Local Flood

[Floodnut]

Chapter and verse, please?

Chapter and verse?

And numerous fishes don't possess this capability. Point?

No, you're the one who needs to supply miracles. I don't dabble in the supernatural. As to preflood adaptability, chapter and verse, please?

Like I said, miracles are your domain.

You're right. Goddidit is a much more logical explanation. I'm going to adopt this technique and use it every time I need an excuse. My boss has a few surprises in store.

It is silly to ask for chapter and verse on something that is extra-biblical speculation. But you can read Genesis 6-9 to see that ONLY air-breating land animals in whose nostrils is the breath of life were taken on the Ark. There were no fish on the Ark and no dolphins either. They were preserved outside the ark and we have chapter and verse for that. But you really don't care since you don't believe in the Bible any way.

As to HOW they were preserved outside the Ark, there is no need to supply a miracle since there are adequate natural means to enable the ancestors of all modern aquatic creatures to have survived in the churning waters of the Flood. But they did survive outside the Ark since they were not on the Ark and since they are now alive in the waters of the earth, in abundance.

And miracles are not my domain, but they are God's domain. Life is a miracle.

 

[Maxwell511]

What about fresh water fish?

 

[A4C]

It is an interesting find. One that a flood scenario can't explain.

I thought it wa interesting stuff that you posted a link that said that a single flood did something when you were trying to convince me that it didn't.
Nice work notto
Perhaps you could produce some more creationists links for your other questions. I would myself except that going on previous experiance it wouldn't matter what I showed you, you would not accept it.

 

[L'Anatra]

You are the one who makes ridiculous posts. Nyaaaah.
I can play that game too.

I'm playing no game. I'm making an objective statement about the quality of the content of your posts. Don't assume that because I'm 30 years younger than you that I am engaging in the frivolous activity of name-calling.

And it is extra-biblical, but not contra-biblical to assert that there was not a thorough mixing of the waters.

Maybe not, but do you have any evidence for your claim? This is what I'm asking for.

 

[notto]

I thought it wa interesting stuff that you posted a link that said that a single flood did something when you were trying to convince me that it didn't.
Nice work notto
Perhaps you could produce some more creationists links for your other questions. I would myself except that going on previous experiance it wouldn't matter what I showed you, you would not accept it.

The link was provided to show you exactly what you had asked for and denied existed. There exists burrows on top of burrows (just like egg nests on top of egg nests). The explanation of these burrows in the link is as weak as yours, well, maybe not as weak as the escaping from being buried explanation, but weak at best because it doesn't address any of the other trace fossils, or address the sediment below the burrows, nor above.

I notice that you have not addressed them as of yet.

So, can we assume that the sediment below these burrows is pre-flood? Yes or No?

Care to address the 15 feet of egg nests this time? How about the dinosaur footprints and tree roots in coal? Mature soils? Termite nests?

Can you pick a geological feature, fossil, find, area, ANYTHING and explain it in a detailed way with your flood model and explain what we find above and below it without contradicting your previous adhoc explanations?

I have yet to see your make reference to anything to back up your claims or any attempt by you to address the specific evidence you have been given in any detailed way. I won't be back to address your posts until you do.

 

[A4C]

The link was provided to show you exactly what you had asked for and denied existed. There exists burrows on top of burrows (just like egg nests on top of egg nests). The explanation of these burrows in the link is as weak as yours, well, maybe not as weak as the escaping from being buried explanation, but weak at best because it doesn't address any of the other trace fossils, or address the sediment below the burrows, nor above.

I notice that you have not addressed them as of yet.

So, can we assume that the sediment below these burrows is pre-flood? Yes or No?

Care to address the 15 feet of egg nests this time? How about the dinosaur footprints and tree roots in coal? Mature soils? Termite nests?

Can you pick a geological feature, fossil, find, area, ANYTHING and explain it in a detailed way with your flood model and explain what we find above and below it without contradicting your previous adhoc explanations?

I have yet to see your make reference to anything to back up your claims or any attempt by you to address the specific evidence you have been given in any detailed way. I won't be back to address your posts until you do.

I suggest that if you want a creationists viewpoint on all of the issues you raise then go to www.answersingenesis.org
If you have any problems with their findings -scientists who actually work at finding this stuff- then I dont see that you could ever believe anything I have said.
I just believe that God did it and am willing to suggest how that might have happened. To most reasonable people that is accepted but to you it seems that to even to think outside the "scientific norm" is to commit a national crime

 

[Jet Black]

Numerous fishes today are capable of living in both fresh and salt water. Moreover there are both fresh water and salt water Catfish, and there are fresh water and salt water dolphins, likewise with many other types of fish.

dolphins and whales are not fish. they breathe air and they have nostrils.

 

[Elduran]

I suggest that if you want a creationists viewpoint on all of the issues you raise then go to www.answersingenesis.org
If you have any problems with their findings -scientists who actually work at finding this stuff- then I dont see that you could ever believe anything I have said.
I just believe that God did it and am willing to suggest how that might have happened. To most reasonable people that is accepted but to you it seems that to even to think outside the "scientific norm" is to commit a national crime

I spy another COP OUT!

Try answering the questions in your own words A4G, of people might start to cotton on to the fact that you can only recite what you've been told by creationists, with no evidence whatsoever of your own research...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You are the one who makes ridiculous posts. Nyaaaah.
I can play that game too.

Of course dolphins are not fish, but there are fresh water varieties.

Here's a biology test for your, floodnut.

Why is it hard for a fish to cope with both salt and freshwater, but a complete non-issue to a dolphin?

There is in fact a very good reason.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I suggest that if you want a creationists viewpoint on all of the issues you raise then go to www.answersingenesis.org
If you have any problems with their findings -scientists who actually work at finding this stuff- then I dont see that you could ever believe anything I have said.
I just believe that God did it and am willing to suggest how that might have happened. To most reasonable people that is accepted but to you it seems that to even to think outside the "scientific norm" is to commit a national crime

I've already identified that AiG lied when they said that marine and freshwater fish can be kept in the same aquarium with a bit of acclimatisation.

Why should I read stuff from people I know are bare-faced liars?

 

[peepnklown]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
That site doesn’t provide answers at all (and no evidence either).
I was reading an article about the “Flood” which every statement claimed they used the Bible to prove the flood. What does this have to do with scientific answers?

 

[notto]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
That site doesn’t provide answers at all (and no evidence either).
I was reading an article about the “Flood” which every statement claimed they used the Bible to prove the flood. What does this have to do with scientific answers?

There version of science isn't science at all.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

 

[Floodnut]

dolphins and whales are not fish. they breathe air and they have nostrils.

WOW! A biologist! This is great information. How does it relate to the matter of whether the Flood of the BIBLE was local or not?

Are you aware that some varities of dolphins have specialized to live in FRESH WATER?

Nostrils? Most of the dolphins and whales that I am aware of have blow holes. But whatever you say, since you are apparently a very astute biologist. But still I wonder how the fact that dolphins have nostrils relates to the biblical Flood. Perhaps you are able to elucidate on this. Thanks.

 

[nvxplorer]

As to HOW they were preserved outside the Ark, there is no need to supply a miracle since there are adequate natural means to enable the ancestors of all modern aquatic creatures to have survived in the churning waters of the Flood. But they did survive outside the Ark since they were not on the Ark and since they are now alive in the waters of the earth, in abundance.

Do you see the irony in your words?

1. No miracle necessary
2. Natural means (assertion)
Proof:
3. Were outside the ark because...
4. Weren't inside the ark, and...
5. Are now alive, therefore...
6. Did survive

I'm convinced. What was that about extra-biblical evidence?

 

[Floodnut]

I spy another COP OUT!

Try answering the questions in your own words A4G, of people might start to cotton on to the fact that you can only recite what you've been told by creationists, with no evidence whatsoever of your own research...

"Every thing evolved" according to your revered scientists. End of story.

NOW THAT is a cop out.

You can only recite what your "peer reviewed" reciprocating validators have to say, with no evidence whatsoever of your OWN research. You are a typical parroting evolutionist unveliever in the words of Jesus.

 

[Floodnut]

Here's a biology test for your, floodnut.

Why is it hard for a fish to cope with both salt and freshwater, but a complete non-issue to a dolphin?

There is in fact a very good reason.

so sorry, it is not a NON-issue for a dolphin. Dolphins and Whales for the most part require Salt water for their survival. Their skin needs salt water. Furthermore, we are not asserting that it is a non-issue for fish. There are salt water fish and fresh water fish. There are salt water shrimp and clams as well as and fresh water shrimp and clams. There are other species that prefer the inbetween water of brackish estuaries. Aquatic species need to be in their own respective environments.

Now what particular reason for particular fish environments do you have in mind?

 

[Floodnut]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
That site doesn’t provide answers at all (and no evidence either).
I was reading an article about the “Flood” which every statement claimed they used the Bible to prove the flood. What does this have to do with scientific answers?

AiG deals with questions of Science and questions of Scripture. Scripture is important for Christians because it provides the eyewitness account of how the world was formed. Evolution is based entirely on conjecture with no examples of transition from one species to another. Creation is what happened according to our reliable Eyewitness.

 

[nvxplorer]

WOW! A biologist! This is great information. How does it relate to the matter of whether the Flood of the BIBLE was local or not?

Are you aware that some varities of dolphins have specialized to live in FRESH WATER?

Nostrils? Most of the dolphins and whales that I am aware of have blow holes. But whatever you say, since you are apparently a very astute biologist. But still I wonder how the fact that dolphins have nostrils relates to the biblical Flood. Perhaps you are able to elucidate on this. Thanks.

Blowholes are modified nostrils.

"Specialized to live in water?" I didn't know you were an evolutionist.

Tell me how many marlin bones have been found at the bottom of Lake Tahoe, and how many rainbow trout remnants off the coast of Thailand, and I'll believe your flood fairy tale.

 

[nvxplorer]

AiG deals with questions of Science and questions of Scripture. Scripture is important for Christians because it provides the eyewitness account of how the world was formed. Evolution is based entirely on conjecture with no examples of transition from one species to another. Creation is what happened according to our reliable Eyewitness.

You have no eyewitnesses. What you have is a book.

 

[notto]

AiG deals with questions of Science and questions of Scripture. Scripture is important for Christians because it provides the eyewitness account of how the world was formed. Evolution is based entirely on conjecture with no examples of transition from one species to another. Creation is what happened according to our reliable Eyewitness.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use


‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.