Dr. Dino, a look at an article...

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ever hear of Arizona? Yeah, it's been in a drought for about 7 years. The lakes are at about 8% capacity, which means there's many square miles of previously soaked land next to the lake. This February and March there was a break in the drought. I've yet to see anything so amazingly green grow in a matter of weeks.

Had the seeds that sprouted been under the water of the lakes or did they blow in from somewhere else? Soaking a large variety of seeds in salt water for a year and then throwing them out to see if they would grow is a very easy experiment. As far as I know creation "scientists" have never performed it. Could it be that they know how it would come out?

In any case this is a relatively minor problem for flood believers. Many other problems falsifiy the flood. There are many good reasons why the global flood was rejected as a serious scientific hypothesis well over 100 years ago. Some of them have been discussed on this board. You have been given links. Maybe you should look them over.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[mjiracek]

Gen 7:22__ All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

readthis verse again... it depicts every nostril breathing animal that was on land

not in the water

 

[mjiracek]

you are right the seed are a small problem especially since noah had literally tons of food stores and could probably find seeds... but remember that the dove found an olive leaf. so abviously the seeds were preserved we can try this experiment out if you want and ill chec to see if if has been done ok?

 

[mjiracek]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/271.asp

this site explains many questions you raised about the salt water problem

 

[mjiracek]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp
the bottom of this page has a reference to charles darwin doing an experiment to see if seeds would survive long periods in saltwater

 

[troodon]

I find it very ironic that young earth creationists claim that modern marine species can handle huge changes in salinity and yet also say (from what I've read) that changes in salinity killed off extinct marine organisms. Very funny.

 

[mjiracek]

this is also a good site on the flood

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-130b.htm

 

[mjiracek]

what i have heard about changes in salinity is that the earths oceans were not as salty a few thousand years ago and that is may be a factor in it. not the lessening of salinity but the gradual increase of it...

well i have to go but it has been good chatting with you

 

[Arikay]

You are assumeing that the second line is a definition of the first. It could also be a list.

So, are you ignoring Gen 7:23 that says all living things were destroyed?

Why do you believe that the flood was strong enough to dig canyons and crush trees into coal.

Yet, it was calm enough to keep from killing whales, and it didnt crush the seeds into coal and oil.

You really need to make up your mind. The flood cant be calm and violent at the same time.

Today at 08:16 PM mjiracek said this in Post #102

Gen 7:22__ All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

readthis verse again... it depicts every nostril breathing animal that was on land

not in the water

 

[Cantuar]

You are right the seed are a small problem especially since noah had literally tons of food stores and could probably find seeds... but remember that the dove found an olive leaf.

The flood had just deposited the entire geological column, complete with fossils, including on mountains. Where did this olive leaf come from? All pre-flood trees that weren't uprooted would have been buried under sediment a mile deep.

For that matter, since there was no original surface left (on account of the geological column having been deposited), there would have been no edible vegetation other than what Noah had carried on the ark. So not only did he have to carry enough food for the inhabitants for the time the ark was afloat, but also he had to carry enough food for months after (even longer for animals that have very specialised diets, like the koala).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:35 PM Arikay said this in Post #109

You really need to make up your mind. The flood cant be calm and violent at the same time.

Considering creationists can't even agree of which geological layers are flood deposits, I'm not surprised they can't agree on what the actual flood was like, either.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Neanderthal man is only supposed to be around 100,000 years ago off memory.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

17th April 2003 at 02:35 PM Arikay said this in Post #109

You are assumeing that the second line is a definition of the first. It could also be a list.

So, are you ignoring Gen 7:23 that says all living things were destroyed?

Why do you believe that the flood was strong enough to dig canyons and crush trees into coal.

Yet, it was calm enough to keep from killing whales, and it didnt crush the seeds into coal and oil.

You really need to make up your mind. The flood cant be calm and violent at the same time.

This is nitpicking irrelevancies. The flood was violent and strong as it swept across the lands, and as it receded. Undoubtedly many sea animals died as land was overthrown, deposits of soil placed on top of them, etc. But there would have already existed large bodies of waters, some parts which would have remained very quiet for the duration of the flood. Many sea animals located in that portion would have been safe.

Why do you pick on small parts that can easily be explained? Find the stuff that is truly contradictory, that will make us say "you are right, those two conditions cannot both be true, yet they both need to be for us to believe what we do".

 

[seebs]

How could these large bodies of waters remained very quiet in something so turbulent? Turbulence spreads quickly in water,and it had forty days.

 

[Arikay]

There is still a problem here. So are you saying all of the sea animals we have today were in the large body of water that wasnt disturbed?

How did this body of water keep from being disturbed if the global flood covered mountains?

Today at 11:03 PM tyreth said this in Post #113



This is nitpicking irrelevancies. The flood was violent and strong as it swept across the lands, and as it receded. Undoubtedly many sea animals died as land was overthrown, deposits of soil placed on top of them, etc. But there would have already existed large bodies of waters, some parts which would have remained very quiet for the duration of the flood. Many sea animals located in that portion would have been safe.

Why do you pick on small parts that can easily be explained? Find the stuff that is truly contradictory, that will make us say "you are right, those two conditions cannot both be true, yet they both need to be for us to believe what we do".

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Today at 05:13 PM Arikay said this in Post #115

There is still a problem here. So are you saying all of the sea animals we have today were in the small body of water that wasnt disturbed?

How did this body of water keep from being disturbed if the global flood covered mountains?

It is much like a tsunami - one in a boat off the cost will not feel a thing, while those on land are utterly destroyed. I really don't see the problem here.

And yes, I am saying all of the sea animals we have today. And this body of water was not necessarily small. It says that the ocean was in one place before the flood, that would have been quite large. So are today's oceans quite large. And some in the areas of great turmoil would have survived near death. These are all guesses on my behalf, but all I need to demonstrate is that your argument is not a problem - show you how it could have reasonably happened.