After the Flood!

[archaeologist]

An amount that is rather less than what creationists need.

maybe that particular discovery but it indicates that there is more water available than previously thought.

You are not just wrong, but are being extremely deceptive. Resistance to antibiotics in bacteria is one example of evolution

NO i am not wrong or deceptive. your example does not prove evolution is at work or is responsible. that is an inferrence not actual fact. what it shows is the ability of bacteria to become immune to certain drugs, just like humans do with certain diseases. yet that immunity is rarely passed to the next generation

growing up, two of my siblings contracted mono (some time later i drove 2000 miles with another mono suffering victim) yet i have never suffered from that disease. does that mean i am a higher evolved form than other humans. NO, it means i was immune to the disease. No evolution at work.

Biogeography was one of the fields of evidence that evolution was originally conceived to explain.

creationists do not need to establish new fields of study, we know God created it all. evolution is a figment of one's man's imagination which has duped too many people.

Science is a method for explaining the world around us. As long as you make factual statements, science can evaluate those statements.

talk about being deceptive. here is one very factual statement--God created the heavens and the earth..
oh wait, that is bringing in the superbatural and science only deals with the natural. you are wrong, science cannot evaluate factual statements.

nor can science explain when God heals someone. they have yet to find a way to do that. science is limited, fallible,corruptable and wrong most of the time.

God didn't tell us to be stupid. God didn't endorse ignorance.

but i am neither. i have 4 degrees hanging on my wall and i have been considering getting a fifth and yet i still reject secular science's conclusions, theories and methods because they omit God, go in the wrong direction and give credit for God's work to something that never existed.

Unless you prayed this anti-science message onto the internet, even you have accepted secular/human constructs

yet the internet may not be a secular/ human construct as it is based upon the principles that God created in the beginning for the elements and ingredients used to construct this communication system. also we can test it , observe it, use it where as we cannot do the same with evolution. that is not based on what God created, nor is it found to be divinely granted but comes solely from the mind of a man who did not believe in God.

quite a difference i think.

But we can put very strong constraints on this - constraints that totally rule out global flood rubbish.

i don't thinkyou can because those constraints would be based upon assumption and not actuality.

But this not magic appear from nowhere water - it's all completely understood and accounted for.

cold you re-phrase please as this is not reading very clearly.

You can disagree all you want but you are still wrong - and wrong for that commonest reason of all - ignorance of the facts

how am i wrong? you haven't listed any facts to prove your point. what facts? that human understanding cannot conceibe of that much water being readily available? then you underestimate God.

besides, i believe in God, I have all the facts i NEED. when you have dug through the earth and found that there is no water, then you would still need to disprove the God factor.--- with God nothing is impossible.

the issue of this flood is not just the amount of water but the lessons needed to be gleaned from it 1). God punishes sin; 2). God rewards the righteous; 3) rich and poor, beautiful and ugly are all included in one of the two options, no exemptions made for hiking the skirt.

these same lessons apply for the final judgment so i would be more concerned about what will happen to our soul than whether or not i know all the facts.

 

[ForumMonk]

Stating the all of the water on the earth is accounted for is an obvious overstatement. It is not. NASA is launching several missions aimed among other things, at locating "hidden" water which is now believed to be fairly abundant in the crust mainly in the form of free molecules. The GRACE project, will use satellites to create a detailed map of the mass of the planet via sensitive measurements of gravity. This project will potentially locate areas where underground water may be located enmass.

Projects like these will give us a more complete picture of how much water is truly hidden in the earth.

Regards,
FM

 

[laptoppop]

pop, there is no amount of water either beneath the crust of the earth or in the sky that could possibly flood the entire earth. It would take a miracle to do that.

(I hope to answer the rest of your post later - I just spent 30 hours straight working on a software requirements spec and I'm quite tired)

Yes, the earth could not be flooded in the same way *now*. However, the volume of water we know about is plenty with three reasonable assumptions:
1) the ice caps were not frozen
2) the oceans were a bit shallower
and
3) the mountains were not quite as high.

The typical YEC model sees a lot of geologic activity and tectonic activity during and after the flood.

Yes, God did some miracles especially at the start of the flood - but the volume of water does not need to be one of them.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_largescaletectonics/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_runawaysubduction/
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/catastrplttect_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf
http://www.icr.org/article/98/

 

[Mallon]

Yes, the earth could not be flooded in the same way *now*. However, the volume of water we know about is plenty with three reasonable assumptions:
1) the ice caps were not frozen
2) the oceans were a bit shallower
and
3) the mountains were not quite as high.

The problem with this scenario, pop, is that you have no evidence to support any of these assumptions. And that's fine -- if you want to believe this as a matter of faith, I'm okay with that. But to pass this all off as science and pretend that it provides a better explanation for the world's strata than conventional geology is just dishonest.
Besides that, even if you melted all the ice in the world, you would only raise sea level by about 220 ft. That's about 28,809 ft short of what you would need to cover the top of Mount Everest. So you have to skirt this issue by assuming that the land was flatter then. The problem is that you cannot also fit this with Baumgardner's hydroplate model, since rapidly colliding plates build tall mountains -- fast. So you can't have rapid plate tectonism co-occurring with low topography. You have to pick one or the other. Either way, you aren't siding with science (so don't pretend that you are!).

 

[Galle]

maybe that particular discovery but it indicates that there is more water available than previously thought.

So tell us where the rest of the water is and how it got there, if you please.

NO i am not wrong or deceptive. your example does not prove evolution is at work or is responsible. that is an inferrence not actual fact. what it shows is the ability of bacteria to become immune to certain drugs, just like humans do with certain diseases. yet that immunity is rarely passed to the next generation

Antibiotic resistance is hereditary. It's not a matter of bacteria getting sick, recovering, and then handling the same poison better at a later date. The bacteria with better antibiotic resistance survive better to reproduce in the presence of an antibiotic, leaving a higher proportion of bacteria resistant to that antibiotic. That is evolution in action.

growing up, two of my siblings contracted mono (some time later i drove 2000 miles with another mono suffering victim) yet i have never suffered from that disease. does that mean i am a higher evolved form than other humans. NO, it means i was immune to the disease. No evolution at work.

If immunity to a disease is hereditary and confers a reproductive advantage, then we would expect that, in the presence of that disease, such immunity would spread through the population. That's evolution through natural selection.

creationists do not need to establish new fields of study, we know God created it all. evolution is a figment of one's man's imagination which has duped too many people.

So in other words, when confronted with evidence that you say doesn't exist, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream. Surely even you can understand that this does not further your case?

talk about being deceptive. here is one very factual statement--God created the heavens and the earth..
oh wait, that is bringing in the superbatural and science only deals with the natural. you are wrong, science cannot evaluate factual statements.

To make my statement more clear, science can evaluate factual statements with predictable consequences. "God created the heavens and the earth" says nothing about what methods God used, what constraints there were, nor what evidence it left. It's such a vague claim as to be absolutely useless.

nor can science explain when God heals someone. they have yet to find a way to do that. science is limited, fallible,corruptable and wrong most of the time.

Well, as soon as you see God healing someone, be sure to let James Randi know. He has a $1,000,000 Challenge that I'm sure you could win. Science, meanwhile, has led to any number of important discoveries relevant to our health and well-being. It would seem that God either works through modern medicine or He rather approves of our own efforts.

but i am neither. i have 4 degrees hanging on my wall and i have been considering getting a fifth and yet i still reject secular science's conclusions, theories and methods because they omit God, go in the wrong direction and give credit for God's work to something that never existed.

Alright, I think that we've seen enough that even the most die-hard creationist would agree that this is absurd. I invoke Poe's Law.

 

[laptoppop]

The problem with this scenario, pop, is that you have no evidence to support any of these assumptions. And that's fine -- if you want to believe this as a matter of faith, I'm okay with that. But to pass this all off as science and pretend that it provides a better explanation for the world's strata than conventional geology is just dishonest.
Besides that, even if you melted all the ice in the world, you would only raise sea level by about 220 ft. That's about 28,809 ft short of what you would need to cover the top of Mount Everest. So you have to skirt this issue by assuming that the land was flatter then. The problem is that you cannot also fit this with Baumgardner's hydroplate model, since rapidly colliding plates build tall mountains -- fast. So you can't have rapid plate tectonism co-occurring with low topography. You have to pick one or the other. Either way, you aren't siding with science (so don't pretend that you are!).

Please - call me wrong, call me mistaken, ignorant or insane - but do not call me dishonest.

YEC does not pretend to be only about science or only verified through science. We believe the flood account in the Scriptures to be true. Looking at the physical evidence through scientific means, we find evidence consistent with a global flood. The same evidence can be interpreted in lots of ways - we choose the one consistent with Scripture.

You skipped an important part -- shallower oceans. Given that, there's plenty of water.

This is absolutely consistent with Baumgardner's et.al. model. The rising action is a major part of how the waters receded after the initial flooding. And, as I understand it, even conventional geology sees the raising of the mountains as very recent in terms of the uniformitarian timescale. We would just put it after the first 40 days of a global flood.

 

[Mallon]

You skipped an important part -- shallower oceans. Given that, there's plenty of water.

This is absolutely consistent with Baumgardner's et.al. model. The rising action is a major part of how the waters receded after the initial flooding. And, as I understand it, even conventional geology sees the raising of the mountains as very recent in terms of the uniformitarian timescale. We would just put it after the first 40 days of a global flood.

I'm having a hard time understanding how having shallower oceans somehow negates the problem of how much water was needed or where it all came from. Could you please explain? Please also explain how hydroplate theory accounts for the creation of new mountains post-Flood, after the pre-Flood hills and mounds of the world had been covered.
(And for the record, while many of the world's current mountain chains are relatively new, given the ancient age of the earth [we're still talking tens of millions of years old], there is much solid evidence in the rock record for ancient moutain belts that have long since eroded away.)

 

[laptoppop]

I'm having a hard time understanding how having shallower oceans somehow negates the problem of how much water was needed or where it all came from. Could you please explain? Please also explain how hydroplate theory accounts for the creation of new mountains post-Flood, after the pre-Flood hills and mounds of the world had been covered.
(And for the record, while many of the world's current mountain chains are relatively new, given the ancient age of the earth [we're still talking tens of millions of years old], there is much solid evidence in the rock record for ancient moutain belts that have long since eroded away.)

A deeper ocean contains more water. If you filled in the deepest parts of today's ocean, the water would need to go somewhere -- over the land. As the various plate movement occurred, not only are the mountains pushed up, but the oceans deepened.

So, at the beginning of the flood, God caused the "fountains of the deep" (subterranean water) to come up, as well as rain come down.

It is interesting, btw, that there is some evidence that there could have been water/ice around our planet. Earlier models which showed a huge increase in surface temperatures did not take into account increased reflection from the canopy layer from the white ice.

Of course another source for the rain is consistent with plate subduction - where magma would come into contact with water, turning it into high pressure steam going up.

Yes, this is speculation - but it is speculating about mechanisms consistent with the Scriptural record, and many things can be tested. Of course evolutionary scientists speculate all the time about how a given feature or critter might have evolved -- because even after all these years and all the investigations, the fossil record never happens to show all the intermediate steps.

 

[Galle]

Please - call me wrong, call me mistaken, ignorant or insane - but do not call me dishonest.

You keep claiming that "flood geology" provides a better explanation than conventional geology even though you have to invoke miracle after miracle to get rid of evidence that directly contradicts the Flood. You've removed any options we have, laptoppop!

YEC does not pretend to be only about science or only verified through science. We believe the flood account in the Scriptures to be true. Looking at the physical evidence through scientific means, we find evidence consistent with a global flood. The same evidence can be interpreted in lots of ways - we choose the one consistent with Scripture.

Except you don't look at evidence through scientific means. You start with your conclusion, cherry pick facts which you think support your case, and then ignore contrary evidence (e.g., unconformities), try to discredit the methods behind the facts (e.g., radiometric dating), or invoke a silly miracle (as you do with the lack of water). What you do is the exact opposite of science!

Even that last bit invalidates any claim that what you're doing is in any way intellectually honest, let alone scientific. If the rest of the world did this, we'd be stuck where we were in medieval times. No theory or claim would ever be disproved because any contrary evidence could be ignored by saying, "Oh, I guess it was a miracle!"

"Flies really do spontaneously generate from rotting meat, but it's a miracle, so of course an experiment done by a damned skeptic would fail"

"Miasma really is the cause of disease. Your experimental results were just a miracle sent to confuse you."

"Phlogiston really does exist, but it's a spiritual substance undetectable by secular means. Of course your experiments can't find it--you have to have faith!"

You skipped an important part -- shallower oceans. Given that, there's plenty of water.

Why not just claim that the Earth's diameter was 1/10 what it is now? It makes just as much sense. Or why not just claim that the water used to be here but was whisked away to Mars (I think dad even does claim this!)? It conforms just as well to the facts.

And this is just another problem with your methodology. If you're going to endorse one crazy model, why not endorse all of them? You certainly can't differentiate between them on the basis of evidence, so why are they not all equally good?

 

[Mallon]

You've pretty much stolen my words, Galle.

 

[archaeologist]

So tell us where the rest of the water is and how it got there, if you please

what we are told in the bible is that the 'fountains of the deep were opened'. we are not given the volume of water and just because science hasn't found it yet does it mean it does not exist

one of the problems faced in these discussions is, that the unbeliever is looking for hard, physical evidence before the will consider believing.

But that is not what God wants people to do. He wants people to use faith to believe His words, trust Him by demanding physical proof, is not using faith but the evidence presented before believing Him. that is not trust.

the question is, if God allowed me to present toyou all the evidence you wanted, would you decide to follow Him?

Highly unlikely.

That is evolution in action.

this is a declatory statement and i disagree with it. you cannot prove to me that the evolutionary process and natural selection are responsible for that immunity.

God designed living organisms in a certain way and gaining immunity is one of them or we woul dall fall prey to childhood diseases late in life. it is not evolution at work.

If immunity to a disease is hereditary

i will disagree here but will need to do more study on the issue as i do not see where immunity is hereditary the majority of cases.

So in other words, when confronted with evidence that you say doesn't exist, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream. Surely even you can understand that this does not further your case?

not at all. believers know that God created in a certain way and designed genes to work in along certain paths. we also know that what God created was corrupted by adam and eve's sin but that simply provides the answer why there is disease, immunity and so on.

it does not dismiss science as an investigative tool, just alters its purpose to include God in the mix and look to Him to provide the answers we need to solve health issues or understand how something works.

we do not exclude God because we know He is the creator of all and we do not attribute what He did or what happened to some theory originating in Darwin's mind. (by the way, all evolutionists and darwin did was replace God with a process or two which are absent of all the qualities that God has, and has made man alone in the universe. certainly not a comforting thought.)

"God created the heavens and the earth" says nothing about what methods God used, what constraints there were, nor what evidence it left. It's such a vague claim as to be absolutely useless.

i will deal with these one at a time: 1. we do not know the exact methods god used as they are not germane to the lessons we are to learn. though the Bible does give us clues by using the words like, created, made, hung, stretched, spoke and so on. we get a pretty good idea of how it was done and by what methods.

2. there were no constraints. God is all powerful and He created the constraints for man. the Bible tells us that, 'there is nothing too hard for God' if there were constraints, then He would not be God. this is one of the lessons people need to learn, God would not be God if there is something, science, culture, math, that over-rules what He said or did. that something would then be god.

3. it is not vague, you justneed to know where to look and use faith that God did what He said. i said this before and i will repeat it here: God requires us to use faith, we can't escape that fact and He will not provide evidence which would destroy faith or undermine that requirement.

you can use science all you want to but you will never get all that you want at some point you will come to the positionwhere you have to make a choice, exercise faith or not. you cannot escape it as after death, it will be too late.

Well, as soon as you see God healing someone, be sure to let James Randi know. He has a $1,000,000 Challenge that I'm sure you could win

well healing by God is not interested in winning challenges or money. it is done so that God gets the glory and in a fashion that points to the fact that God alone did it. so i am sure that money will go unclaimed.

Alright, I think that we've seen enough that even the most die-hard creationist would agree that this is absurd. I invoke Poe's Law

do what you want, it still doesn't change the truth.