Noah and the Flood. Fact or Fantasy?

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Smilin


My new bumper sticker:

Save a young impressionable Christian's mind... shoot a Young Earth Creationist....

Better yet: Save Christianity  ... shoot a Young Earth Creationist.

It's not just young impressionable Christains that are in danger from YEC, but the whole of Christianity. 

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by LightBearer
The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that God created earth's living things "according to their kinds." (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created "kinds," which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring "according to their kind" in a fixed, orderly manner. Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

And yet Genesis is completely vague on the definition of kind.  It qould seem that if we are to classify all life according to "kinds," then the Bible could stand to be a bit more specific.

Originally posted by LightBearer
The Biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

So a kind is any group of organisms that can mate and produce offspring?  Intersting, the we could roughly draw the line at the species level in taxonomic terms.  Of course there would be some exceptions, but it seems to fit in general terms.

Originally posted by LightBearer
In recent years, the term "species" has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word "kind." The basic meaning of "species" is "a sort; kind; variety." In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis "kinds."

Again, if we stick with your definition of kind, then species is not a perfect paralell, but it is the closest fit.  So it would follow that your contention is that evolution cannot occur between two populations of organisms that are not interfertile.  Hmmmmmm.

Originally posted by LightBearer
Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created "kinds," there is no support for theories maintaining that new "kinds" have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that "kinds" cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new "kinds" have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created "kinds" would interfere with God's purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created "kinds," each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other "kinds."

It seems to be your contention that there is a divine barrier between created kinds that cannot be crossed under any circumstances by the evolution of a population.  So, if we found an example of evolution from one "kind" to another, then your entire creation model would be falsfied.

Originally posted by LightBearer
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a "kind." This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created "kind."

These conclusions are entirely unsupported by the evidence and little more than blanket assertions, but let's go with them for a moment.  We've created a test for falsifying your creation model here.  We must evaluate whether or not there is a recorded instance of evolution where one population of organisms evolved to such a degree that they were no longer interfertile with their parent species.  Finally, a falsifiable set of criteria.  Well hallelujah.  Now, obviously we cannot falsify all creation models based on this criteria, but we can at least test yours.

Originally posted by LightBearer
Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new "kind," in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same "kind," such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

You stated earlier that a "kind" is a group of organisms that are interfertile.  It would seem that we can further clarify your definition by saying that the offspring of two organisms of the same kind does not have to be fertile itslef.  So, for example, lions and tigers, whose offspring are sterile IIRC, would be in the same kind as would wolves and dogs who can produce fertile offspring.

Originally posted by LightBearer
Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline "kind." The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each "kind." But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these "kinds" can commingle genetically.

So there is one feline ""kind?"  I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that lions and housecats were not inter fertile.  So are they the same or separate kinds?

Originally posted by LightBearer
Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds." The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible's history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and "according to their kinds" during the final creative days. Ge 1:20-25.

This is beautifully Hovindesque.  Make a blanket assertion, then dance around the supposed support for it.  Let's use a more concrete example.  Hyracotherium was the first equid (horse).  To say that it is anatomically identical, or even similar to the modern horse is absurd.  For one thing it had three toes to the modern horse's one.  That, combined with the substantial size difference, is more than enough evidence that your claim is ridiculous.  Of course the out for you here is that you've so poorly defined your terms that you can always come back and say that the first examples of any "certain creature" are simply the first creatures to strongly resemble the modern organism.  Well done on the vagueness.  It makes later handwaving infinitely easier.

Originally posted by LightBearer
From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different "kinds," since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.

But you've hemmed yourself into a corner here.  You've defined kind as any population of organisms that is interfertile.  That still leaves thousands of created "kinds."  Plus, this is only one minor aspect of the problems with the flood myth.

Originally posted by LightBearer
Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic "kinds" emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their "kinds." Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving "kinds" have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of God. Isa 55:8-11.

How many variations could there be?  There are approximately 1.5 million known species of plants and animals on earth.  And it is my understanding that interfertile species are the exception rather than the rule.  So if evolution cannot occur beyond the kind, there hasn't been a great deal of variation since the flood.

There are other problems with your idea, for example we cannot determine which modern organisms would be interfertile with extinct organisms.  And this provides an enormous number of created kinds, so the feasibility of the flood story diminishes considerably.

But, that's another post altogether.  Let's wrap this one up with the falsification of your creation model.  Now, you said that it is impossible under your model for evolution to occur accross the boundary of interfertility.  Therefore, if there is a population of organisms which evolves to the point that it can no longer reproduce with its parent population, then your model is falsified.  Unfortunately for you, there is at leas one such example.  There are others, but we'll use this one.  The evening primrose.  Here is a description from this article on talkorigins:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

There are several other examples of observed speciation in that article.  So we can see that your creation model and definition of created kinds is severely lacking.  Back to the drawing board.

-brett

 

 

[Micaiah]

I think you got a point here. I'd be interested to discuss it further on the other thread on the topic '...according to its kind'.

I must say I don't have a direct answer. I understand one of the best examples of speciation is the mosquitoes in the London subway. The new 'species' is still clearly of the 'kind' mosquito. Perhaps our definition of kind needs to be refined to cater for these extreme cases. One point to bear in mind is that speciation can result from anatomical differences that result from the changes in a particular population making sexual reproduction difficult or impossible.

The Scriptural passage on Creation wasn't written for scientists. It was written for ordinary people to read and learn from. So you would expect some of the terms used to be understandable rather than technically precise.

I find it amusing to think of how the Genesis account would read if scientists were the authors. No disrespect intended, but it would probably be several volumes worth, with the last being a glossary of terms.

 

[chickenman]

Living things reproduce only "according to their kinds." The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same "kind."

lots of assertions, absolutley no evidence

there is nothing in the genetic code that prevents macroevolution.

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: "Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution."

that doesn't refute evolution at all, in fact that would be predicted

if you're selecting based on a few/single criteria, effectively you're selecting for a few/single favourable allele - so you would reach a point where the favourable allele was fixed. This is only testing a single aspect of evolution

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: "Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]." So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.

we'll get to your woeful referencing later, i'd be interested to know what year/ what issue, and the context of the quote

And so, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: "The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction."

this is hilarious, its got absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Its even funnier because its not even correct any more - dedifferentiation can occur

And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: "All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity."

the DNA polymerases are very accurate, but it isn't 100 percent, and thats the important point

Scientific American also observes: "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation." And a science writer commented: "Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs." He concluded that mutations "cannot account for overall evolution-why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals."

what utter nonsense, evolution doesn't predict that rose bushes would blossom into camelias, i'm not sure I give **** what anyone that misinformed has to say about mutations

The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin's original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature's genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

the boundary between "kinds" is imaginary

Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only "according to their kinds," so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.

again, whoever wrote this hasn't a clue about evolution

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: "No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these 'slips' of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding 'adaptations.'"

the conclusion is erroneus, and based on a strawman view of evolution

The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how "the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation" are preserved "by enzymes that continually repair" genetic damage. The journal states: "In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized."

DNA repair mechanisms are not perfect, errors still occur - just ask anyone with cancer

That a mechanism designed for stability within it's "Kind" would be the force behind evolutionary changes on the scale you advocate is science fiction not science fact.

nothing written here is even remotely scientific, and the referencing is attrocious - I don't know whether you know this, but when you reference a journal, you need to indicate which year, what issue, the author etc. otherwise the reader has to go trawling through every issue of the journal trying to find your out of context quotes.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Better yet: Save Christianity  ... shoot a Young Earth Creationist. 

Be patient, you will have your chance during the tribulation. But for now, the Holy Spirit of Grace is still here in this world. So you can not lay a finger on them tell the Spirit of Grace has been departed from this world and the antichrist is revealed.

We have it in our raptured play that will be made into a movie. Renounce your christianity and live. No way. Wack, they chop off a leg. Renouce your faith in Christ and live! No way, wack, they chop off a arm. Turn from your God and we will spare your life. No way, wack, they chop off his head and send him to his reward.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by lucaspa
If the Garden ever existed.  Note though that, if you are a Biblical literalist, you cannot believe in a global flood that changed any surface features.  Because the location of the Garden is given using post-Flood geography. For Genesis to know that the Garden existed there before the Flood, the rivers must not have changed.

Surely that depends on where Moses got his information from.  It could have been received directly by divine revelation.  God would have known what the area looked like prior to the flood.  It is obvious that someone had to receive the information relating to the events prior to man's creation in that way, whether Moses or someone prior to him. (Ge 1:1-27; 2:7, 8) This information and the remaining details, however, could have been transmitted to Moses by means of oral tradition. Because of the long life span of men of that period, the information could have been passed from Adam to Moses through just five human links, namely, Methuselah, Shem (He certainly knew what the area looked like having lived prior to the flood and surviving it), Isaac, Levi, and Amram. A third possibility is that Moses obtained much of the information for Genesis from already existing writings or documents. As far back as the 18th century, the Dutch scholar Campegius Vitringa held this view, basing his conclusion upon the frequent occurrence in Genesis (ten times) of the expression (in KJ) "these are the generations of," and once "this is the book of the generations of." (Ge 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) In this expression the Hebrew word for "generations" is toh·le·dhohth', and it is better rendered "histories" or "origins." For example, "generations of the heavens and of the earth" would hardly be fitting, whereas "history of the heavens and the earth" is meaningful. (Ge 2:4) In harmony with this, the German Elberfelder, the French Crampon, and the Spanish Bover-Cantera all use the term "history."  There is no doubt that even as men today are interested in an accurate historical record, so they have been from the start.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by euphoric
Let's wrap this one up with the falsification of your creation model. Now, you said that it is impossible under your model for evolution to occur accross the boundary of interfertility. Therefore, if there is a population of organisms which evolves to the point that it can no longer reproduce with its parent population, then your model is falsified. Unfortunately for you, there is at leas one such example. There are others, but we'll use this one. The evening primrose. Here is a description from this article on talkorigins:

You talk of there being approximately 1.5 million known species of plants and animals on earth and yet your entire argument boils down to "The Evening Primrose". Now that's what I call credulous.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by LightBearer
You talk of there being approximately 1.5 million known species of plants and animals on earth and yet your entire argument boils down to "The Evening Primrose". Now that's what I call credulous.

Yes, you're right.  How silly of me.  I guess I should have said something like the following in my post:

Unfortunately for you, there is at least one such example.  There are others, but we'll use this one.  The evening primrose.  Here is a description from this article on talkorigins...
...There are several other examples of observed speciation in that article.

Oh, wait, I did.  Hmmm, looks like your dismissive handwaving is completely out of order.  Nice try though.  I dare say Gish and Hovind would beam with pride at such a willful denial of evidence.  Well played.

-brett

 

[Hector Medina]

Like I said BOMBED!

The whole section should be titled,not :

"Creation,Science and Evolution"
,but

"Evolution is Science'its science because most professors believe it"

Even with that little piece of info whats the point of posting more.......


God Bless,

Hector

 

[Hector Medina]

JohnR7,

I'm glad I have at least I friend on this section(not the only friend).

In Jesus' Name
YEC

Hector

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
Like I said BOMBED!

The whole section should be titled,not :

"Creation,Science and Evolution"
,but

"Evolution is Science'its science because most professors believe it"

Even with that little piece of info whats the point of posting more.......


God Bless,

Hector

Not to be pedantic here, especially in the face of obvious hyperbole and rhetoric, but evolution is science because it is testable, falsifiable, observable and predictive.  Who does or does not believe it is not relevant to the question of its accuracy as an explanation of biodiversity. 

Furthermore, Young Earth Creationism isn't being bullied here unfairly.  If you are dismayed by the systematic dismantling of young earth arguments, perhaps that should prompt you to reevaluate your dogmatic stance on the issue.

-brett

 

[Hank]

 

Originally posted by Hank
World wide floot?
The mathematics of the supposed flood. Courtesy of Dr. Martin R. Leipzig, petro-geologist. Please make careful note of the last few paragraphs especially for the physics of the amount of rainfall and the heat generated by such.

First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet,  and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest

V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)

Now, the Earth at sea level

V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
 = 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
 = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)

The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:

4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres

This is lot's of water.

For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary.

Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by definition)...so,

4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimetres),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525E+21 kg.

Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice.

Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.

Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy" . This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H =  height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.

Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.

Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.

The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

In short the biblical account can not be correct.

I have no idea why God would make the flood to kill all life on earth. First he creates it and then goes out of his way to destroy it all? Did a flood happen? Sure. Did it cover the highest mountain throughout the globe? I don't think so.

Floods do happen. We just has some in Germany. And I am sure a major one had happened long ago in what is known now as Israel. And I am sure Noah had to rebuild his life like my bro has to do now.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Be patient, you will have your chance during the tribulation. But for now, the Holy Spirit of Grace is still here in this world. So you can not lay a finger on them tell the Spirit of Grace has been departed from this world and the antichrist is revealed.

I guess you didn't notice that the "shoot a YEC" was meant tounge-in-cheek, but either way, both Smilin' and Lucaspa are going to be among those who (if your theory is true) will have to either renounce or die during the tribulation (or whatever)... They are both Christians like you. Well, not exactly like you, but you get the idea.

The AntiChrist, being opposed to the truth, will have no quarrel with the Creationists of the world & they need not worry about being beheaded on that account, anyway.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
Like I said BOMBED!

Nonsense. That's just a cop out. The simple truth is that you cannot address any of the points I raised in my post back on page 18 in response to your copied/pasted segment from ICR. Clearly the creationist side of the global flood argument is the side who bombed. Simply proclaiming victory after having your arguments refuted without actually engaging in any debate is unreasonable.

"Evolution is Science'its science because most professors believe it"

All I'll say here is that YOU might as well say that "The global flood model must be true because the Bible says it, so it must be believed even if it contradicts the basic tenets of geology, chemistry, physics, and, in short, the inherent laws of nature".

The theory of evolution is a well established theory in science because it is substantiated by evidence, plain and simple. Your creationism and global flood models, however, are not.

 

[Hector Medina]

The theory of evolution is a well established theory in science because it is substantiated by evidence, plain and simple. Your creationism and global flood models, however, are not.

I and millions of people think not.

God Bless You,

Hector

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
I and millions of people think not.

So? Millions... heck, billions don't believe in Christianity. By your logic, Christianity must be false, too.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I think you got a point here. I'd be interested to discuss it further on the other thread on the topic '...according to its kind'.

I must say I don't have a direct answer. I understand one of the best examples of speciation is the mosquitoes in the London subway. The new 'species' is still clearly of the 'kind' mosquito. Perhaps our definition of kind needs to be refined to cater for these extreme cases. One point to bear in mind is that speciation can result from anatomical differences that result from the changes in a particular population making sexual reproduction difficult or impossible. 

Changes in reproductive organs is one of the many isolating mechanisms to separate populations.  This one is pre-zygotic.  Micaiah, I think a good book for you would be What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. It explains different isolating mechanisms.

By evolution, new species from a common ancestor should be similar.  No big leaps.  BUT, as the diagram in Origin showed http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html once a lineage separated, each new speciation in each lineage brings more small changes and the gap between the lineages grows. So, go several dozen speciation events and yes, you do have very different organisms in each lineage as the changes accumulate. That's something creationists keep forgetting: changes accumulate. Each small change adds to the change already there. Add several small changes and you end up with a big difference.

Creationists have been trying to define "kind" for at least 4 decades. No success at all.  This is the latest:

"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances." (ICR Impact, "Summary of Evidence for Creation", May/June 1981)

That one is species.  Notice that we already have gotten new kinds by this definition.

"
<BLOCKQUOTE>If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."&nbsp; http://www.stormloader.com/users/mesk/KindDef.html

This is no help. If they can hybridize they are the same "kind", but if they can't they can still be the same "kind"!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LightBearer Surely that depends on where Moses got his information from.&nbsp; It could have been received directly by divine revelation.&nbsp; God would have known what the area looked like prior to the flood.&nbsp;

The description is only in terms of post-Flood rivers.. If the entire surface geography has changed -- as is said by creationists -- those rivers didn't exist before the Flood and the Garden couldn't be where they came together.

It is obvious that someone had to receive the information relating to the events prior to man's creation in that way, whether Moses or someone prior to him. (Ge 1:1-27; 2:7, 8) This information and the remaining details, however, could have been transmitted to Moses by means of oral tradition.

Well, if this happened, then the Bible isn't "God's Word" is it?&nbsp; This is an example of ad hoc hypotheses done to address one specific problem. But this one contradicts another of YEC assertions.&nbsp; If we have to rely on the inaccuracies of human oral tradition, then there is no reason to take Genesis literally.

(He certainly knew what the area looked like having lived prior to the flood and surviving it),

But how could Shem describe the location of the Garden in terms of rivers that would only exist after the Flood?

A third possibility is that Moses obtained much of the information for Genesis from already existing writings or documents.

Still doesn't help.&nbsp; Even if Noah took these books on the Ark, there would be no way to match up any geographical feature mentioned in them before the Flood to what Noah saw after the Flood. Remember, the entire surface of the earth was changed by the Flood, according to YECers.&nbsp; Mountains were raised that didn't exist, miles and miles of sedimentary rock were laid down where there was none, other areas of the earth had to be scoured clean to provide the sediment for those sedimentary rocks, etc.&nbsp; No feature of pre-Flood could have survived to post-Flood.

But Genesis describes the location of the&nbsp; Garden in terms of post-Flood rivers.&nbsp; The only way that this could be accurate (and thus Genesis literally true) is if the Flood did not change the geography.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I guess you didn't notice that the "shoot a YEC" was meant tounge-in-cheek, but either way, both Smilin' and Lucaspa are going to be among those who (if your theory is true) will have to either renounce or die during the tribulation (or whatever)... They are both Christians like you. Well, not exactly like you, but you get the idea.&nbsp;

Jerry, you simply have to stop jumping to conclusions about my faith.&nbsp; When have I ever said I was a Christian?&nbsp; Just because I state that atheism is a faith and show up some of the lousy arguments in favor of atheism does not make me a Christian.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LightBearer
You talk of there&nbsp;being approximately 1.5 million known species of plants and animals on earth and yet your entire argument boils down to "The Evening Primrose". Now that's what I call credulous.

What I call it is that your hypothesis got falsified but that you don't realize it. According to your hypothesis, populations can not&nbsp;evolve to infertility.&nbsp; Therefore,&nbsp;if&nbsp;even one population splits and the two subpopulations evolve to infertility, then your hypothesis is wrong.&nbsp; Well, the one example was posted and it falsifies your hypothesis.

I can post about 100 more examples from just my reading, and there are at least 100 more listed in the reference section of the articles I have seen.&nbsp; Your hypothesis is conclusively falsified.

Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created "kinds," each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other "kinds."

Another falsification for this statement is phylogenetic analysis.&nbsp;
DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997.&nbsp; Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants:&nbsp; macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use.&nbsp; Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age:&nbsp; testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed.

"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along:&nbsp; Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

You see?&nbsp; "isolated unit apart from other "kinds."" is the independent observations in phylogenetic analysis. But these isolated units don't happen.&nbsp; True statements can't have false consequences, so your statements are false.

This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today.

Your fellow creationists disagree with you.
"On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."
http://www.stormloader.com/users/mesk/KindDef.html

Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created "kind."

How do you know humans and chimps can't hybridize?&nbsp; How do you know they are not interfertile?&nbsp; Who has done the experiments?&nbsp; Creationists? If so, who?