Flood Migration

[Ar Cosc]

Two words: Koala Mannah!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Most of the referred post has little to do with the casual quote from Sarfati. You summed it up in your first comment "that doesnt explain anything".

Yes you are right it doesnt. It would have been a far more credible argument if you picked out one of Jonathans articles where he does explain things or one of his colleagues. There is no way to tell from that prose whether you are strawmanning or not.

Or even better, write to him, am sure he will be glad to respond

Actually Sarfati used to post on Theology Web as Socrates and he had no answers to the biogeography question, nor is there any answer in his book Refuting Evolution which I own and have read. If you think he has written more on the subject somewhere, post a link. All I have found is
"people took them". He is arrogant and obnoxious but without answers.

Yes I can understand you would think that about someone who does not agree with you.


Its not even 100 years. its been 4500 years plus since the alleged flood. Evolutionists keep telling us that long periods of time solve all problems,

4500 years is 0.0001% of the actual age of the earth and not really a long period of time and it certainly doesn't help with the biogeography question.

i guess you do not like it when your best defence is used against you.

So as I said you didn't understand what I wrote. I was referring to the alleged separation of continents that some YECs say happened in the "time of Peleg" about 100 years after the flood. Of course Sarfati can't use this one because he subscribes to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics AKA the boiling flood model in which the continents end up in their current positions at the end of the flood on an earth with an atmosphere of high pressure steam.

It remains irrelevant whether you think its nonsense (of course you would because if it wasn't nonsense you would then beleive it to be true)

I think flood geology is nonsense because it IS nonsense and in the two instances I posted links to I have explained in detail why it is nonsense.

Apart from the fact I was not addressing you, but the other guy who said If you are a believer of the flood scenario the only answer you can possibly come up with is 'God did it'

Thank you for proving him wrong by showing him a list of other answers, that you do not like those answers doesn't matter, the answers exist.

It is not that I don't like the supposed answers, it is that they are not actually answers and in no way explain biogeography if the flood were global. I showed him to be correct and you to be wrong. You have no logical answers to the biogeography question and neither do any other YECs so you might as well get over it and go with AV's teleportation hypothesis. In other words, "Poof God did it."

 

[Nostromo]

Knowing that in the latter times, scientism would emerge as a new religion, I think He purposefully did things in a way that science says can't happen.

There's no need to stoop to the level of calling it scientism, is there? If you need to make it sound cultish to diminish its credibility then you mustn't be all that confident in your belief.

In other words, the more "jumbled" the order of events were, the more Genesis 1 stands out as being done miraculously.

The less sense it makes the more likely it is to be true? That could be a very slippery slope into mental health problems.

 

[Greg1234]

There's no need to stoop to the level of calling it scientism, is there? If you need to make it sound cultish to diminish its credibility then you mustn't be all that confident in your belief.

Without acknowledging the link between Darwinism and science this is accomplished. Yet as long as the link is there, then confusion is inevitable when trying to refer to either one specifically.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Without acknowledging the link between Darwinism and science this is accomplished. Yet as long as the link is there, then confusion is inevitable when trying to refer to either one specifically.

Greg1234 being wrong about something scientific! I never thought I'd see the day!

"Darwinism" is science, no matter what your pastor tells you. It is the current theory which explains observed phenomena best with respect to the body of evidence we have available to us. However, science is not all "Darwinism". For example, thermodynamics has nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[marktheblake]

nor is there any answer in his book Refuting Evolution which I own and have read.

Refuting Evolution is a book where he quotes several points or claims made by the NAS in their book that they circulated to schools and responds to those.

Unlike you, who takes a point that Sarfati makes, and make some grandiose claim that you have refuted him, yet by your own admission, his statement was not an answer.

So then why dont you respond to answers he has given instead of ones he hasn't. I made this point already.

If you think he has written more on the subject somewhere, post a link.

I dont keep a list of everything he has written, but I am sure you know where to find his website, Creation Ministries as you seem to know him so well.

I think flood geology is nonsense because it IS nonsense and in the two instances I posted links to I have explained in detail why it is nonsense.

I think evolution is nonsense because it is nonsense, but I think such biased reasoning has no place in these types of discussions as it proves nothing.

I showed him to be correct and you to be wrong.

Fail. He said there are no answers. The fact is they do give answers, you just do not like them. That is obvious because if you did like the answers then your world would end up turned upside down.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Refuting Evolution is a book where he quotes several points or claims made by the NAS in their book that they circulated to schools and responds to those.

Unlike you, who takes a point that Sarfati makes, and make some grandiose claim that you have refuted him, yet by your own admission, his statement was not an answer.

But he made it claiming it was an answer. Thanks for admitting he is full of it.

So then why dont you respond to answers he has given instead of ones he hasn't. I made this point already.

I dont keep a list of everything he has written, but I am sure you know where to find his website, Creation Ministries as you seem to know him so well.

And the supposed answers that he has there are people took them and land bridges neither of which works as I have explained.

He also claims that Koalas can eat leaves from other types of gum tree which doesn't explain how they got to Australia. Do you think a trail of gum trees magically sprung up after the flood to make route for the Koalas. He mentions Karatoa and reptiles on floating vegetation which I have already discussed. He certainly has no explanation for how a sand dwelling blind animal with vestigial legs such as the marsupial mole got there.

Remember that you not only need to explain how animals such as the Koala and the marsupial mole and the other 180 species of marsupials and the monotreme species found in Australia got there but why none of the thousands of species of placental mammals (expect bats which can fly and dogs and people who came together on boats and a couple of species of rat) arrived with them when all of their ancestors supposedly came off a boat together on a flood devastated landscape thousands of miles away in the Middle East. This point is studiously avoided.

I think evolution is nonsense because it is nonsense, but I think such biased reasoning has no place in these types of discussions as it proves nothing.

So post something on a new thread explaining why you think evolution is nonsense. I have posted why I think flood geology is nonsense with detailed explanations of why it is nonsense and even if evolution is nonsense, that has nothing to do with the fact that flood geology is nonsense. You do know what the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy is don't you?

Fail. He said there are no answers. The fact is they do give answers, you just do not like them. That is obvious because if you did like the answers then your world would end up turned upside down.

Wrong. Supposed answers that totally fail to answer the question are not answers and the answers given by global flood believers to explain biogeography all fail.

 

[Split Rock]

Do you also think these are just made-up stories based solely on the fact that it would take a truckload of miracles to explain them?

Wow. Just read this sentence you wrote again. Yes, they are essentially made up stories. Actually, they are derived from earlier creation stories from earlier cultures. So, not made up from scratch, but they are made up if you go back far enough.

In other words, the more "jumbled" the order of events were, the more Genesis 1 stands out as being done miraculously.

The more "jumbled" and illiogical the events are the more obvious it should be to any thinking person that they are not literal histories. Tell me where I am going wrong with this conclusion.

 

[Split Rock]

I think evolution is nonsense because it is nonsense, but I think such biased reasoning has no place in these types of discussions as it proves nothing.

So post something on a new thread explaining why you think evolution is nonsense. I have posted why I think flood geology is nonsense with detailed explanations of why it is nonsense and even if evolution is nonsense, that has nothing to do with the fact that flood geology is nonsense. You do know what the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy is don't you?

I second this. If evolution is "nonsense," then you should be able to tell us why... especially in a "Creation & Evolution" subforum. Or are you just making "grandiose claims?"

 

[Nostromo]

As an aside, the website that marktheblake posted (Creation Ministries), is the pinnacle of awesomeness.
They have two links in there titled:
"Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of Creation"
"Scientists who are against the biblical view of Creation."

The first is a list of about 200 names of academics.
The second, instead of a list, contains articles such as "What is the evidence that Gould was a Marxist?"

 

[AV1611VET]

If evolution is "nonsense," then you should be able to tell us why... especially in a "Creation & Evolution" subforum.

I'll be glad to.

Anything that goes against the written Word of God is nonsense, in my opinion.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I'll be glad to.

Anything that goes against the written Word of God is nonsense, in my opinion.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

What about bits of the written word of God that go against other bits of the written word of God?

 

[Split Rock]

I'll be glad to.

Anything that goes against the written Word of God is nonsense, in my opinion.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

I wasn't asking you, AVET, but OK...you can answer as well. So, where in "the written Word of God" is the term "evolution," "natural selection," or "common descent" mentioned? I certainly hope you are not going to interpret scripture, since it does not need to be interpreted and can be read (in your words) "like a phone book."

 

[AV1611VET]

So, where in "the written Word of God" is the term "evolution," "natural selection," or "common descent" mentioned?

With 'rapture' and 'trinity'?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

With 'rapture' and 'trinity'?

Yes, please explain how some of the most ardent doctrines are not actually in the bible?

 

[Split Rock]

With 'rapture' and 'trinity'?

I see, so is "evolution is nonsense:"
1. your opinion
2. basic doctrine
3. Inerrant Word of God and The Documentation

Please answer my question this time.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see, so is "evolution is nonsense:"
1. your opinion
2. basic doctrine
3. Inerrant Word of God and The Documentation

Please answer my question this time.

It is basic doctrine, based on the inerrant Word of God -- (in my opinion).

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It is basic doctrine, based on the inerrant Word of God -- (in my opinion).

I do not think you know what the word "inerrant" actually means. You may want to look it up when you get a chance. The bible is full of errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible is full of errors.

Is 'In the beginning, God...' one of them?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Is 'In the beginning, God...' one of them?

Possibly.