The Global Flood

Beastt said:

Am I to take it that you're assuming a difference between "real history" and "truth"?

Click to expand...

I am saying that truth is truth. What is considered real history is often a perception or a misconception, or just an outright lie to portray something in light of the writers feelings or beliefs. If history does not align with truth, then obviously history is wrong in some way.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

The truth is that the global flood is falsified by geology, paleontology, biodiversity, biogeography and archeology, not to mention the simple physics that shows the impossibility of producing sufficient water for such a flood. You can argue with JohnR-7 about whether scripture calls for a local or global flood but every aspect of science that has been applied to the problem shows that a global flood did not occur at least in the last several hundred million years.

F.B.

Click to expand...

You are limited to knowledge that your little brain can decipher. Nature, science, and physical understandings change as the wind blows. How arrogant of a man to think he can understand the workings of the world, when he really cannot grasp that he, in all his glory, is made of the same three particles as a grain of sand.

livingword26 said:

You are limited to knowledge that your little brain can decipher. Nature, science, and physical understandings change as the wind blows. How arrogant of a man to think he can understand the workings of the world, when he really cannot grasp that he, in all his glory, is made of the same three particles as a grain of sand.

Click to expand...

livingword26 said:

You are limited to knowledge that your little brain can decipher. Nature, science, and physical understandings change as the wind blows. How arrogant of a man to think he can understand the workings of the world, when he really cannot grasp that he, in all his glory, is made of the same three particles as a grain of sand.

Click to expand...

I love how Biblical literalists always resort to this sort of rhetoric when backed into a corner.

That's probably why creationism, to date, remains utterly useless, as opposed to real science.

Pete Harcoff said:

That's probably why creationism, to date, remains utterly useless, as opposed to real science.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, Pete.

What is it about us Creationists that keeps you Agnostics and Atheists coming back here every single day?

Maybe we have something (or Someone) you guys want?

AV1611VET said:

Oh, I don't know, Pete.

What is it about us Creationists that keeps you Agnostics and Atheists coming back here every single day?

Maybe we have something (or Someone) you guys want?

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ol' "look for hidden motives" bit.

For the record, I'm here simply because I find science and religion interesting. And the whole creationist movement fascinates me. Prior to coming online, I never would have guess that almost half the U.S. actually believes it!

But alas, most of the dicussions get so redundant. Creationists seem oblivious to modern biology, particularly with respect to applied science. I still haven't gotten creationists to properly discuss evolutionary applications like phylogenomics or comparative genomics, and how real world companies use that science in fields like agriculture and medicine. But then again, even creationist organizations won't touch the topic (I've emailed them to no response), so I'm not surprised creationists here won't. Ah well, ce la vie.

Pete Harcoff said:

For the record, I'm here simply because I find science and religion interesting. And the whole creationist movement fascinates me. Prior to coming online, I never would have guess that almost half the U.S. actually believes it!

Click to expand...

Yup --- since God believes it --- we do too. This CF is doing the world a favor: waking it up to the fact that this country is a Christian nation.

It was founded by God for two major reasons:

• 1. To protect the Jews prior to WW2.
  2. To assist the Jews after WW2.

Take a look at our Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to our Constitution); it is written in such a way as to insure that no pogrom will occur legally on American soil.

But alas, most of the dicussions get so redundant. Creationists seem oblivious to modern biology, particularly with respect to applied science. I still haven't gotten creationists to properly discuss evolutionary applications like phylogenomics or comparative genomics, and how real world companies use that science in fields like agriculture and medicine. But then again, even creationist organizations won't touch the topic (I've emailed them to no response), so I'm not surprised creationists here won't. Ah well, ce la vie.

Click to expand...

And we can't get you guys to properly discuss creation, redemption, sin, Jesus, etc.

I don't blame Christian organizations for not replying. If you guys dismiss outright Jesus walking on water, don't expect us to discuss buoyancy laws, specific gravity, etc.

If you don't want to hear about Creation, we don't want to hear about the Big Bang.

Ah well, que sera sera.

Well, since this thread has been so derailed from the OP question (and since nobody seems willing or capable of responding to it, I will add the following questions, and ask for scientific explanations only

These questions assumes a world wide flood, and any answers should not assume miracles.

1. How did Koalas get from Australia and home again, and Sloths get from South America and home again before and after the flood (please study the maximum capacity, travel ability and sleep patterns of both these creatures before answering. And also have a look at how plate tektonics work as well.

2. How many Kangaroo "kinds" are there, and how did they evolve into so many different species within the past 5,000 years?

Norm

AV1611VET said:

Yup --- since God believes it --- we do too. This CF is doing the world a favor: waking it up to the fact that this country is a Christian nation.

It was founded by God for two major reasons:

• 1. To protect the Jews prior to WW2.
  2. To assist the Jews after WW2.

Take a look at our Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to our Constitution); it is written in such a way as to insure that no pogrom will occur legally on American soil.


And we can't get you guys to properly discuss creation, redemption, sin, Jesus, etc.

I don't blame Christian organizations for not replying. If you guys dismiss outright Jesus walking on water, don't expect us to discuss buoyancy laws, specific gravity, etc.

If you don't want to hear about Creation, we don't want to hear about the Big Bang.

Ah well, que sera sera.

Click to expand...

Why did the U.S reject boats filled with Jewish refugees from Europe before World War Two?

Creation theory has an equal and even more plausible explanation for the seeming anomaly marsupial concentration and exclusivity of Australia in the present and past as indicated by the fossil record. In addition, an equal and also more plausible explanation exists for similar animal groupings in the past, shown in the fossil record, who looked similar to present and past creatures elsewhere but said to be unrelated by modern science. This second matter is not so well known by the public and even well-read creationists.
Present evolutionary biology and palaeontology contends that over great lengths of time natural selection brought about same kind of creatures at different times on different parts of the world from totally unrelated non descript rodent like creatures. These include bear, dog, cat, horse, and elephant shaped creatures with no biological relation whatsoever evolved in numerous places around the world from different ancestral tiny creatures. They call it called convergent evolution. This is a great theme in evolutionary biology.
Creationists can confidently present a better argument than before for the suitability of present and past animal distribution based on a model accepting the Biblical flood and its aftermath animal dispersal.
The fossil record shows same shaped creatures in different areas of the world with minor differences. These creatures while shaped like other creatures in the world have minor similarities to each other in each particular area that they live in. And so a bear and cat shaped creature would have a similar ear bone arrangement or foot arrangement in that area. And while evolution will say that the ear or foot arrangement indicates common ancestry, creation theory can on contrary contend these creatures are just bears and cats the same as elsewhere who due to some influence in the area, adapted some minor ear or foot arrangement. All bear and cat creatures descended from the pairs from the Ark.
This all leads to the seeming anomaly of Australia with its exclusive marsupial fauna. Australia is not an aberrant anomaly but rather a revelation of the true story or equation of post flood animal migration and adaptation.
These minor similarities of marsupials and bone structures in the creatures of Australia are irrelevant as to their origin and ancestral relationship. The origin and relationship of these creatures is the same as all creatures similarly shaped elsewhere on the earth now or in the past. Marsupial dogs and cats are the same kinds as regular dogs and cats, and likewise related to dogs and cats (in the fossil record but now extinct) also with minor regional body differences that lived in certain places on earth.
Only the marsupial mole, same as the placental mole elsewhere hints at the common adaptations after the flood.
The marsupial creatures of Australia are the absolute same ones as elsewhere that filled the earth after the flood. The same body type is the evidence of ancestry and not minor matters as reproduction. The present attempt of science to group animals and their relationships by reproduction methods or minor bone structures has been the error of modern evolutionary biology and palaeontology.
To the organized creationist community I make this contribution believing that it is true. Yet also believing a previous problem can be turned into an exciting example to creationists, Christians, and the scientific world how faith in the accuracy of the Bible and study of what data there is can place creation theory in the forefront and eye to eye with the truth of origins with anybody.
ROBERT BYERS
TORONTO, ONTARIO
bbyyeerrss@yahoo.ca
416-741-9054
JUNE 2005-07-21
References:
Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated guide. R, J, G. Savage.Facts on File Publications. 1986.
Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents: Allen Keast. Albany State University. 1972.
Prehistoric Life; The rise of the Vertebrates. David Norman. Macmillan. USA. 1996
Edited by Doug Sharp 10/17/2005

You pool of people that want to take on such in depth study is very limited. I (and I think many other Christians) do not want to spend alot of time on such things. We just believe that the Bible account is correct and sometimes scientists can help explain how He did certain things. Since God is so real to us, any theory that does excludes Him is already disqualified. That may not fit scientific method, but I am OK with that.

AV1611VET said:

Yup --- since God believes it --- we do too. This CF is doing the world a favor: waking it up to the fact that this country is a Christian nation.

It was founded by God for two major reasons:

• 1. To protect the Jews prior to WW2.
  2. To assist the Jews after WW2.

Take a look at our Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to our Constitution); it is written in such a way as to insure that no pogrom will occur legally on American soil.


And we can't get you guys to properly discuss creation, redemption, sin, Jesus, etc.

I don't blame Christian organizations for not replying. If you guys dismiss outright Jesus walking on water, don't expect us to discuss buoyancy laws, specific gravity, etc.

If you don't want to hear about Creation, we don't want to hear about the Big Bang.

Ah well, que sera sera.

Click to expand...

If you believe in miracles, that's fine and your right. But if you do, why do you keep trying to explain the flood in naturalistic terms? Naturedidit?

Pandersen said:

SUMMARY: ​

Creation theory has an equal and even more plausible explanation for the seeming anomaly marsupial concentration and exclusivity of Australia in the present and past as indicated by the fossil record. In addition, an equal and also more plausible explanation exists for similar animal groupings in the past, shown in the fossil record, who looked similar to present and past creatures elsewhere but said to be unrelated by modern science. This second matter is not so well known by the public and even well-read creationists.
Present evolutionary biology and palaeontology contends that over great lengths of time natural selection brought about same kind of creatures at different times on different parts of the world from totally unrelated non descript rodent like creatures. These include bear, dog, cat, horse, and elephant shaped creatures with no biological relation whatsoever evolved in numerous places around the world from different ancestral tiny creatures. They call it called convergent evolution. This is a great theme in evolutionary biology.
Creationists can confidently present a better argument than before for the suitability of present and past animal distribution based on a model accepting the Biblical flood and its aftermath animal dispersal.
The fossil record shows same shaped creatures in different areas of the world with minor differences. These creatures while shaped like other creatures in the world have minor similarities to each other in each particular area that they live in. And so a bear and cat shaped creature would have a similar ear bone arrangement or foot arrangement in that area. And while evolution will say that the ear or foot arrangement indicates common ancestry, creation theory can on contrary contend these creatures are just bears and cats the same as elsewhere who due to some influence in the area, adapted some minor ear or foot arrangement. All bear and cat creatures descended from the pairs from the Ark.
This all leads to the seeming anomaly of Australia with its exclusive marsupial fauna. Australia is not an aberrant anomaly but rather a revelation of the true story or equation of post flood animal migration and adaptation.
These minor similarities of marsupials and bone structures in the creatures of Australia are irrelevant as to their origin and ancestral relationship. The origin and relationship of these creatures is the same as all creatures similarly shaped elsewhere on the earth now or in the past. Marsupial dogs and cats are the same kinds as regular dogs and cats, and likewise related to dogs and cats (in the fossil record but now extinct) also with minor regional body differences that lived in certain places on earth.
Only the marsupial mole, same as the placental mole elsewhere hints at the common adaptations after the flood.
The marsupial creatures of Australia are the absolute same ones as elsewhere that filled the earth after the flood. The same body type is the evidence of ancestry and not minor matters as reproduction. The present attempt of science to group animals and their relationships by reproduction methods or minor bone structures has been the error of modern evolutionary biology and palaeontology.
To the organized creationist community I make this contribution believing that it is true. Yet also believing a previous problem can be turned into an exciting example to creationists, Christians, and the scientific world how faith in the accuracy of the Bible and study of what data there is can place creation theory in the forefront and eye to eye with the truth of origins with anybody.
ROBERT BYERS
TORONTO, ONTARIO
bbyyeerrss@yahoo.ca
416-741-9054
JUNE 2005-07-21
References:
Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated guide. R, J, G. Savage.Facts on File Publications. 1986.
Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents: Allen Keast. Albany State University. 1972.
Prehistoric Life; The rise of the Vertebrates. David Norman. Macmillan. USA. 1996
Edited by Doug Sharp 10/17/2005

Click to expand...

Cats and dogs are not marsupials. Marsupails are mammals in which the female typically has a pouch in which it carries its young during infancy. Cats and dogs do not have pouches to carry the young ones in.

Pandersen said:

SUMMARY: ​

Creation theory has an equal and even more plausible explanation for the seeming anomaly marsupial concentration and exclusivity of Australia in the present and past as indicated by the fossil record. In addition, an equal and also more plausible explanation exists for similar animal groupings in the past, shown in the fossil record, who looked similar to present and past creatures elsewhere but said to be unrelated by modern science. This second matter is not so well known by the public and even well-read creationists.
Present evolutionary biology and palaeontology contends that over great lengths of time natural selection brought about same kind of creatures at different times on different parts of the world from totally unrelated non descript rodent like creatures. These include bear, dog, cat, horse, and elephant shaped creatures with no biological relation whatsoever evolved in numerous places around the world from different ancestral tiny creatures. They call it called convergent evolution. This is a great theme in evolutionary biology.
Creationists can confidently present a better argument than before for the suitability of present and past animal distribution based on a model accepting the Biblical flood and its aftermath animal dispersal.
The fossil record shows same shaped creatures in different areas of the world with minor differences. These creatures while shaped like other creatures in the world have minor similarities to each other in each particular area that they live in. And so a bear and cat shaped creature would have a similar ear bone arrangement or foot arrangement in that area. And while evolution will say that the ear or foot arrangement indicates common ancestry, creation theory can on contrary contend these creatures are just bears and cats the same as elsewhere who due to some influence in the area, adapted some minor ear or foot arrangement. All bear and cat creatures descended from the pairs from the Ark.
This all leads to the seeming anomaly of Australia with its exclusive marsupial fauna. Australia is not an aberrant anomaly but rather a revelation of the true story or equation of post flood animal migration and adaptation.
These minor similarities of marsupials and bone structures in the creatures of Australia are irrelevant as to their origin and ancestral relationship. The origin and relationship of these creatures is the same as all creatures similarly shaped elsewhere on the earth now or in the past. Marsupial dogs and cats are the same kinds as regular dogs and cats, and likewise related to dogs and cats (in the fossil record but now extinct) also with minor regional body differences that lived in certain places on earth.
Only the marsupial mole, same as the placental mole elsewhere hints at the common adaptations after the flood.
The marsupial creatures of Australia are the absolute same ones as elsewhere that filled the earth after the flood. The same body type is the evidence of ancestry and not minor matters as reproduction. The present attempt of science to group animals and their relationships by reproduction methods or minor bone structures has been the error of modern evolutionary biology and palaeontology.
To the organized creationist community I make this contribution believing that it is true. Yet also believing a previous problem can be turned into an exciting example to creationists, Christians, and the scientific world how faith in the accuracy of the Bible and study of what data there is can place creation theory in the forefront and eye to eye with the truth of origins with anybody.
ROBERT BYERS
TORONTO, ONTARIO
bbyyeerrss@yahoo.ca
416-741-9054
JUNE 2005-07-21
References:
Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated guide. R, J, G. Savage.Facts on File Publications. 1986.
Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents: Allen Keast. Albany State University. 1972.
Prehistoric Life; The rise of the Vertebrates. David Norman. Macmillan. USA. 1996
Edited by Doug Sharp 10/17/2005

Click to expand...

This does not even address my question. All it seems to suggest is that Australian marsupials evolved very quickly after the flood from previous "kinds".

Please reread what I wrote and answer yourself, without a non relevant cut and paste.

Norm

fromdownunder said:

1. How did Koalas get from Australia and home again,

Click to expand...

There are around 7,000 islands in the Philippines. Some of them have species that you will not find anywhere else in the world, only on their individual island.

So in order to have a world wide flood Dr Dino has two different theorys. One is that Noah sailed around the world twice. Once to pick all the animals up and a second time to drop them off back where he found them. Dr Dinos second theory is that a lot of evolution took place after the flood to create all the individual species. My wife attended college in Davao. So of course I have been there to visit her family.

fromdownunder said:

This does not even address my question. All it seems to suggest is that Australian marsupials evolved very quickly after the flood from previous "kinds".

Please reread what I wrote and answer yourself, without a non relevant cut and paste.

Norm

Click to expand...

Also, notice how the author cleverly replaces the word "kind" with "shape", which remains undefined.

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but it is, I believe, the most thorough refutation of Noah's ark based on natrualistic terms:

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
by Robert Moore

Again, if you believe God accomplished the flood story with miracles, why do you try to explain it in natural terms (i.e., without God)?

Pandersen said:

You pool of people that want to take on such in depth study is very limited. I (and I think many other Christians) do not want to spend alot of time on such things. We just believe that the Bible account is correct and sometimes scientists can help explain how He did certain things. Since God is so real to us, any theory that does excludes Him is already disqualified. That may not fit scientific method, but I am OK with that.

Click to expand...

Panderson, that's fine by me, and if you wish to say it in an apologetic forum, I will not argue at all.

But when people say there was a world wide flood, and bring such arguments to the table in a science forum, that is when (and the only time) I will ask for evidence.

In theology/mataphysics/apologetics forum "God did it" is enough for me to bow out. It cannot be falsified. In a science forum, I am afraid it is not.

Norm