Creationists are told the flood is true and actually happened,

[Wedjat]

The fact that aquatic life exists today is itself proof that a global flood didn't happen.

More specifically the fact that there is such a large variety of aquatic life.

 

[AV1611VET]

More specifically the fact that there is such a large variety of aquatic life.

What?

All of a sudden God lost the ability to populate the oceans?

After all, He populated them in one day in Genesis 1; now, all of a sudden, He can't do it again?

 

[Wedjat]

AV, in order to apply that as a probable cause, you first have to prove that God exists.

In order to say, the bible may have been wrong and there wasn't a flood, doesn't require anyone to ask anything of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, in order to apply that as a probable cause, you first have to prove that God exists.

Jesus already did that.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Do you know what that verse means?

 

[Wedjat]

I know what it literally means.

I do not know however, how you figure this circular reasoning is any kind of proof.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know what it literally means.

I do not know however, how you figure this circular reasoning is any kind of proof.

Let me simplify this, Wedjat --- God did it.

 

[Wedjat]

Yeah, you keep saying that.

Let me simplify this AV. Provide actual evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, you keep saying that.

Let me simplify this AV. Provide actual evidence.

1

 

[Wedjat]

So you're saying, God wouldn't leave evidence of a flood, he's omnipotent, we can leave no traces behind when he does something.

Great, good for you, way to not answer the question at all.

I'm not asking for evidence that God had a hand in the flood, or that either of them left traces. I'm asking for actual evidence of God, anywhere.
(Newsflash, the bible is not evidence of God)

You don't need evidence to have faith in god, but if you're going to assert that he caused a global flood, you need to back it up

 

[laconicstudent]

1

...But. There isn't any evidence in that post. All you do is ask if people think the Flood happened, and if there is any evidence, you don't actually supply any.

 

[Jazmyn]

Then how would it go back?

The Beijing anomaly (ht tp://w w w.eurekalert.o rg/ pub_releases/2007-02/ wuis-msb021107.p hp), plates and masses of rock would sink due to loss of volume below, as they heated up they would become unstable and lose water, forcing water to rise back upwards into pockets in the mantle again. How long that would take I don't know, maybe enough for loads of the flood water to seep through the upper crust and be absorbed by the lower layers, becoming part of the rock water again?

I notice both me and Wedjat have made this same point, and it has yet to be addressed. So allow me to reiterate:

A global flood would devastate the pH, salinity, temperature and cleanliness of the ocean waters that are required for homeostasis in every aquatic lifeform. As the continents were entirely submerged, the topsoil would BE WASHED AWAY. This topsoil would further destroy the aquatic ecosystem.

The fact that aquatic life exists today is itself proof that a global flood didn't happen.

ok the bible says that only everything on the earth died and goes into detail, but never mentions anything dying in the sea. what if there wasn't a topsoil? what if it was really diluted by all the flood water? what if lifeforms could survive various environmental changes back then?

 

[Wedjat]

ok the bible says that only everything on the earth died and goes into detail, but never mentions anything dying in the sea. what if there wasn't a topsoil? what if it was really diluted by all the flood water? what if lifeforms could survive various environmental changes back then?

You are getting dangerously close to dad's "different state" ridiculousness. (read created kinds thread which has now been locked)

And if there wasn't topsoil there'd be no farming, or plants at all for that matter. Nothing could have survived on land pre-flood, let alone during it.

 

[laconicstudent]

ok the bible says that only everything on the earth died and goes into detail, but never mentions anything dying in the sea.

Yes? So? That would indicate that the flood wasn't global, if anything.

what if there wasn't a topsoil?

If there wasn't any topsoil, there wouldn't be any arable land, obviously. Do you not know what topsoil is? Its that rich, fertile soil we grow things in.

what if it was really diluted by all the flood water?

The topsoil, of every continent? Do you realize just how many thousands of tons of soil we are talking about?

what if lifeforms could survive various environmental changes back then?

But they can't. You can buy some fish today and see how delicate they are. Aquatic life depends on very specific environmental conditions.

And yes, this last bit is drawing very dangerously close to the utter absurdity of Dad's alternate state weirdness. I hope you realize that you are now just inventing ideas out of thin air to justify your position.

 

[godsmission]

ok the bible says that only everything on the earth died and goes into detail, but never mentions anything dying in the sea. what if there wasn't a topsoil? what if it was really diluted by all the flood water? what if lifeforms could survive various environmental changes back then?

What if, what if, how many more what ifs? someone told you a story when you were young and you believed it, now you're older and able to reason things out for yourself the holes in the story are starting to show, perhaps it's time you started seeing it for what it really is, a story.

 

[Jazmyn]

theories are just fun to come up with, what's the problem?

 

[Wedjat]

Not theories, unsupported hypotheses.
Theories have a backing of evidence and no contradicting evidence

Evolution is a theory

Heliocentricism is a theory

Gravity is a theory

The biblical flood is not.

 

[Jazmyn]

thought gravity was a law

 

[Wedjat]

Actually I'm not as clear on that either
There is the theory of gravity
and then there are laws of gravity.

Regardless, I was just trying to make a point.

[edit] No wait, I just remembered. The laws of gravity dictate gravity's effects as are observable.

The theory of gravity is about how it happens.

Law is what
Theory is how

['nother edit]
If I'm wrong about that someone feel free to point it out.

 

[laconicstudent]

theories are just fun to come up with, what's the problem?

Scientific theories are ones that are actually backed up with evidence and are consistent with our observations of the universe

thought gravity was a law

It isn't. Gravity is only a theory

 

[Lakercom]

The Beijing anomaly (ht tp://w w w.eurekalert.o rg/ pub_releases/2007-02/ wuis-msb021107.p hp), plates and masses of rock would sink due to loss of volume below, as they heated up they would become unstable and lose water, forcing water to rise back upwards into pockets in the mantle again. How long that would take I don't know, maybe enough for loads of the flood water to seep through the upper crust and be absorbed by the lower layers, becoming part of the rock water again?

ok the bible says that only everything on the earth died and goes into detail, but never mentions anything dying in the sea. what if there wasn't a topsoil? what if it was really diluted by all the flood water? what if lifeforms could survive various environmental changes back then?

Jazmyn, there are good answers for your questions on various Creationist websites. A few good Christian ministries that specialize in Creation apologetics are Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research. I just read a recent article on your question about most of the marine species likely dieing during the worldwide flood but I cannot remember which one it was. I just spent a little time looking on the first two I mentioned without success. They both post one or more daily articles.