. At the very basics, you're either stuck with too much water required, too much energy released, and/or some combination of both. It takes a miracle to make it work.
Not to mention the fact it contradicts actual human recorded history (i.e. supposedly taking place during the time of civilizations that apparently forgot to get wiped out).
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
The flood as described in Genesis is a scientific impossibility. At the very basics, you're either stuck with too much water required, too much energy released, and/or some combination of both. It takes a miracle to make it work.
Not to mention the fact it contradicts actual human recorded history (i.e. supposedly taking place during the time of civilizations that apparently forgot to get wiped out).
Sorry that at this time, I am not trying to argue the details of this issue in this thread.
Hey AVET... can't find anything in the Bible that supports the Common Descent of humans and chimps?
Keep Looking.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
The flood as described in Genesis is a scientific impossibility. At the very basics, you're either stuck with too much water required, too much energy released, and/or some combination of both. It takes a miracle to make it work.
Not to mention the fact it contradicts actual human recorded history
For starters,it was a miracle.The Flood was not something that happened by chance. If you are a Christian,you believe in God.Therefore,it is easy to believe that God did it,or should be.If you are not,there is scientific evidence that would say otherwise...go on,test me.
Two,explain in-depth how it was a scientific impossibility.It is not an impossibility if the "big bang" happened.You evolutionists/atheists are so gullible often by not even seeing past your own faults.
And how exactly does it contradict human history?From what I can see,it rather supports it.
For starters,it was a miracle.The Flood was not something that happened by chance. If you are a Christian,you believe in God.Therefore,it is easy to believe that God did it,or should be.If you are not,there is scientific evidence that would say otherwise...go on,test me.
I tell these people, Estiono, that if they can't get past Genesis 1, they are in for all sorts of problems, as far as understanding anything goes.
For starters,it was a miracle.The Flood was not something that happened by chance. If you are a Christian,you believe in God.Therefore,it is easy to believe that God did it,or should be.If you are not,there is scientific evidence that would say otherwise...go on,test me.
Go take it up with juvenissun then. He claims it's scientifically feasible. Something that is scientifically feasible needs no miracle.
Two,explain in-depth how it was a scientific impossibility.
I'm not going into debth as I simply don't have time (and plenty of others have written up on that). But the gist of it is:
1) There is not enough water for the flood to cover everything based on current topography. You'd need a massive amount of water miracled in and miracled out for that to occur. And a subsequent problem with this (regarding the rain in particular) is the energy release from the event which would have boiled the Earth.
2) Creationists try to get around the problem of not enough water by claiming the topography was much flatter and that very rapid plate tectonics caused the mountains to rise after the flood. Again, the problem is one of energy release which would have cooked the Earth.
These are just two of the very significant problems with the creationist flood model. There are umpteen others (biogeography being another huge one).
The only way creationists ever get around these is to insert random miracles. But seeing as how miracles are unbounded by any physical constraint, you can just miracle any ol' idea in existence. It makes the idea pretty worthless.
It is not an impossibility if the "big bang" happened.You evolutionists/atheists are so gullible often by not even seeing past your own
faults.
Wut?
And how exactly does it contradict human history?From what I can see,it rather supports it.
Google the proposed time in history where creationists put the Flood and then Google the history of Egypt (pay attention to the 6th Dynasty).
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Last edited by Pete Harcoff; 8th November 2008 at 02:40 PM.
Aha,so if miracles are not in the slightest bit true,as we'll say they aren't,then what would you consider the big bang?Just using an example there.
Think about it-it'd take a miracle for that to happen.When an explosion happens,things do not form together and make something orderly.Right?Of course right.So when that happened,would you say that that is not scientifically impossible?It is simply not scientifically feasible!I hope not.Because if you believe that,then you are being as vague and prejudice as we are.
Evolution has merit,but simply not enough.Creationists are accepting their theory/theories by faith.Why is it so hard for you Evolutionists to accept the word "faith"?You have faith every day without even realizing it or thinking about it.(".^)
You were not there to prove that the world was created this way or that way-in that way,we are both prejudice.
The flood...did you know that there are actually people who recorded that the flood happened?
AV1611VET,I agree.It is easy from our viewpoint to see this,but from theirs,not so.When I debate,I try to see both side's merit.Do you believe in a young earth/old earth?=)
And as to Genesis 1,yeah...The Bible has never been proved wrong.People have been trying to prove the Bible wrong for years.Everytime they say,"oh look,here is some more evidence that proves those Creationists wrong...",but a little while later down the road comes more evidence to support the Bible.If anyone can truly prove the Bible wrong,then I'll have been believing a lie.
And lastly,the sixth dynasty?I checked that on Google,and is said about 2000 BC.What about it?That does not disprove the flood.
To all evolutionists,I mean not to sound rough...Just trying to get a point across here.=)
When an explosion happens,things do not form together and make something orderly.Right?Of course right.
The Big Bang was not (I repeat NOT) an explosion. Obviously you don't understand certain basics of science.
Originally Posted by Estiono
To all evolutionists,I mean not to sound rough...Just trying to get a point across here.=)
What point?
The point about not understanding what the Big Bang theory actually describes?
__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei
"Telling me the ToE is wrong is like telling a car mechanic
the internal combustion engine runs on magic."- Blayz
The POINT of Creationism, from an honest Creationist
"And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else."
-juvenissun
AV1611VET,I agree.It is easy from our viewpoint to see this,but from theirs,not so.When I debate,I try to see both side's merit.Do you believe in a young earth/old earth?=)
In a way, I believe both --- I believe that God created this earth as an old planet, 6100 years ago. In other words, He created it with age embedded in it. Just like He did Adam --- He created Adam as a mature, fully-grown man of about 30 years old.
To put it another way, this earth, with its 4.404 billion-year-old Zircon that they use to date this planet, has only gone around the sun 6100 times.
..Just trying to get a point across here.=) 
Linear Mode
