I mean that maybe there is no 'reason' for the big bang to exist or occur. There has to be an end of the line somewhere, whether it's at god or at some flat out existence. I don't think it comes full circle. Unless..hmm..unless someone in the future invents time travel and creates the universe. Whoo, wouldn't that mix things up...[b said:
Creationism: Right or Wrong?
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
Arkanjel
New Member
I really dont think its possible to create yourself in this sense,"Unless..hmm..unless someone in the future invents time travel and creates the universe." The reason for me saying that is, you would never have been created in the first place., therefore you couldnt go "back" and create the universe. Now you might try and corelate this idea to God. However God is outside of the boundaries of time as we know it. He exists and dwells in a realm without time. The lack of time, or infinity, is possibly the hardest thing to wrap our human minds around. An example of what it would be like to be outrside of time is this.
Ill use a parade as an example.
One person is sitting at the begining of the parade route. As it goes by he can only see a small part of it at one time.
Another person is sitting at the end of the parade route and for him the parade hasn't started yet.
The first guy, at the begining of the parade route, has already sat through the whole parade and is ready to go home.
The second guy, at the end of the route, is just begining to see the parade.
This is what it is like to be inside the dimension of "TIME".
Then you have God.
God sees the parade from the hovering helicopters point of view.
To God, He sees the parade in its entirity, He sees the begining of the parade and at the same time he sees the end of the parade.
Does that make sense? This is also a good explanation of how everyone gets to heaven at the same time. The people who have died in the past will be arriving at heaven at the same time as the people who have died in the future.
Ill use a parade as an example.
One person is sitting at the begining of the parade route. As it goes by he can only see a small part of it at one time.
Another person is sitting at the end of the parade route and for him the parade hasn't started yet.
The first guy, at the begining of the parade route, has already sat through the whole parade and is ready to go home.
The second guy, at the end of the route, is just begining to see the parade.
This is what it is like to be inside the dimension of "TIME".
Then you have God.
God sees the parade from the hovering helicopters point of view.
To God, He sees the parade in its entirity, He sees the begining of the parade and at the same time he sees the end of the parade.
Does that make sense? This is also a good explanation of how everyone gets to heaven at the same time. The people who have died in the past will be arriving at heaven at the same time as the people who have died in the future.
I'm sure it's very similar; the Case for Christ is more about whether Jesus really existed or not, based on worldy evidence.[b said:
The Case for a Creator is really more about evolution and other theories vs a Creator designing the universe and the life in it.
Case for a Creator is a very scientific book, and it goes in depth to explain the cell structure of different animals, their DNA's, and the uniqueness they all pose (surely a Creator wouldn't make all creatures the same).
It gets a tad less scientific for a chapter and describes the uniqueness and purposeness of humans themselves. We're not like any animal in the way that we look, act, and think. It goes so far as to say that humans are the only animal who have a conscious - we are interested in art, literature, gaming, betterment, and many other things that animals aren't even aware of.
It brings up the topic of humans vs apes, chimpanzees, and other forms of 'monkeys'. Now, we all know and agree with that Tek7 is in fact an ape, but aside from that humans have no real similarity to these animals. Atheists, agnostics, and other non-creationists argue that 'monkeys' (monkeys, in general) only have a 1% difference in their genetic structure from humans. The problem is that this 1% is the most critical of the design in the DNA, and without it there is no real comparison. It's basically like making a statue of George Washington out of stone. They look the same, but they clearly are not (of course it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's the essential idea).
Uh really? I've never heard that before...[b said:Quote[/b] (Arkanjel @ Sep. 01 2004,1:28)]This is also a good explanation of how everyone gets to heaven at the same time. The people who have died in the past will be arriving at heaven at the same time as the people who have died in the future.
Gandhi
New Member
Well when I think of god creating the universe, I ask my self what did god do before this and where did he come from. Did one day he just appeared and he thought lets create a universe today.
U say u can't believe that the universe can't just happen by accident, but how was god created. Did he just appear out of nothing.
See just like your skeptical about the big bang I have the same questions about god. Because he couldn't of just appeared.
U say u can't believe that the universe can't just happen by accident, but how was god created. Did he just appear out of nothing.
See just like your skeptical about the big bang I have the same questions about god. Because he couldn't of just appeared.
Avesther
New Member
[b said:
Well JoeBlow, eventually you had to make a correct statement. Trying to imagine the existance of God outside our concept of time is like trying to imagine existance without reference to time. How long is eternal past and eternal future?
Gandhi
New Member
He invented time I thought. I'm so confused.
Avesther
New Member
Well Joe, if God invented Time, then God exists outside the boundries of time. Unlike the big bang that has a start point, God doesn't.
Gandhi
New Member
I still don't get who invented god. U can talk about god existing outside of time but it doesn't make sence.
Everything has a start point. Thats y I don't believe in god anymore. U could justify it in your mind but really it doesn't make sence. U can't say god exists outside time because then he would of known everything thats going to happen past and present.
If he is outside of time he would of known adam and eve would of taken a bite out off the apple. If he existed outside of time he would know this when he started.
I know not the best quote but its 2am and I'm bored.
Everything has a start point. Thats y I don't believe in god anymore. U could justify it in your mind but really it doesn't make sence. U can't say god exists outside time because then he would of known everything thats going to happen past and present.
[b said:
If he is outside of time he would of known adam and eve would of taken a bite out off the apple. If he existed outside of time he would know this when he started.
I know not the best quote but its 2am and I'm bored.
Arkanjel
Not making any negative assumptions; my negative conclusions are based on what I know. I pretty sure Hovind doesn't even have the money to give away, and where I live musems tend to be proped up by the government. I'm not sure how things work in fair America. Hovind's requirements are not those of the contempory scientific community, as this community has already accepted evolution.
Hovind's requirements are increadibly broad and vauge, deliberately so - he has made the challenge impossible to meet. He's also demonstrated that he doesn't understand what evolution claims to be, let alone what it is in reality.
Not sure. Any ideas?
Bowser
Does Strobel look at more than one side of the picture? I found Case for Christ to be very one dimensional and selective.
I disagree. Koko the Gorilla, and others, display some very interesting behaviour.
Err... what's that got to do with atheism / agnosticism / non-creationism? I would have thought that anyone who accepts the work done in DNA would have accepted this finding.
And what 1% is this supposed to be? The soul? I assume this is one of the less scientific parts of the book.
[b said:
Not making any negative assumptions; my negative conclusions are based on what I know. I pretty sure Hovind doesn't even have the money to give away, and where I live musems tend to be proped up by the government. I'm not sure how things work in fair America. Hovind's requirements are not those of the contempory scientific community, as this community has already accepted evolution.
Hovind's requirements are increadibly broad and vauge, deliberately so - he has made the challenge impossible to meet. He's also demonstrated that he doesn't understand what evolution claims to be, let alone what it is in reality.
[b said:
Not sure. Any ideas?
Bowser
Does Strobel look at more than one side of the picture? I found Case for Christ to be very one dimensional and selective.
[b said:
I disagree. Koko the Gorilla, and others, display some very interesting behaviour.
[b said:
Err... what's that got to do with atheism / agnosticism / non-creationism? I would have thought that anyone who accepts the work done in DNA would have accepted this finding.
[b said:
And what 1% is this supposed to be? The soul? I assume this is one of the less scientific parts of the book.
Avesther
New Member
[b said:
Makes logical sense. Here you have a skeptic wanting to learn about Christianity going to the Christian experts. You don't go to a Budhist monk to learn about Christianity, that would make no sense.
[b said:
Koko was trained to display that behavior. Koko is a great example of our ability to have dominion over the animal kingdom and subdue it.
Hmmm, I trained my dog to let me know what games she wants to play, and my son does the same thing. I guess that is irrefutable proof that dog and man evolved from a common ancestor.
That is untrue. Koko was merely taught a method of communicating what was already there. She has had pets, and has loved them, and has felt sorrow when they died. For instance:[b said:
When asked, "Do you want to talk about your kitty?"
Koko signed, "Cry."
"What happened to your kitty?"
Koko answered, "Sleep cat."
When she saw a picture of a cat who looked very much like All Ball, Koko pointed to the picture and signed, "Cry, sad, frown."
She can also paint, and been asked to paint complex concepts like love and sadness. Very interesting stuff, I suggest you check it out.
Avesther
New Member
My dog communicates with me in a way I understand. And like Koko, my dog had to be trained to understand the means of communication. Its not like Koko taught humans how to sign in Ape language.
Not quite. Similar to my example about George Washington, apes and humans may look similar, but are not designed in the same way as humans are. They may have a noticeable similar behavior, but that doesn't make them the same. More below...[b said:
[b said:
That is exactly right, they do accept it. But what they fail to realize is that the difference has very little to do with the genetic structure of apes. More on this below...
[b said:
Absolutely not. Here is an excerpt from Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator.
[b said:
Whoops, I must have mis-interpreted the book earlier when I said, "The problem is that this 1% is the most critical of the design in the DNA, and without it there is no real comparison." Anyway, you have Mr. Strobel's version above. Also, I think there are other references in the book relating to common ancestry and the issue between apes and humans. When I find them I'll see if I can post them here.
[b said:
It seems like he's being fair in his research. He's asking both Christians and evolutionists questions, and does his work based on the answers. One thing to note and that I found interesting is that a lot of modern evolutionists agree more with Christian scientists now than when they did, say, back in the sixties.
Dark Virtue
New Member
I know I missed a bunch in this thread, but here are some problems associated with the ark being real. They are taken from a variety of sources and are not my own words.
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties. Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all. Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along? Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?
Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark. It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.
It is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard and not babies. The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity. Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.
The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [Wilson & Reeder, 1993], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.
The number and size of clean birds is small enough to disregard entirely, but the Bible at one point (Gen. 7:3) says seven of all kinds of birds were aboard.
Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?
Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was especially thus before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. The large quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?
The ark would need to be well ventilated to disperse the heat, humidity, and waste products (including methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia) from the many thousands of animals which were crowded aboard. Woodmorappe (pp. 37-42) interprets Genesis 6:16 to mean there was an 18-inch opening all around the top, and says that this, with slight breezes, would have been enough to provide adequate ventilation. However, the ark was divided into separate rooms and decks (Gen. 6:14,16). How was fresh air circulated throughout the structure?
The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
The animals aboard the ark would have been in very poor shape unless they got regular exercise. (Imagine if you had to stay in an area the size of a closet for a year.) How were several thousand diverse kinds of animals exercised regularly?
Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go?
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
Rain drops, River channels, Wind-blown dunes, Beaches, Glacial deposits, Burrows, In-Place trees, Soil, Desiccation cracks, Footprints, Meteorites and meteor craters, coral reefs, cave systems. How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?
Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.
How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.
How did all the modern plant species survive? Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest? Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting. Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood. Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood. Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
How did sensitive marine life such as coral survive? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
Are flood models consistent with the Bible? Creationists who write about the Flood often contradict the very story they're trying to support. For example, Whitcomb & Morris suggest that large numbers of kinds of land animals became extinct because of the Flood, while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered. Woodmorappe wants to leave invertebrates (i.e., just about "every creeping thing on the ground") off the ark. Why should we give credence to a story whose most ardent supporters abandon when it's inconvenient?
Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God? If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties. Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all. Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along? Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?
Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark. It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.
It is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard and not babies. The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity. Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.
The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [Wilson & Reeder, 1993], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.
The number and size of clean birds is small enough to disregard entirely, but the Bible at one point (Gen. 7:3) says seven of all kinds of birds were aboard.
Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?
Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was especially thus before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. The large quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?
The ark would need to be well ventilated to disperse the heat, humidity, and waste products (including methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia) from the many thousands of animals which were crowded aboard. Woodmorappe (pp. 37-42) interprets Genesis 6:16 to mean there was an 18-inch opening all around the top, and says that this, with slight breezes, would have been enough to provide adequate ventilation. However, the ark was divided into separate rooms and decks (Gen. 6:14,16). How was fresh air circulated throughout the structure?
The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
The animals aboard the ark would have been in very poor shape unless they got regular exercise. (Imagine if you had to stay in an area the size of a closet for a year.) How were several thousand diverse kinds of animals exercised regularly?
Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go?
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
Rain drops, River channels, Wind-blown dunes, Beaches, Glacial deposits, Burrows, In-Place trees, Soil, Desiccation cracks, Footprints, Meteorites and meteor craters, coral reefs, cave systems. How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?
Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.
How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.
How did all the modern plant species survive? Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest? Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting. Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood. Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood. Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
How did sensitive marine life such as coral survive? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
Are flood models consistent with the Bible? Creationists who write about the Flood often contradict the very story they're trying to support. For example, Whitcomb & Morris suggest that large numbers of kinds of land animals became extinct because of the Flood, while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered. Woodmorappe wants to leave invertebrates (i.e., just about "every creeping thing on the ground") off the ark. Why should we give credence to a story whose most ardent supporters abandon when it's inconvenient?
Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God? If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?
Thaddius
Member
Koko and her fellow gorillas, when in this sort of environment, have displayed a level of creativity that has never been seen before outside of humans. I think you should give credit where credit is due. There is more to Koko and the gorilla mind than you may be willing to admit.[b said:
http://www.koko.org/world/art.html
Question: Why do you think gorillas and other primates have such a resemblance to humans?
Wow, Dark Virtue, your arguments are very good
. Cory, thanks for the link
. It's great to read such interesting facts.
Dark Virtue, I noticed that you kept saying 'several months' and once I caught you saying 'up to a year' when mentioning the flood. The flood in the bible lasted about less than half a year. Also, you mentioned many fish dying because of where they live - fresh water, salt water, etc. If the flood is plausible (I believe it to be) the salt water fish (perhaps the only ones alive after this flood
) could have adapted to other environments and types of water.
Furthermore, you mentioned diseases. Many diseases and illness are perfectly natural on this earth, such as colds. Gonorhea, herpes, and other STDs are caused by obvious reasons. Some ailments are direct results of an immoral lifestyle or acts, whereas others will always effect us because of earlier sins.
Dark Virtue, I noticed that you kept saying 'several months' and once I caught you saying 'up to a year' when mentioning the flood. The flood in the bible lasted about less than half a year. Also, you mentioned many fish dying because of where they live - fresh water, salt water, etc. If the flood is plausible (I believe it to be) the salt water fish (perhaps the only ones alive after this flood
Furthermore, you mentioned diseases. Many diseases and illness are perfectly natural on this earth, such as colds. Gonorhea, herpes, and other STDs are caused by obvious reasons. Some ailments are direct results of an immoral lifestyle or acts, whereas others will always effect us because of earlier sins.