JohnR7 said:
Umm, maybe because you have not been here very long.
128 posts to his credit; I'd say he's been here long enough to know the score.
Also, creationists just figure that people who do not believe in a world wide flood are deceived and they don't know what they are talking about. When they try to show evolutionists the error in their thinking, they do not want to accept it, so creationists leave them be.
I've been here a
long time, and I've never seen any cerationist show an evolutionist the "error" of their thinking.
Since creationists are at least as interested in
converting evolutionists as "educating" them, I can't imagine why they'd "leave them be."
Anyways, sense you claim not to have heard the theory, here it is. Around 12,000 years ago, the world was a very different world than what it is now. According to the creationist theory all the ice from the last major ice age melted, the water underground somehow came up to the surface, and all the water in the atmosphere fell to the earth. This caused most of the earth to be underwater and it killed off a lot of the life that was here on the planet at the time.
12,000 years? For a YEC, that number's going to have to be a
lot lower.
Science of course claims that is not possible, there is just not enough water in the polar caps, underground and in the atmosphere to cover the whole earth. But creationists do not believe that.
Well, look at your own words:
All the ice melted (at once, which would require enough heat to fry all life on Earth), all the water underground
somehow came up to the surface (which would require a geological upheaval that would practically crack the planet), and
all the water in the atmosphere fell to Earth (which would require the water cycle to suddenly shut down and prevent evaporation, leaving the Earth's air dry as a bone).
And of course, all three of these events would have to happen
at the same time.
Is this possible? Sure, it could happen.
Is there any evidence that it did happen? nothing credible.
Would we be sitting here now if it had happened 12,000 years ago? Not a chance.
Then what happened next is that we entered into a small ice age and the polar caps began to freeze again. Dr. Dino's theory is that the earth was hit by a very cold astroid, that caused the poles to freeze so fast that you see animals instantly frozen with food still in their stomack.
Ignoring the fact that you quote Kent Hovind (which is a deathblow to anyone's credibility), when in the last 12,000 years did this "small ice age" happen? What evidence is there?
As for the animals frozen with food in their stomach, does the word "avalanche" mean anything to you?
His research consisted of a conversation on the telephone to a scientist that works for birds eye frozen food. Who gave Dr. Dino his opinion on how cold it would have to be for the mastodon to be frozen in the ice like that with food still in it's tummy.
You call that research? Most scientists have laboratories, Hovind has the supermarket. I'm less than impressed.
There has of course been a lot of flooding around the world, the ocean level is 400 feet higher than it was 12,000 years ago. So when they say that they think they have falsified world wide flooding, they do not really mean that, because no one questions that there was world wide flooding in the last 12,000 years.
Everyone questions that, Johhny; where have you been?
What they mean is that they do not believe the highest mountains were underwater, because according to their math, there is not enough water in the world to cover all of the mountains all the way to the top.
Of course the word in the Bible means foot hills, not mountains, but that I suppose would be the subject of another thread.
If the Bible doesn't mean mountains, why does it say mountains?
Genesis 7:17-24 said:
[17] And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. [18] And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. [19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. [20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. [21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: [22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. [23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. [24] And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
(Emphaisis mine) The Bible is pretty clear that we're talking more than foothills here. After all, some animals live pretty high up, and they died too.
Wouldn't a Bible literalist say that the Bible means what it says?
I personally believe that Noah's flood was a local flood in that the animals he had on his ark were just from one biodiverse area. A lot of them were domesticated animals that God created about 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve at a time that is known as the dawn of civilization. If for example you go to where Noah began, inthe Tigris Euphrates valley, you will find that is the only place in the world that wheat grows in the wild. If you go to Armenia where the Ark landed, you will find that is the cradle of civilization and that is where wheat was first cultivated.
Whoa, a lot to cover here:
"local flood": That's the most sensible thing in the paragraph.
"One biodiverse area": Diverse enough for two of every living thing? I believe the area is called "Earth."
"domesticated animals that God created about 6000 years ago": God did not create domesticated animals. Animals are wild. Man domesticated them. So what was on the Earth 12,000 years ago?
"inthe Tigris Euphrates valley, you will find that is the only place in the world that wheat grows in the wild.": I've seen wheat growing in the wild on the side of the New Jersey Trunpike. I doubt anyone is cultivating it.
"If you go to Armenia where the Ark landed, you will find that is the cradle of civilization and that is where wheat was first cultivated": I see the connection; legend says the ark landed there, and it's the
cradle of civilization. Chicken or the Egg; whcih came first?