Flood, big, small or not at all???

[lithium.]

Or goto mit.edu, or nasa.gov, or any evolution musiem like brainmuseum.org.

and find the real truth, sorry Stormy but there is no evidence that backs up the bible. Or YEC.

 

[ocean]

There is evidence that backs up some things in the Bible, just not the Creation account, Flood story, etc.

 

[lithium.]

ocean, what things, i really want to know i havn't seen anything so far that backs up the bible.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Stormy
I do not have time to explain in detail. But I did a word search for Fibonacci numbers on the internet.

This site is easy to understand the beginning concepts.

evolution of truth

I want you to understand that my purpose on the Science forum is not to prove God to unbelievers. I am only concerned with those of God. I do not wish for them to be led astray by a false reality formed by man.

Having done some browsing on the subject, I don't quite get it. I understand the argument that there's some mathematical commonality in nature (but based on evolutionary theory, this would be expected).

What I don't get is how this is somehow evidence of a "designer".

(FYI, I started another thread called "Intelligent Design" with the purpose of people who believe in ID to present evidence about a designer based on evidence of design; since you subscribe to ID, your thoughts would be appreciated)

 

[Lanakila]

I saw this statement a few pages back: There is no evidence of a global flood." This is just not true. There is some evidence, and much of it has been debated on this very forum. That evolutionists who don't except a global flood ignore or supposedly refute the evidence is true. But there is evidence there. Fossils of shells on the top of Mt Everest is a good evidence, so is the Grand Canyon. So in other words, be careful of all inclusive statements, because they will bite you.

 

[lithium.]

A global flood isn't the only reason, why fossils could be on top of Mt Everest. When the mountain was make there was a ocean there. So when it was being made by tectonic plates moving over each other, and when it started to rise about sea level it would have taken sea animals with it.

But no people have to always say its cause of god, or some metaphysical stuff. But there is always a scientific reason to everything.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I saw this statement a few pages back: There is no evidence of a global flood." This is just not true. There is some evidence, and much of it has been debated on this very forum. That evolutionists who don't except a global flood ignore or supposedly refute the evidence is true. But there is evidence there. Fossils of shells on the top of Mt Everest is a good evidence, so is the Grand Canyon. So in other words, be careful of all inclusive statements, because they will bite you.

Fossil shells in the Himalayas, and the Grand Canyon are not evidence of a global flood. 

The Himalayas were formed as a result of the movement of tectonic plates, and the fossils were thrust up by that pressure along with all the other existing strata.

The Grand Canyon is is excellent evidence against a global flood, so I would seriously reconsider bringing it up in defence of such a thing.  For example, among the strata exposed in the canyon are fossils that can only be formed on dry land.  There is a name for these fossils, but I can't think of it right now.  Examples of these are raindrop patterns in sand, and animal tracks in sand.  How on earth can these have formed during a deluge?

(Should you want to point to raindrop patterns and say "Aha!  Flood!", you should realise that if the rain were steady then the patterns wouldn't form.  The rain needs to pattern the sand, and then it needs to dry out.  Difficult to do under flood conditions, I think you'll agree!)

As much as you may wish it to be so, these are not "interpretations" of the data.  There is only one way for these phenomena to occur, and it isn't a flood of any kind - local or global.

Cheers,

Prax

 

 

[lithium.]

lol you took my answer Praxiteles.

 

[Praxiteles]

Sorry seesaw. Want it back?

 

[lithium.]

Nah you have it, you already stole it heh.

 

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Stormy

All the problems you purpose are merely problems that would confound man with his limited capacity for knowledge. Now do you really think anything that you are purposing would amount to a problem for the one who created life???

Really?

Umm, let's not go there. If you're arguing God is smarter than we are, you have the unenviable task of explaining why his "solution" to the alleged wickedness of Noah's day would have resulted in scenarios like the following:

http://www.chick.com/tractimages96024/0030/0030_07.gif

A flood *does* make sense as a natural phenomenon interpreted as the destructive wrath of a war god. It *doesn't* make sense as the act of a benevolent, powerful deity, who could just as well have poofed every evil person into non-existence and created an army of trained monkeys to care for their kids.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by seesaw
HOW do you know, and you can't say the bible says so, that's not scientific evidence.

First let me say I’m not knocking science it has achieved great things but if all we had to rely on for evidence was science we would have problems, since science is changing constantly according to knew knowledge. What might have been true 30 years ago is false or wrong today. This proves that science can be and is unreliable and is not worthy of my complete trust unlike the word of God. Imagine not to many years back science and no doubt you would have blindly followed said the universe had no beginning, now that has all changed. Who knows they may even go back to that belief in the not to distant future.

DID YOU KNOW THAT SCIENCE ONCE TAUGHT
1. That heat is a fluid called caloric?
2. That the atom is the smallest particle of matter, and that it was impossible to divide it?
3. That an impassable barrier between matter and energy prevented any possibility of one being changed into the other?
4. That sleep is caused when the nerve cells shrink, thereby no longer making contact with one another?

Of course, scientists have long rejected these theories and replaced them with others more consistent with the facts as they now know them. New facts discovered in the future, or different approaches to facts now in their possession, could lead to modifications, or even abandonment, of theories scientists now hold.

[/B]
Many evolutionists, according to Elaine Morgan, “have lost confidence in the answers they thought they knew thirty years ago.” Thus, it is not surprising that some of the theories held by evolutionists have collapsed.


So, how do you know that napoleon existed or that the crusades took place? How do you know anything about anything that happened say 100 years prior to your birth because it's all history to you?  And dont say science because clearly from the above it's unreliable.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by ocean
One more question. If the flood was real, and only 2 of each "kind" of animal was taken on the ark, why didn't all species die out? 2 animals is an extremely small gene pool, and they could not successfully reproduce an entire population of animals by inbreeding.

Genesis 7:1-5 After that Jehovah said to Noah: “Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation. 2 Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate; 3 also of the flying creatures of the heavens by sevens, male and female, to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth”.

 

[armageddonman]

DID YOU KNOW THAT SCIENCE ONCE TAUGHT
1. That heat is a fluid called caloric?
2. That the atom is the smallest particle of matter, and that it was impossible to divide it?
3. That an impassable barrier between matter and energy prevented any possibility of one being changed into the other?
4. That sleep is caused when the nerve cells shrink, thereby no longer making contact with one another?

Was this taught as fact or as theorie? Did every scientis agree?

 

New facts discovered in the future, or different approaches to facts now in their possession, could lead to modifications, or even abandonment, of theories scientists now hold.

Or could verify the theories beyond any reasonable doubt. This is pure speculation. Do you think that would give creationism any credibility?

 

So, how do you know that napoleon existed or that the crusades took place? How do you know anything about anything that happened say 100 years prior to your birth because it's all history to you?

What your are basically saying is that one can not be 100% sure that history as a science is able to describe the facts as they happened. Well, no historican would argue this but why do you think this is important when talking about evolution and creationism?

 

And dont say science because clearly from the above it's unreliable.

Do you know the meaning of "strawman"?

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by LightBearer
and of every beast that is not clean just two

And remenber that Noah sacrificed some of every clean animals.

 

 

[ocean]

Lightbearer,

7 is still an extremely small gene pool. And the Bible contradicts itself when it says "take 2 animals" and then "take 7 animals".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LightBearer
Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate;

As this very passage points out, Noah did NOT take 7 of every animal. Rather he took 7 of every "clean" animal. The rest he took pairs. So, first of all, what constitutes a "clean" animal? And that still doesn't solve the problem of inbreeding among the animals he only took in pairs.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LightBearer
Genesis 7:1-5 After that Jehovah said to Noah: “Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation. 2 Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate; 3 also of the flying creatures of the heavens by sevens, male and female, to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth”.

And you forget in the bible it says he got every animal, thats impossible since alot of animals were in other parts of ther world and back then they didn't even know that the world had other parts.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
As this very passage points out, Noah did NOT take 7 of every animal. Rather he took 7 of every "clean" animal. The rest he took pairs. So, first of all, what constitutes a "clean" animal? And that still doesn't solve the problem of inbreeding among the animals he only took in pairs.

The Bible doesn't say why there are seven of every clean animal, but I would guess it was because some of them were to breed and eat while on the ark. Clean animals were those that were considered permissible to eat.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by npetreley
The Bible doesn't say why there are seven of every clean animal, but I would guess it was because some of them were to breed and eat while on the ark. Clean animals were those that were considered permissible to eat.

The flood story is impossible, Noah couldn't have gotten all the animals in the world, since back then they didn't know that there was other Continents and since it would takes years to get to these other Continents Noah couldn't have, SO it was a local flood. There is insects that live in caves 100+ feet under the ground.