• 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.

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

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian

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
 
Upvote 0
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?
 
Upvote 0

troodon

Be wise and be smart
Dec 16, 2002
1,698
58
40
University of Iowa
Visit site
✟24,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
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.

 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
71
Visit site
✟23,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
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).
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
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.
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟23,452.00
Faith
Protestant

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".
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
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?



 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟23,452.00
Faith
Protestant

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.
 
Upvote 0