• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh and also you stated that I get my questions & Information off of Creationist sites, well how about you guys? you guys post links to Wikipedia and most of all (Talk Origins) ..

Creationist sites have an obvious bias towards...christianity! Many of these sites even have statements of faith (answersingenesis) or disclaimers openly voicing their biases or motives, as I pointed out w/ creation.com. Also search for the discovery institutes famous "wedge document." All of these have no active "creation research" programs. Their "research" involves nothing more than taking work from others or only searching for what they see as flaws, except that these "flaws" are usually quotes or data taken completely out of context, or misinterpretations based off their shoddy knowledge of science.

Furthermore, many these creationist sites double as ministries. You can't get more biased than that. At least wikipedia is somewhat peer reviewed, although not always by experts w/ accountability. And a honest person will always suggest checking & evaluating the references.

Btw...I believe all of your questions are standard creationist "ammo" found on nearly all fundamentalist sites. I find it hard to believe you coincidentally thought of them yourself while browsing creation.com.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Creationist sites have an obvious bias towards...christianity! Many of these sites even have statements of faith (answersingenesis) or disclaimers openly voicing their biases or motives, as I pointed out w/ creation.com. Also search for the discovery institutes famous "wedge document." All of these have no active "creation research" programs. Their "research" involves nothing more than taking work from others or only searching for what they see as flaws, except that these "flaws" are usually quotes or data taken completely out of context, or misinterpretations based off their shoddy knowledge of science.

Furthermore, many these creationist sites double as ministries. You can't get more biased than that. At least wikipedia is somewhat peer reviewed, although not always by experts w/ accountability. And a honest person will always suggest checking & evaluating the references.

Btw...I believe all of your questions are standard creationist "ammo" found on nearly all fundamentalist sites. I find it hard to believe you coincidentally thought of them yourself while browsing creation.com.

Show me the evidence that you know 100% that creationists do no science at all but just go and search for flaws. Okay, and We can say the same thing for Evolution buddy.

And since Evolution is Based on Millions of years, Here is soemthing for Christians to understand not Evolutionists. But it can pertain to them too, since Biblical Creation proves evolution wrong.

1.)The bible clearly teaches that GOD created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. (The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the old testament it means a literal day: and where it doesn't, the context makes it clear.)

2.)The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. (First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4-5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yom is used with "evening" and "morning." Everywhere these two words are used in the old testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which every else in the Old testament indicates literal days. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14 IN Relation to the heavenly bodies.)

3.) The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that the certain days happened only about 6,000 years ago. ( It is transparent from the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 ( which give very detailed chronological information, unlike the clearly abbreiviated genealogy in Matthew 1) and other chronological information in the Bible that the Creation Week took place only about 6,000 years ago.)

4.)Exodus 20:9-11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1. ( "Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath and made it holy" (Exodus 20:9-11).
This passage gives the reason for GOD's command to Israel to work six days and then take the sabbath rest. Yom is used in both parts of the commandment. If God meant that the Jews were to work six days because He created over six long periods of time, He could have said that using one of the three indefinite Hebrew time words. He chose the only word that means a literal day, and the Jews understod it literally (until the idea of millions of years developed in the early nineteenth century.) For this reason, the day-age view or framework hypothesis must be rejected. The gap theory or any other attempt to put millions of years before the six days are also false because GOD says that in six days He made the Heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. So He made everything in those six literal days and nothing before the first day. )

5.) Noah's Flood washes millions of years. ( The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark's purpose was to save two of every kind of land anumal and bird (and seven of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was totally unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, anima;s, and birds could have migrated out of the flood zone before it occured, or the zone could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced masive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes etc. The hebrew words translated "the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Genesis 7:11) clearly point to tetonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Noah's Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim. )

6.) JESUS was a young-earth creationist. (JESUS consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g. creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his Wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of scriptue over men's ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1-9). In Mark 10:6 we have a clearest (but not the only) statement showing that JESUS was a young-earth creationist. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?)

7.)Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible's teaching on death and on the character of God. (Genesis 1 says six times that God called the creation "good," and when He finished creation on Day 6, He called everything "very good." Man and animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30, plants are not "living creatures," as people and animals are, according to scripture) But Adam and Eve sinned, resulting in the judgment of God on the whole creation. Instantly Adam and Eve died spiritually, and after God's curse they began to die physically. The serpent and Eve were changed physically and the ground itself was cursed (Genesis 3:14-19).The whole creation now groans in bondage to corruption, waiting for the final redemption of Christians (Romans 8:19-25) when we will see the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21; Colossians 1:20) to a state similar to the pre-fall world, when there will be no more carnivorus behavior (Isiah 11:6-9) and no disease, suffering, or death (Revelation 21:3-5) because there will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3). To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible's teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can't prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work without any moral cause but still calls it all "very good." )

8.)The idea of millions of years did not come from scientific facts. ( This idea of long ages was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These men used anti-biblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the biblical account of creation, the Flood, and the age of the earth. Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, etc. to try to fit "deep time" into the Bible. But they did not understand the geological arguments and they did not defend their views by careful Bible study. The "deep time" idea flows out of the naturalistic assumption not scientific observations.

God Bless And there are more to say but Im getting tired.
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟65,945.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
1. I did not "ask" about the evolution of the eye, I said, "How could it have evolved?" As in a Statement-question form, Like an exaggeration.

Oh, a rhetorical question! So you rhetorically asked "How could [the eye] have evolved?" and still, there was an answer for it. Should I assume all of your questions are just rhetoric and you have no interest in getting answers?

Oh and I do not pur-pose questions from creationist websites, I make my own questions, and to say I get them off websites would be lying on your part, Just because I ask a question its off a website? The only part I cut and pasted on the eye part was the part in the "Italics" .. Okay and since I already know about the basics of evolution why don't you tell me them since, all the answers you guys have for a statement that you can't answer to is, " You don't understand it." Well Tell me them super brains. (Exaggeration - Just so you guys know)

Oh and also you stated that I get my questions & Information off of Creationist sites, well how about you guys? you guys post links to Wikipedia and most of all (Talk Origins) ..

You misunderstand my point. I don't care where you get these questions. But when I gave you an answer to a question you asked (rhetorical or not), you don't even read it, you just go looking for something new thinking "this will stump these atheists." This is disengenous inquiry, as you refuse to accept an answer. I have no need to prove how smart I am. If you honestly have a question, I will try to find you an answer, but you want us to fail to find an answer so you could say "...therefore, God!" So really, it's kind of a waste of my time.

However, I feel I have to ask: If you understand the basics of evolution, then why would you need to ask why the ears of humans are less effective than the ears of say, wolves? It goes to the very basis of how evolution works.
 
Upvote 0

the.Sheepdog

You must be born again!
Oct 26, 2008
9,006
1,446
Sanford, FL
✟39,481.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
JGG I am confused. what does a wolves ears have to do with mine?

I am also shorter than a california redwood. I weight slightly less too. :)

I have legs and arms and a whale has fins and a tail.

"It goes to the very basis of how evolution works" ?

How about it goes to the great plans of a wonderful God!

Just because someone doesnt understand something shouldnt make it false.
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟65,945.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
"It goes to the very basis of how evolution works" ?

How about it goes to the great plans of a wonderful God!

Maybe, and apparently a very long term plan, no less.

Just because someone doesnt understand something shouldnt make it false.

To paraphrase Bubba Clinton, could you define what "it" means?
 
Upvote 0

Wicked Willow

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2005
2,715
312
✟4,434.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Show me the evidence that you know 100% that creationists do no science at all but just go and search for flaws. Okay, and We can say the same thing for Evolution buddy.
That's easy. The scientific method relies on falsifiable evidence, with hypotheses that can be tested and repeated.
Creationists do not adhere to that. All of their premises rely on supernatural interventions of a mythical entity that can neither be tested nor falsified. Thus, what they do is not science. It's religion pretending to be science.

1.)The bible clearly teaches that GOD created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. (The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the old testament it means a literal day: and where it doesn't, the context makes it clear.)
And? HUNDREDS of creation myths from all around the world exist - they are the product of a day and age when pretty much any inexplicable phenomenon was attributed to supernatural forces at work: from the beginning of the universe to the flooding of rivers.
You don't honestly expect us to treat a collection of bronze age myths as anything other than that, do you? With that, I can pretty much tick off the other points as well. Except for...

8.)The idea of millions of years did not come from scientific facts.
This, I comment with just one little picture:

epic-fail.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Show me the evidence that you know 100% that creationists do no science at all but just go and search for flaws. Okay, and We can say the same thing for Evolution buddy.

Listen young grasshopper. Show me a peer-reviewed, professional journal where a "creation research" center is cited in the author section. Just one citation. And no, I do not mean something like the discovery institute's own internal, poor excuse for a "journal" which is not evaluated by anyone else. It doesn't even have the journalistic quality of a newsletter. If it's not allowed to be criticized by peer-review which creates accountability for the authors, then it's not likely to be trusted. Where's the real science published by creation research centers? Where is it??? No more links from anti-science creation websites, please.

Besides, you can walk into just about any university worldwide & find active bio/evo bio programs & research labs whose faculty & students are actively publishing & contributing to the literature. So no, you can't say the same thing for evo.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
5.) Noah's Flood washes millions of years. ( The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish.

Btw...in regards to #5 on your list, please tell me what happened to all the ocean/lake-dwelling animals in the world. Since they were not on the ark, were salt-water fish magically able to survive massive reductions in the salt concentrations?...the same for freshwater fish surviving large relative increases in salt concentration. This also applies to all other sea plants/creatures. Let's not forget that this was a supposed "catastrophic" event (to use your description), & underwater ecosystems everywhere would have likely been destroyed (lack of light, muddy/cloudy water/violently turbulent waters, etc). Tell me, how did underwater animals/plants also survive? Magic?
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Oh, a rhetorical question! So you rhetorically asked "How could [the eye] have evolved?" and still, there was an answer for it. Should I assume all of your questions are just rhetoric and you have no interest in getting answers?



You misunderstand my point. I don't care where you get these questions. But when I gave you an answer to a question you asked (rhetorical or not), you don't even read it, you just go looking for something new thinking "this will stump these atheists." This is disengenous inquiry, as you refuse to accept an answer. I have no need to prove how smart I am. If you honestly have a question, I will try to find you an answer, but you want us to fail to find an answer so you could say "...therefore, God!" So really, it's kind of a waste of my time.

However, I feel I have to ask: If you understand the basics of evolution, then why would you need to ask why the ears of humans are less effective than the ears of say, wolves? It goes to the very basis of how evolution works.


You said I did not read it, you just made a false assumption, I did not go else where, I read the same very link you posed to me, About "Eye-evolution" because it all started with that "Light Sensitive" part of skin..Etc, and therefore it evolved, Do not assume I do not read the links you all pose because I do read them, Do not say I am not interested in answers, Whenever I am, That would kind of unreasonable. Well, You asked about the "basics of Evolution" and why I asked about the ear part? Well It is true,

If everything "as evolutionists know it" evolved from that "First-Single celled organism" and here We are Animals, Humans, and all other creatures, then Why is it that "we" humans are at the (top) of the Evolutionary Scale, Whenever 1. The Animals are Smarter than us 2. They can see better than us 3. They can hear better than us 4. The have certain ways of navigating by themselves and 5. Animals have just better overall ability than humans, but we all came from the same organism, why is it that we have evolved much 'lesser' than that of animals.

Do not say that were smarter than animals because you know that Tsunami that hit Asia? Well, There was no animals in the area whenever that happened, Now I wonder how they knew that, but You could see humans standing on the beach, Taking "Pictures" of the Tsunami as it was closing in to kill them. Do not use the stupid, Oh They have to use their environment to survive, by "Adaptation" because this is still not the case, If you take a human out of a city to go survive in a certain habitat opposite of that of a city, He will still not become so Adapted to that environment that they are smarter than the animals. Because they will still be smarter. I mean take a gorilla for example, They are ten times stronger than us, but we all came from the same organism? Yeah seems very unlikely.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Btw...in regards to #5 on your list, please tell me what happened to all the ocean/lake-dwelling animals in the world. Since they were not on the ark, were salt-water fish magically able to survive massive reductions in the salt concentrations?...the same for freshwater fish surviving large relative increases in salt concentration. This also applies to all other sea plants/creatures. Let's not forget that this was a supposed "catastrophic" event (to use your description), & underwater ecosystems everywhere would have likely been destroyed (lack of light, muddy/cloudy water/violently turbulent waters, etc). Tell me, how did underwater animals/plants also survive? Magic?


Man Do your own research, I am not going to tell you, I mean you should have figured that one out by now, but man, I'll leave you to do the research since I have to all the time for you guys, So this time, you go do it, and make your own self happy, okay. =]
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And? HUNDREDS of creation myths from all around the world exist - they are the product of a day and age when pretty much any inexplicable phenomenon was attributed to supernatural forces at work: from the beginning of the universe to the flooding of rivers.
You don't honestly expect us to treat a collection of bronze age myths as anything other than that, do you? With that, I can pretty much tick off the other points as well. Except for..


Hundreds of Creation Myths (i.e. Evolution also)
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
then Why is it that "we" humans are at the (top) of the Evolutionary Scale, Whenever 1. The Animals are Smarter than us 2. They can see better than us 3. They can hear better than us 4. The have certain ways of navigating by themselves and 5. Animals have just better overall ability than humans, but we all came from the same organism, why is it that we have evolved much 'lesser' than that of animals.

There's no real "top" to the evolutionary "scale." Throw me or another human in the middle of the ocean, & it will be obvious we are not at the top of the "scale." I have stated it earlier, among other things we have very good reasoning & analysis skills relative to other animals. Not to mention that our hands also help quite a bit & we form strong or powerful societies (power in numbers). We've become well-adapted & able to survive in these conditions.

In regards to the other reasons listed, that's why I wouldn't want to be in the deep wilderness at night by myself & unarmed. But a grizzly bear walking into NYC wouldn't stand a chance against us humans.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Man Do your own research, I am not going to tell you, I mean you should have figured that one out by now, but man, I'll leave you to do the research since I have to all the time for you guys, So this time, you go do it, and make your own self happy, okay. =]

I'll take that to mean "I have no idea," unless you prove otherwise. But based on evidence, I'll tell you. The flood as described in the bible never happened. And if something like that were to happen, sea life would be devastated as well. So I'll ask again, why do global flood-believers never account for the sea life? Did they survive by magic?
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'll take that to mean "I have no idea," unless you prove otherwise. But based on evidence, I'll tell you. The flood as described in the bible never happened. And if something like that were to happen, sea life would be devastated as well. So I'll ask again, why do global flood-believers never account for the sea life? Did they survive by magic?


Umm No, NOt "I have no idea." That is like the easiest question in the book smart one, lol.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Umm No, NOt "I have no idea." That is like the easiest question in the book smart one, lol.

Well I'm having a hard time coming up with any other explanation than magic. Or maybe god had someone else make huge aquariums? Really, enlighten me.

Btw, I'll go ahead & drop this link before you do:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
Please don't tell me the "fountains of the deep" or the firmament was salty, or that all the sea-life could instantly adapt.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well I'm having a hard time coming up with any other explanation than magic. Or maybe god had someone else make huge aquariums? Really, enlighten me.

Btw, I'll go ahead & drop this link before you do:
How did fish survive the Flood? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Please don't tell me the "fountains of the deep" or the firmament was salty, or that all the sea-life could instantly adapt.


The thing I posted pertains to the fountains of the deep, but It doesn't have to be "just that" there are other ways.



How did freshwater and
saltwater fish survive the
Flood?
• How did saltwater fish survive dilution of the seawater with
freshwater, or how did freshwater types survive in saltwater?
• And how did plants survive?
IF the whole Earth were covered by water in the Flood, then there
would have been a mixing of fresh and salt waters. Many of today’s
fish species are specialized and do not survive in water of radically different
saltiness to their usual habitat. So how did they survive the Flood?
Note that the Bible tells us that only land-dwelling, air-breathing
animals and birds were on the Ark (Gen. 7:14, 15, 21–23).
We do not know how salty the sea was before the Flood. The Flood
was initiated by the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen.
7:11). Whatever the ‘fountains of the great deep’ were (see Chapter 9),
the Flood must have been associated with massive earth movements,
because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in
great volcanic activity.
Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates
hot water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water.
190~Chapter 14
Furthermore, erosion accompanying
the movement of water off the
continents after the Flood would have
added salt to the oceans. In other
words, we would expect the pre-
Flood ocean waters to be less salty
than they were after the Flood.
The problem for fish coping with
saltiness is this: fish in fresh water
tend to absorb water, because the
saltiness of their body fluids draws in the water (by osmosis). Fish in
saltwater tend to lose water from their bodies because the surrounding
water is saltier than their body fluids.
Saltwater/freshwater adaptation
in fish today
Many of today’s marine organisms, especially
estuarine and tidepool
species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish
will tolerate as low as 16–18% of the normal concentration
of sea salt
indefinitely.
Barnacles can withstand
exposure to less than one-tenth the
usual salt concentration
of sea-water.
There are migratory species
of fish that travel between salt and fresh
water. For example, salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn
in freshwater and mature in saltwater. Eels reproduce in saltwater and
grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. So, many of today’s
species of fish are able to adjust to both freshwater and saltwater.
There is also evidence of post-Flood specialization within a kind of
fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater
species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind)
lives only in freshwater.
Many families1 of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These
include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/
anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish,
and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh
and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate
Eels, like many sea creatures, can move
between salt and fresh water.
1. ‘Family’ is one of the main levels of classification for fish. In fish there is plenty of evidence
for hybridization within families—the trout/salmon family, for example—suggesting that
families may represent the biblical ‘kind’ in fish.
How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?~191
large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the Flood.
Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss
of this ability in many species since then (see Chapter 1, pp. 9–10).
Hybrids of wild trout (freshwater) and farmed salmon (migratory
species) have been discovered in Scotland,2 suggesting that the
differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor.
Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in
degree rather than kind.
The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine
has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess
salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high
concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater
environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea
to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from saltwater to
freshwater they increase their urine output twenty fold, and their blood
urea concentration decreases to less than one-third.
Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of
different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and
saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed
slowly enough.
So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both
fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.
Aquatic air-breathing mammals
such as whales and dolphins
would
have been better placed than many fish to survive
the Flood, not being
dependent on clean water to obtain
their oxygen.
Many marine creatures would
have been killed in the Flood
because of the turbidity of the water,
changes in temperature,
etc. The
fossil record testifies
to the massive
destruction
of marine life, with
marine creatures accounting for
95% of the fossil record.3 Some,
Freshwater trout can hybridize with (saltwater)
salmon.
2. Charron, B., 1995. Escape to sterility for designer fish. New Scientist 146(1979):22.
3. There is a huge number of marine fossils. If they really formed in the manner claimed by
evolutionists (over hundreds of millions of years), then transitional fossils showing gradual
change from one kind to another should be most evident here. But they are conspicuous
by their absence. Furthermore, fossils of such things as jellyfish, starfish and clams are
found near the bottom of the fossil record of multi-cellular organisms, and yet they are
still around today, fundamentally unchanged.
Image by Marcus Österberg <sxc.hu>
192~Chapter 14
such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time.
This is consistent with the Bible account of the Flood beginning with
the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (i.e. beginning in the
sea; ‘the great deep’ means the oceans).
There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers
developed and persisted
in some parts of the ocean. Freshwater can sit on
top of saltwater for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been
sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow
the survival of both freshwater and saltwater
species in those areas.
Survival of plants
Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various
concentrations of saltwater.4 Indeed, saltwater impedes the germination
of some species so that the seed lasts better in saltwater than freshwater.
Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on
pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are capable
of asexual sprouting.
Many plants could have survived as planned food stores on the Ark,
or accidental inclusions in such food stores. Many seeds have devices
for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the
Flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the
bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.
The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove (Gen. 8:11) shows
that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the
Ark.
Conclusion
There are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh and saltwater
fish and plants could have survived the Flood. There is no reason to
doubt the reality of the Flood as described in the Bible.
Recommended reading: John Woodmorappe, 1996, Noah’s Ark: A
feasibility study, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, USA.
4. Howe, G.F., 1968. Seed germination, sea water, and plant survival in the Great Flood.
Creation Research Quarterly 5:105–112. Ironically, Charles Darwin similarly proved that
seeds could survive months of soaking in seawater.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟22,860.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Wings, why did you copy & paste from the exact site that I posted? Nearly all of this came from christiananswers.net. You should really put a quote there or else you're claiming it as your work. You could have just linked to it instead of making your usual massive copy & paste posts.

That sites quotes the bible as proof of the biblical flood. It also references answers in genesis. Please don't quote these extremely biased (as i mentioned before) sites anymore. You wouldn't lie for jesus, would you? That's exactly what these sites are doing.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I cannot believe that you attack me for using something against you guys, Just once, That long paragraph before that, I typed that on my own, that was not a copy and paste. Now the one about the flood i posted was not from answers in gensis or christiananswers.net, I got it from creation.com, and You all attack me whenever I use a site to state claims, but it is okay for you all to use sites like talkorigins.com to state claims, but talkorigins.com must not be lying at all right? Suurrrreeee. Sounds unreasonable, and selfish. (note I am not talking to a specific person moderators, Im talking about Evolutionists in general)
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I cannot believe that you attack me for using something against you guys, Just once, That long paragraph before that, I typed that on my own, that was not a copy and paste. Now the one about the flood i posted was not from answers in gensis or christiananswers.net, I got it from creation.com, and You all attack me whenever I use a site to state claims, but it is okay for you all to use sites like talkorigins.com to state claims, but talkorigins.com must not be lying at all right? Suurrrreeee. Sounds unreasonable, and selfish. (note I am not talking to a specific person moderators, Im talking about Evolutionists in general)
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I cannot believe that you attack me for using something against you guys, Just once, That long paragraph before that, I typed that on my own, that was not a copy and paste. Now the one about the flood i posted was not from answers in gensis or christiananswers.net, I got it from creation.com, and You all attack me whenever I use a site to state claims, but it is okay for you all to use sites like talkorigins.com to state claims, but talkorigins.com must not be lying at all right? Suurrrreeee. Sounds unreasonable, and selfish. (note I am not talking to a specific person moderators, Im talking about Evolutionists in general)

Use your own arguments kid. Use a link to refrence the article. A wall of text is not easy to read, and most people won't bother no matter what they believe.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.