ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[H3LL]

Now I'm no paleontologist, so I wonder if anyone can help me out with this one and follow the thinking below.

ID/Creationists make many wild claims, but for the sake of argument lets assume the claim is correct that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We have a reasonable record of human history going back about 4,000 years both anecdotal biblical characters and good archeological evidence. I seem to remember reading that some Egyptian civilizations were as remote to ancient Romans a ancient Rome is to us, among other evidence.

No ID/Creationist denies the existence of fossils as they can see them, touch them and even use them in fun places like their "museums".

Many fossils, even to the untrained eye, are obviously not from creatures alive today.

There is no mention in the bible or records from old civilizations of prehistoric creatures.

This leaves us 2,000 years (being generous) to have all these creatures appear and disappear.

So the question: What must the rate of extinction have been for the fossil record creatures to have appeared and disappeared in 2,000 years?

I have an image of Ptrisha saying to her sick uncle;

"Ptommy, while you were lying in bed sick for the last week, you missed T-Rex. It ate Ptracy's cat, squashed all the vegetables in her garden and ruined her washing. Good job they're all extinct now".

Would a week be too long?

[MRC_Hans]

Like many other arguments, this has the weakness of being built on logic. If creationists were ready to apply logic to their belief system, they would not be creationists. ERGO: No amount of logic is going to sway a creationist.

The only reason to argue with such people is for the sake of possible fence-sitters.

Hans

[Throg]

Originally posted by H3LL

ID/Creationists make many wild claims, but for the sake of argument lets assume the claim is correct that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We have a reasonable record of human history going back about 4,000 years both anecdotal biblical characters and good archeological evidence.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "good" archeological evidence but it is my understanding that there is archeological evidence going back substantially further than 6,000 years.

No ID/Creationist denies the existence of fossils as they can see them, touch them and even use them in fun places like their "museums".

Some creationists deny that fossils are what science has taken them to be. I have heard creationists state that they were placed by God as tests of our faith and that He even went so far as to make them appear much older than they are to make it a really good tests.

Creationists can be quite ingenious, if bafflingly forgiving of a God who would deliberately mislead us about the nature of the Universe.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Like many other arguments, this has the weakness of being built on logic. If creationists were ready to apply logic to their belief system, they would not be creationists. ERGO: No amount of logic is going to sway a creationist.

The only reason to argue with such people is for the sake of possible fence-sitters.

Hans

I agree. Humour me. I have one hanging onto the fence by fingernails and I want them to fall on our side and start walking and not scramble back over and hide in fear. With luck they'll learn to run, sing and dance later.

Originally posted by Throg
I suppose it depends on the definition of "good" archeological evidence but it is my understanding that there is archeological evidence going back substantially further than 6,000 years.

Also agreed, but I was thinking more on the written record or that depicted in carvings etc. Pulling in cave paintings and other evidence jumps it away from the anecdotal biblical accounts and I was trying to keep it within an acceptable biblical context. I thought 4,000 years was reasonable on those terms, but I'm willing to change up or down. Whichever is more fundy plausible.

Originally posted by Throg
Some creationists deny that fossils are what science has taken them to be. I have heard creationists state that they were placed by God as tests of our faith and that He even went so far as to make them appear much older than they are to make it a really good tests.

This is claiming to know the mind of god and is not mentioned in the bible. Dodgy ground even for a fundy. I think I'm clear on that one If we stick to the bible writings.

Originally posted by Throg
Creationists can be quite ingenious, if bafflingly forgiving of a God who would deliberately mislead us about the nature of the Universe.

That's what you can expect from the mind of a being that loves his fruit more than his children.

[Throg]

Originally posted by H3LL
Also agreed, but I was thinking more on the written record or that depicted in carvings etc. Pulling in cave paintings and other evidence jumps it away from the anecdotal biblical accounts and I was trying to keep it within an acceptable biblical context. I thought 4,000 years was reasonable on those terms, but I'm willing to change up or down. Whichever is more fundy plausible.


I wouldn't like to try and guess what is going to be plausible to any particular fundamentalist. I vaguely remember a couple of line from "Inherit the Wind", in the creationist prosecutor asked about contradictions in the bible say:
"I do not think about those things I do not think about."
To which Spencer Tracy responds,
"Do you ever think about the things you do think about?"


This is claiming to know the mind of god and is not mentioned in the bible. Dodgy ground even for a fundy. I think I'm clear on that one If we stick to the bible writings.

I think you may be over-optimistic here. Despite claims to the contrary, fundamentalists never seem to stick to only what's in the bible. Good luck though. I'll keep watching this thread.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by H3LL
I agree. Humour me. I have one hanging onto the fence by fingernails and I want them to fall on our side and start walking and not scramble back over and hide in fear. With luck they'll learn to run, sing and dance later.


*snip* Mmmokay. Well, we know of many thousand extict species, none of which have been observed as extant in historical times. We must also assume that they did not make it on Noa's Ark, since catering for the larger ones of them would have been tricky business indeed. This leaves us with only about a milliennium since Creation, where they could have flourished and died out. Quite a carnage, makes the present man-induced extinction rate look like a picnic.

A couple of other simple, shure-fire arguments:

Parasites. How did parasites, many of which cause life-threatening diseases exist while only Adam and Eve were on Earth? Did they have all those parasites? If yes, how did they suvive? Same during the Flood; did Noah and his family host all these parasites? (Of course, same applies to animal parasites)

Bacteria and vira. Essentially the same as parasites, but some fundies are in denial about infectuous diseases (they might, for instance, be homeopaths), so it is useful to keep micro- and macroscopic parasites separated.

Amount of water on Earth: There is not enough water on Earth to cover all land.

Starlight: We can observe stars that are far more than 6000 LY away. How can their light reach us?

Food-chains: This is one for ID'ers. ID'ers modify the timescale of genesis, and acknowledge that creation may have taken a very long time, but that doesn't fly; nearly all life forms are part of big ecosystems, food-chains. Miss one part of an ecosystem for any amount of time, and the whole system breaks down. So, either everything was created in a very short time, like six days, and ID'ers usually acknowledge that this is solidly contradicted by archeological evidence, or species evolved, filling in niches, replacing each other, etc. In short: Choose between fundie creation, or evolution, you can't go half-way.

Hans

[Bikewer]

I think it was in one of Gould's books, but not sure. Anyway, he had a marvelous description of the flood-surviving species fleeing at a breakneck pace from the Ark, just steps ahead of ever-advancing humanity, to take up their rightful places in the farflung corners of the Earth.

He envisioned the poor Koala, limping gamely across the continents and bravely swimming the Pacific to arrive in Australia...Perhaps carried over by the Aboriginies.

Of course, same Aborigines have an unbroken history of some 40,000 years....

[voidx]

Another problem with the flood has to do with marine wildlife. Did the sea's rise, or was it all from rain. At which point was the flood mostly freshwater or saltwater? If saltwater, then it covered the whole earth, so how did we end up with so many freshwater sources, and where did the freshwater fish come from, they'd all have died in saltwater over that period of time. Not to mention marine fish. Even if there was enough water to cover all the land, a flood of this size would drastically change the salinity of the oceans, again causing a massive die out of most marine wildlife.

The one trick truly fundy ID's attempt is to tie the 6 days of creation to the 6 major epochs of the universe. These don't line up well at all, and as already mentioned, plants and other things come before animals, or vice versa, so how did the majority of ecosystems that hinge on the symbiotic relationship between plant life and animals survive?

[Pyrts]

Originally posted by H3LL
Also agreed, but I was thinking more on the written record or that depicted in carvings etc. Pulling in cave paintings and other evidence jumps it away from the anecdotal biblical accounts and I was trying to keep it within an acceptable biblical context. I thought 4,000 years was reasonable on those terms, but I'm willing to change up or down. Whichever is more fundy plausible.

Well, written text in Egypt goes back to about 3,000 BC (5,000 years ago.) If you go into artifacts and non-written images(designs ... "clan markings") , then we can date with confidence to about 11,000 years ago in the US and about 30,000 years ago in Europe (small bone carving.)

But they don't accept that.

You can really drive them nuts with the Sumerian King List, which does list "The Flood" (not Noah's flood to them, but it could be argued that it IS): http://www.jameswbell.com/a002kinglist.html

They're showing 24,000 years for kings after the flood, 2400 years after the kingship moves to Uruk, and so on and so forth. I forget how much the total is, but it's over 60,000 years. Some of those kings tie into Biblical events, too.

[H3LL]

Thanks all.

The biodiversity argument and symbiotic/parasitic relationships are nice angles and concisely put.

The Sumarian King List (nice link) I will keep in my pocket for now.

I think it is important to be careful and respectful to beliefs at this stage. I didn't jump from believer to atheist in one day and I don't expect anybody else to do so and at this stage that's not my intention. Atheism IMHO is impossible to impose, it needs to be discovered. Sceptical in some areas will do for now.

Questioning statements from authority should be the first step and recognising valid evidence the next.

I'm hopeful.

We meet again on Sunday.

[FreeChile]

Some creationists have ducked this punch by being flexible in their beliefs. For example, certain denominations of the Judeo-Christian faith, no longer hold Genesis to be a story of creation. Instead, they interpret it symbolically or figuratively. They even conclude that it would be misleading to think of it in literal terms. In this particular faith, they have adjusted Genesis to mean a book about the revelation of the one and only God and not much else.

This leaves a lot of room for future adaptation.

[Throg]

Originally posted by FreeChile
Some creationists have ducked this punch by being flexible in their beliefs. For example, certain denominations of the Judeo-Christian faith, no longer hold Genesis to be a story of creation. Instead, they interpret it symbolically or figuratively. They even conclude that it would be misleading to think of it in literal terms. In this particular faith, they have adjusted Genesis to mean a book about the revelation of the one and only God and not much else.

This leaves a lot of room for future adaptation.

I always find this an even less convincing position that fundamentalism. If the Bible is no longer the literal word of God, why believe any of it?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Throg
I always find this an even less convincing position that fundamentalism. If the Bible is no longer the literal word of God, why believe any of it?

Viewed as a tool for moral instruction, a fable is often both more easily understandable and more readily accessible than a literal truth.

I don't believe in the literal truth of Aesop's fable about "The Fox and the Grapes," but I do believe in the moral lesson it purports to teach.

[Throg]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Viewed as a tool for moral instruction, a fable is often both more easily understandable and more readily accessible than a literal truth.

I don't believe in the literal truth of Aesop's fable about "The Fox and the Grapes," but I do believe in the moral lesson it purports to teach.

True, but I don't suppose you believe in any of Aesop's fable as representations of fact.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Throg
True, but I don't suppose you believe in any of Aesop's fable as representations of fact.

There's nothing that prevents a moral from having factual elements (King Alfred and the Cakes, for example).

The standard -- perhaps I should say a standard -- position among the non-literalists is that the historical accuracy of the Bible is somewhat variable (few people would disagree that Herod existed, or the city of Jerusalem, but the talking snake is a little questionable), but the moral directives presented are absolute truth.

Sorting the historic truth from the literary and metaphoric presumably requires a certain degree of expertise, and of course experts will differ in their sorting. Jerusalem almost certainly existed, but we can argue about Nazareth (and as archeology gets better, we will undoubtedly repeat our arguments over and over). But this particular process isn't confined to Biblical or religious scholarship by any means. Much of the task of ancient historians in general has been sorting the stories from the truths. Did Troy exist? How about Aeneas? King Arthur? Socrates? Pericles?

[Throg]

Originally posted by new drkitten


The standard -- perhaps I should say a standard -- position among the non-literalists is that the historical accuracy of the Bible is somewhat variable (few people would disagree that Herod existed, or the city of Jerusalem, but the talking snake is a little questionable), but the moral directives presented are absolute truth.

Sorting the historic truth from the literary and metaphoric presumably requires a certain degree of expertise, and of course experts will differ in their sorting. Jerusalem almost certainly existed, but we can argue about Nazareth (and as archeology gets better, we will undoubtedly repeat our arguments over and over). But this particular process isn't confined to Biblical or religious scholarship by any means. Much of the task of ancient historians in general has been sorting the stories from the truths. Did Troy exist? How about Aeneas? King Arthur? Socrates? Pericles?

All good points. As you point out, a degree of expertise is required and equally reference to multiple sources. Few would have seriously posited the existence of Troy based purely on the Homer, or Arthur purely on Mallory. On the other hand, most Christians have neither the expertise nor do they refer to multiple sources. The Bible is their only source for Bible history. For a fundamentalist this is to some extent defensible on the basis that it is an article of faith that the Bible is the literal word of God. If one abandons this position then it is much less defensible to calim that anything is true in virtue of the fact that it is in the Bible. It is difficult to see how even moral lessons can be justified on the basis of the Bible as authority once one abandons the fundamentalist position. If the Bible is not the word of God then how can one have confidence that the moral proscriptions and prescriptions contained therein are the word of God?

[seayakin]

Some of you have hinted about this, but a common defense for the extinction rate is the flood. (e.g. the dinosaurs et al. didn't make it on the ark). They can always argue that the more recent biodiversity is not due to evolution but to God simply creating more creatures after the flood.

I argued once with a Mormon about the flood and I said that there isn't enough water on the planet to create such a flood. He simply fell back on his crutch and said that God can make anything happen. I have seen more techical arguments where fundies proposed the earth was encircled by a band of water and this came down to create the flood.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by seayakin
Some of you have hinted about this, but a common defense for the extinction rate is the flood. (e.g. the dinosaurs et al. didn't make it on the ark).The flood seems to be used as a general cure-all for any holes in young-earth creationism.They can always argue that the more recent biodiversity is not due to evolution but to God simply creating more creatures after the flood.A variation of this, requiring no further creation by God (I don't think further creation after the first six days is mentioned in the Bible) is that the animals on the ark were representatives of "kinds" which could subsequently develop into other similar animals without evolution actually taking place, much as domestic dogs have been bred into many different shapes and sizes (I didn't say this idea is consistent with any actual facts...)
I argued once with a Mormon about the flood and I said that there isn't enough water on the planet to create such a flood. He simply fell back on his crutch and said that God can make anything happen. I have seen more techical arguments where fundies proposed the earth was encircled by a band of water and this came down to create the flood. Ah, the old "God dunnit" explanation! I wonder where the water went afterwards?

[Throg]

Originally posted by Mojo
A variation of this, requiring no further creation by God (I don't think further creation after the first six days is mentioned in the Bible) is that the animals on the ark were representatives of "kinds" which could subsequently develop into other similar animals without evolution actually taking place, much as domestic dogs have been bred into many different shapes and sizes (I didn't say this idea is consistent with any actual facts...)


Could we take this a stage further do you think, and have "template animals" on the ark, kind of walking batches of generic stem cells but containing all of the genetic sequences represented in the post-flood animal kingdom? It would drastically reduce space requirements on the ark. Of course, you'd need some pretty smart DNA manipulating enzymes to manage the realisation of all the distinct species we have now but I feel sure a deity like God could manage it.

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by Throg
I always find this an even less convincing position that fundamentalism. If the Bible is no longer the literal word of God, why believe any of it? They no longer hold it to be literal. They say it is "inspired" by God in some cases, similar to poetry, music or painting. This also makes the interpretation of it an inspiration by God, which is also used as an argument against non-believers because they, because of their lack of faith, would be devoid of this inspiration. So there's the catch 22: you have to believe in God to be capable of understanding the inspired word of God. Of course, this defense technique is not limited to the more liberal believers. Fundamentalists also react this way when confronted with some of the contradictions in their beliefs.

I would go a step further and say that other types of believers tend to behave this way, as well--always looking for a way out of any contradictions that may exist in a given belief.

[Throg]

Originally posted by FreeChile
They no longer hold it to be literal. They say it is "inspired" by God in some cases, similar to poetry, music or painting. This also makes the interpretation of it an inspiration by God, which is also used as an argument against non-believers because they, because of their lack of faith, would be devoid of this inspiration. So there's the catch 22: you have to believe in God to be capable of understanding the inspired word of God. Of course, this defense technique is not limited to the more liberal believers. Fundamentalists also react this way when confronted with some of the contradictions in their beliefs.

I would go a step further and say that other types of believers tend to behave this way, as well--always looking for a way out of any contradictions that may exist in a given belief.

That is rather a good "get out of jail free" card. I can't see particularly why one would need the Bible if already has direct access to his inspiration but perhaps, lacking inspiration I wouldn't. Has God split his message into two parts, the encoded word and the inspirational key to unlock it, or is the Bible in this instance something akin to a fetish - a focus for inspiration?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Throg
That is rather a good "get out of jail free" card. I can't see particularly why one would need the Bible if already has direct access to his inspiration but perhaps, lacking inspiration I wouldn't. Has God split his message into two parts, the encoded word and the inspirational key to unlock it, or is the Bible in this instance something akin to a fetish - a focus for inspiration?

Perhaps a ladder? You need to use a ladder to reach a high spot -- but once you've reached the spot, you can throw the ladder away. (And, yes, I know that metaphor is not original. Wittgenstein used it first : "My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands them eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them -- as steps -- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)")

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Perhaps a ladder? You need to use a ladder to reach a high spot -- but once you've reached the spot, you can throw the ladder away. (And, yes, I know that metaphor is not original. Wittgenstein used it first : "My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands them eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them -- as steps -- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)") Of course, that's assuming the ladder doesn't have any missing or broken rungs, or rungs that prevent ascension. If so, the ladder itself is useless. I don't know about you, but I prefer to use an elevator for very high places.

Also, it assumes the floor you're going to actually exists.

[Gr8wight]

You guys are all falling into the trap of attempting to apply scientific reasoning to justify religious dogma. The position of the creationists can be summed up by one single biblical quotation:

With God, all things are possible.

So, for a creationist, the answer to any question is, "because."

[pupdog]

How fast were extinctions? Some were faster than others. Certainly, of the extinctions of the past 100 years or so, some were pretty quick; those in Australia were probably among the fastest.

But the original question has problems. Dendrochronology provides dating back to about 12,000 years. That's already twice as old as the 6,000 years commonly given by some Biblical literalists. It's even older than most Young Earth Creationists are willing to begrudge.

Nevertheless, in the paleontology literature, I think there's figures for approximations of rates of "background extinctions" in papers dealing with episodes of accelerated extinction, such as at the Permian-Triassic boundary (the really big one), or the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (the popular one).

To try to fit extinction rates into YEC chronology is pretty pointless, but several writers have noted that speciation must have occurred at an exceedingly rapid pace if the Noachin Flood Myth were true.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by H3LL

There is no mention in the bible or records from old civilizations of prehistoric creatures.


Well, as it goes, God created all things.

Giants, lizards, and bohemeths come up in the Bible I recall.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by pupdog
But the original question has problems. Dendrochronology provides dating back to about 12,000 years. That's already twice as old as the 6,000 years commonly given by some Biblical literalists. It's even older than most Young Earth Creationists are willing to begrudge.Ah yes, they will say, but God could have created the trees with all those extra rings to test our faith...

[pupdog]

Are you saying God is deceitful and not to be trusted?

[pupdog]

Whoops, excuse me, since that's not your argument, but the Creationist argument, it's the God-loving Creationists who would be claiming that God is deceitful and not to be trusted.

[Throg]

Originally posted by pupdog
Are you saying God is deceitful and not to be trusted?

You have missed the true subtlety and horror of the fundamentalist position: God is deceitful and he is to be trusted.

[Correa Neto]

[1inChrist mode]
Fossils, dendrochronology, lists of ancient sumerian kings, geochronology, the light of stars, these are all creations of SATAN!!! He uses logic and reasoning to move you away from God and doom your imortal sould to HELLFIRE
[/1inChrist mode]

That´s what a true fundie will tell you.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Throg
You have missed the true subtlety and horror of the fundamentalist position: God is deceitful and he is to be trusted. He is also omniscient and omnipotent but not to be held responsible for anything that goes wrong.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Mojo
He is also omniscient and omnipotent but not to be held responsible for anything that goes wrong.

Nice work if you can get it.

[Nick Harman]

Hello everyone,


This is my first time in this forum. I am a biblical creationist. I believe the bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallable word of the only living God.

Genesis is the historical account of how God created the heavens and the earth. This account has no problem with fossils as some of your posts indicate. I believe a billions of years belief has more problems with fossils. The bible records the historical event of a world wide flood God used to judge the wicked people on the earth. If this is true, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. That is exactly what we find. If the layers we find were periods of time, how could we have all these fossils? If an animal dies and is left to lay, it will be eaten or decay and there will be nothing left of it. So with out a ww flood, we would not have all the fossils that we are finding today.

The problem isn't the facts that scientists study, the problem is the interpretation. There are many scientists, who are biblical creationists, contrary to what many people believe (I can provide a good list if anyone is interested). A creationist has the same evidence the evolutionist has, it just has a different world view to interpret the evidence. A creationist has the historical account of God's word to interpret the evidence. An evolutionist has only his imagination and prior opinions of fallable men to interpret the same evidence. (i.e. uniformitarianism, geologic column, dating methods with assumptions, etc.)

That is all for now, I look forward to hearing from you all.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Nick Harman]

Here is your "pre-historic" animal

Job 40:15-18 (NKJV)
"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
[16] See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
[17] He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
[18] His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.

Many comprimiser have said this is a hippo or a elephant. There tails do not move like a cedar.

Bible makes many mentions of dragons. The word dinosaur was not invented until the 1800's so you wouldn't find it in the bible. Many ancient drawings have pictures drawn of men and dinosaurs together.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
The bible records the historical event of a world wide flood God used to judge the wicked people on the earth. If this is true, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. That is exactly what we find. If the layers we find were periods of time, how could we have all these fossils? If an animal dies and is left to lay, it will be eaten or decay and there will be nothing left of it. So with out a ww flood, we would not have all the fossils that we are finding today.
Hello and welcome. You will be popular here I assure you (assuming you are a serious poster).

Firstly I do not quite understand what you are saying. If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer? Fossils are spread throughout layers.

And why are there no dinosaurs now? Did Noah just decide not to take them?

And why are there no dinosaurs and human fossils in the same geological layers (if they were all killed at the same time)?

"If an animal dies and is left to lay, it will be eaten or decay and there will be nothing left of it"
That might be what you would assume, but that is not always correct.
Here's a sinmple site (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html) that explains how fossils form.

Also, another question, if Adam and Eve gained knowledge, why were ancient people so primitive? They had stone and bone weapons and sketched crude cave paintings. Is that how Adam and Eve were when they left the garden of Eden?

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
Just a quick list of questions pulled from here and elsewhere. I’ve tried to remove duplicates. The one question I really want you to answer is exactly what do you believe? Is the bible to be taken literally or figuratively or a mixed bag, and how old do you believe the earth is?

I’ve got a few thousand more questions once you’ve hit these high points.

The whole silly flood thing.
Where did the water come from?
Where did the water go?

How many animals did Noah take on the ark?
How did they all fit on there?
How big was the ark?
Work the math for the buoyancy of the ark with and without the animals.
Now work the math allowing only the building materials available at that time.

How did the animals receive care, i.e. fed, waste removal, etc
If only ‘kinds’ were taken on the ark, name and give classifications.
If only ‘kinds’ were taken on the ark, explain how they developed species diversity afterwards at such a lightning quick pace.


From MRC_Hans
Parasites. How did parasites, many of which cause life-threatening diseases exist while only Adam and Eve were on Earth? Did they have all those parasites? If yes, how did they suvive? Same during the Flood; did Noah and his family host all these parasites? (Of course, same applies to animal parasites)

Bacteria and vira. Essentially the same as parasites, but some fundies are in denial about infectuous diseases (they might, for instance, be homeopaths), so it is useful to keep micro- and macroscopic parasites separated.

Starlight: We can observe stars that are far more than 6000 LY away. How can their light reach us?

Food-chains: This is one for ID'ers. ID'ers modify the timescale of genesis, and acknowledge that creation may have taken a very long time, but that doesn't fly; nearly all life forms are part of big ecosystems, food-chains. Miss one part of an ecosystem for any amount of time, and the whole system breaks down.

From voidx
Another problem with the flood has to do with marine wildlife. Did the sea's rise, or was it all from rain. At which point was the flood mostly freshwater or saltwater? If saltwater, then it covered the whole earth, so how did we end up with so many freshwater sources, and where did the freshwater fish come from, they'd all have died in saltwater over that period of time. Not to mention marine fish. Even if there was enough water to cover all the land, a flood of this size would drastically change the salinity of the oceans, again causing a massive die out of most marine wildlife.

From Pyrts
Well, written text in Egypt goes back to about 3,000 BC (5,000 years ago.) If you go into artifacts and non-written images(designs ... "clan markings") , then we can date with confidence to about 11,000 years ago in the US and about 30,000 years ago in Europe (small bone carving.)

You can really drive them nuts with the Sumerian King List, which does list "The Flood" (not Noah's flood to them, but it could be argued that it IS): http://www.jameswbell.com/a002kinglist.html

Ossai

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Hello everyone,


This is my first time in this forum. I am a biblical creationist. I believe the bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallable word of the only living God.

...snip...



Welcome to the forum.

Inerrant? How many of each creature did God tell Noah to take into the arc? How long did the flood last?

[LW]

Originally posted by Pyrts
Well, written text in Egypt goes back to about 3,000 BC (5,000 years ago.) If you go into artifacts and non-written images(designs ... "clan markings") , then we can date with confidence to about 11,000 years ago in the US and about 30,000 years ago in Europe (small bone carving.)

During my last Summer holiday I went through the king lists of The Chronicle of the Pharaohs counting regnal years. The results are posted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44206).

[LW]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Of course, same Aborigines have an unbroken history of some 40,000 years....

No, they don't.

There's very strong physical evidence that Aborgines have been present in Australia for those 40,000 years but that is different from there being an unbroken history for the time since the term implies some sort of written accounts for events. What Aborgines have is40,000 years of prehistory.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
That is all for now, I look forward to hearing from you all.

Hello Nick Harman,

Welcome! As Ashles has already told you, if you are for real, you will be a darling! Do not believe that we are trying to put you off by deluding you with requests for answers. The fact is that each of us is sitting here with lots of questions that we would like to put to an in-house creationist, and you might just fit the bill!

Now, my questions go like this:
Do you accept that evolution is observed right now and within a human time-scale? Speciation has been observed on birds within a human generation, and as far as I know it has been observed within mammals, insects, plants, and of course, bacteria. If you accept these facts, do you then also embrace the concept that all species were not created at once?

I think you know where all this leads, but I will give you some breathing space, before I continue!

[Bikewer]

Shall we amend my statement about the Australian natives to say they have a culture of that depth. I have read but little on these peoples, but I seem to recall continuous cave paintings and other artifacts of this age.

BTW, regarding the innerrant and infallible Bible, how do such believers reconcile the numerous well-documented errors and contradictions?
There are a couple of well-researched web sites, citing chapter and verse for the more obvious of these, so the doubter can go look em' up.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Nick Harman

Genesis is the historical account of how God created the heavens and the earth. This account has no problem with fossils as some of your posts indicate. I believe a billions of years belief has more problems with fossils. The bible records the historical event of a world wide flood God used to judge the wicked people on the earth. If this is true, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. That is exactly what we find. If the layers we find were periods of time, how could we have all these fossils? If an animal dies and is left to lay, it will be eaten or decay and there will be nothing left of it. So with out a ww flood, we would not have all the fossils that we are finding today.

Well, you're certainly correct that it's rather unlikely that any particular animal would die and produce fossils -- most animals, as you point out, are eaten and decay. But this simply addresses the vast majority of animals, and not all of them. As a simple example, even in the absence of a worldwide flood, animals sometimes die in (localized) floods and their bodies are buried in the river mud. Similarly, animals can die in landslides, get trapped in quicksand, or even simply die near rivers or oceans and be buried.

One problem that the world-wide flood actually creates is that it should have made too many fossils, more than we have been able to find. An example -- I believe that there are a total of six actual T-rex fossils that have been found, worldwide. If the entire T-rex population had been wiped out in a global flood and fossilized, then we shoud expect to see a much larger population than six. (Even the seriously endangered snow leopard still has an estimated population about a thousand times greater.)

Beyond that, the major problem with the world-wide flood is that, although it might be expected to produce lots of fossils, it wouldn't be expected to produce the same distribution of fossils that we see. For example, "billions of ead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. That is exactly what we find." But if they were all laid down at the same time in a global flood, then why do some rock layers have different fossils than others? Why don't we find trilobites in the same rock layers that we see mammals and bird in? Why don't we find the jawless fishes in the same strata as the dinosaurs? For that matter, why don't we find Olenellina triliobites in the same rock layers as the Proetida[, when we find both kinds of trilobites all over the world?

[sackett]

I posted the following paragraph some years back, in a thread addressing this business of creationism. It didn't stir much interest then, but I'll try it again.

Way back in the 1920's, Sam Knight, Sr., one of the best paleontologists in the U.S., had a prepared lecture for Geology 101 at the University of Wyoming. In it, he summarized the principal geological eras, comparing each one with a day in the Book of Genesis. With surprisingly little snipping and tucking, he showed how you could treat historical geology and Genesis together, finding parallels in the evolution of life and the biblical account. He ended the lecture (and put the topic to rest for the remainder of the course) by observing that "the Bible says God made the world, but it doesn't say how He did it." It was a neat, non-controversial lecture, and I don't see how any Christian or other believer could find fault with it.

I know about this lecture because my mother took Geol. 101 at the U. of Wyoming back then, and she enjoyed Sam Knight's cleverness. In the 1920's, the doctrine of Biblical literalism was just getting on its feet (there was a surprisingly parallel movement among Egyptian Muslims at exactly the same time), and it was still possible to soothe disputation with an application of reasonableness.

I think biblical literalism can be regarded as a disease of deficiency in Western society: The West lacks a tradition of parable and extended metaphor. The Hebrews who assembled Genesis never believed for a moment that those Bronze Age bedtime stories were literally true; they knew the difference between a folktale and a serious chronicle. (I use the word "assembled" intentionally. Genesis reads very like a bunch of scrolls rolled up together and preserved all higgeldy-piggle. This probably came out of a pious fear of destroying anything written that might possibly contain the name of God, a well-attested superstition among old-time Jews.) Unfortunately, the West borrowed the Old Testament when it adopted Christianity, and as so often happens when people borrow things from another culture, they got the emphases wrong. The creation myth and flood account in Genesis are no more satisfying than any others, but if they come wrapped up in a popular cult, people tend to buy them. Eastern exoticism didn't hurt either; heck, everybody enjoys the Arabian Nights.

None of this addresses the plain fact that the current scientific understanding of the earth's history is supported by a Himalaya of evidence, while creationism rests solely on belief - a particularly ill-informed belief that would, it's been said, embarrass a tribal shaman.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: If scientists ever discovered even a speck of evidence in support of creationism, there'd be shoving and elbowing to see who could publish first.

[Nick Harman]

I certainly do not have time to answer all the questions in an everyone against 1 setting. I will respond mostly to the shortest responses. I have about 1 hour per day for this, so I am very limited. I will start with steenkh

Now, my questions go like this:
Do you accept that evolution is observed right now and within a human time-scale? Speciation has been observed on birds within a human generation, and as far as I know it has been observed within mammals, insects, plants, and of course, bacteria. If you accept these facts, do you then also embrace the concept that all species were not created at once?

Answer: I accept variation, or if you will, micro-evolution. You are implying a common misunderstanding about creationist. We do not believe everything was created in its present form. Any one can observe changes with in kinds. Your science ends and your faith begins when you start telling me about macro changes. Dogs always produce dogs, cats pro. cats, etc. The textbooks you have studied give you loads of examples of variations and then you are supposed to believe in macro evolution. Your last question: my answer is as the bible says God created everything in 6 days. I also acknowledge per observable science that animals can change but there are limits. All for now.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Nick Harman]

To Bikewer:

you told everyone about errors in the bible but you didn't mention any. Go to your site and pick any 3 and I will refute them. Don't have much time today, so it may be another day for my response.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Ashles]

What about my questions? I asked first. :(

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman


...snip... Your last question: my answer is as the bible says God created everything in 6 days. ...snip...

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

Just a point of correction Genesis does not say that God created everything, the Bible only says that God created light.

[Nick Harman]

Firstly I do not quite understand what you are saying. If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer? Fossils are spread throughout layers.

Answer: they are not buried in the same order, ie humans and animals (more intelligent life forms) survive longer before drowning and being buried. This is not a flood from a bunch of rain. Genesis 7:11 (KJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
--the water came from in the earth (fountains of deep) we find water deep in earth still today. And it is believed that there was a canopy of water over the earth (windows of heaven). This protected the earth, i.e. uv rays, which is what allowed humans to live so long (900 years, etc.)

Question: can you explain marine fossils on top of mountains?

I am out of time for now, I will finish later.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

__________________

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by steenkh
Hello Nick Harman,
...Do not believe that we are trying to put you off by deluding you with requests for answers...

I believe you meant "deluging"? A simple typo perhaps, but it changes the tone and the intent of the post.

:D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman


...snip...

And it is believed that there was a canopy of water over the earth (windows of heaven).

...snip...

Believed - on what grounds? What Biblical passages?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[H]umans and animals (more intelligent life forms) survive longer before drowning and being buried.

So is this why we don't find Olenellina trilobites in the same rock layers as the [/i]Proetida[/i]? The Proteda were more intelligent?

Similarly, the fossil tortoise genus Stylemys is typically found in "recent" (Ogliocene) strata, much more recent than the Cretaceous strata in which the fossil primate genus Purgatorius is found. I'd be extremely surprised if you could find a tortoise that was as intelligent as any mammal, let alone a primate.

But, of course, plants sort the geological column as well. Flowering plants, for example, are generally found near the top of the geological column, while ferns are found much lower -- and of course various extinct species of plants (of all sorts) appear for a limited time and then cease to exist in the record. Were pine trees that much more intelligent than ferns, but dumber than magnolias? And, for that matter, were magnolias that much dumber than sunflowers? I know you're not going to try to tell me that sunflowers were also smarter than dinosaurs.

Do you have any other basis for judging that intelligence is the primary reason different fossils appear in different strata?


Question: can you explain marine fossils on top of mountains?


Of course. Elementary geography; the land where the fossils were deposited has risen since then. In many areas of the world, the rate at which mountains are rising is actually measurable from year to year. For example, in the Hudson Bay area of Canda, we can measure about 3cm of uplift per year.

Over two hundred thousand years, this would give us mountains 6000 meters tall. Over five hundred thousand years, this would give us mountains 15000 meters tall, which would tower over Everest if mountains didn't also erode.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
*snip*
Question: can you explain marine fossils on top of mountains?

*snip* Answer: Yes.

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by new drkitten
So is this why we don't find Olenellina trilobites in the same rock layers as the [/i]Proetida[/i]? The Proteda were more intelligent?If a marine animal isn't intelligent enough to avoid drowning it's certainly got problems.:D

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Mojo
If a marine animal isn't intelligent enough to avoid drowning it's certainly got problems.:D

Well, with all that fresh water falling from the sky -- sorry, coming up from the fountains of the deep -- sorry, being defenestrated from the bay windows of Heaven -- whatever -- it might have adjusted the salt levels enough to kill all the marine animals.

Of course, it also managed to kill all the extinct freshwater species as well. So I guess there were at least two windows in heaven, one of them defenestrating salt water and one defenestrating fresh. Which suggests that God not only has problems with His plumbing, but with His water softener as well. I hope that He has good heavenowners' insurance.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Firstly I do not quite understand what you are saying. If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer? Fossils are spread throughout layers.

Answer: they are not buried in the same order, ie humans and animals (more intelligent life forms) survive longer before drowning and being buried. This is not a flood from a bunch of rain. Genesis 7:11 (KJV)
Oh I see. You think different geological layers happen within, like, 20 minutes of each other.
Right.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
--the water came from in the earth (fountains of deep) we find water deep in earth still today. And it is believed that there was a canopy of water over the earth (windows of heaven). This protected the earth, i.e. uv rays, which is what allowed humans to live so long (900 years, etc.)
Okay so you don't know why people age either. Good, good...

Question: can you explain marine fossils on top of mountains?
Uh yes. Most people can. It's called plate tectonics.
You may have heard of it - it killed a bunch of people in Asia recently.

You are joking presumably. I mean this level of argument isn't going to stand up for 2 minutes.

Are you serious Nick? If so where did you learn all this nonsense?

[Nick Harman]

Certainly intelligence wouldn't be the only factor. Whatever is at the bottom will be buried 1st. I certainly cannot scientifically prove a flood. The flood seems so foreign to you because you reject the word of the God who created and will judge you. It is interesting to hear intellectuals scoff at a creationist when evolutionist/atheists believe in life evolving from non-life, animals in the past doing something that has never been and never will be observed. So to close for this evening I say the problem isn't the evidence, it is the interpretation. I will not have much time tomorrow, and again it is impossible for me to address hardly any of your comments, but I certainly enjoy the conversation. And would love to see you all come to faith in the God of this universe.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Certainly intelligence wouldn't be the only factor. Whatever is at the bottom will be buried 1st. I certainly cannot scientifically prove a flood. The flood seems so foreign to you because you reject the word of the God who created and will judge you. It is interesting to hear intellectuals scoff at a creationist when evolutionist/atheists believe in life evolving from non-life, animals in the past doing something that has never been and never will be observed. So to close for this evening I say the problem isn't the evidence, it is the interpretation. I will not have much time tomorrow, and again it is impossible for me to address hardly any of your comments, but I certainly enjoy the conversation. And would love to see you all come to faith in the God of this universe.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman
Well I shall leave all your mistakes to others, I shall merely ask - have you ever heard of plate tectonics and how it works?
And if you have do you deny its existence?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
The flood seems so foreign to you because you reject the word of the God who created and will judge you.

The BIblical Flood also seems foreign to me because, as you describe it, it violates much of what I already know about other localized floods for which there is demonstrated evidence.

It's as if you described a particular Biblical event as being caused by the ravenous man-eating clams that would jump out of trees and scare passers-by with their nasty sharp teeth.

I mean, yeah, I wouldn't consider the event's credibility to be enhanced merely because it was Biblical. But I think that I can reject the story for other reasons than merely reflexive rejecting of the word of God.

Clams don't eat men
Clams don't live in trees
Clams don't jump
Clams don't have teeth

Similarly, floods don't leave neatly sorted sedimentary layers of different type. Floods don't leave drowned animals neatly sorted by apparent age. Floods don't put rocks with different potassium/argon ratios in different groups.

And, as Mojo pointed out, floods don't usually drown marine animals.

Except maybe for the arboreal carnivorous toothed jumping clams.

[Ossai]

Nick Harman

Answer: they are not buried in the same order, ie humans and animals (more intelligent life forms) survive longer before drowning and being buried. This is not a flood from a bunch of rain. Genesis 7:11 (KJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
--the water came from in the earth (fountains of deep) we find water deep in earth still today. And it is believed that there was a canopy of water over the earth (windows of heaven). This protected the earth, i.e. uv rays, which is what allowed humans to live so long (900 years, etc.)

Where did the water come from?
Where is the water now?

Work the math. Even the folks over at AIG don’t use the ‘water canopy’ excuse anymore.

Question: can you explain marine fossils on top of mountains?
Yes.
Very, very short answer. - hey it's been a while since I had bio & geo ;)
Marine animal dies.
Sinks to bottom – usually but not always bone by this point.
Silt covers remains.
And a few thousands of years for compression, (can’t remember the name of the process where the surrounding minerals replace parts of the bone).
A few thousands more years and you have something called plate tetonics.
Mountains go up (one good example is looking at where the Indian subcontinent abuts Asia – there are other ways as well), wind, erosion, etc, some of the fossils are exposed.

Now your turn.
Explain the white Cliffs of Dover.

Certainly intelligence wouldn't be the only factor. Whatever is at the bottom will be buried 1st. I certainly cannot scientifically prove a flood. That is exactly our point. If there were a world wide catastrophe within the past 10,000 years there would be evidence all over the place, literally. There is no evidence.

It is interesting to hear intellectuals scoff at a creationist when evolutionist/atheists believe in life evolving from non-life, animals in the past doing something that has never been and never will be observed. You’re not up on current science there by any means. Ongoing experiments are doing exactly that – life from nonliving. BTW – Virus is it alive or dead?

So to close for this evening I say the problem isn't the evidence, it is the interpretation. Well considering that no YEC has ever presented any evidence, hypothesis, theories, or even SWAGs, how can we be accused of miss-interpretation?

Ossai

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
....I certainly cannot scientifically prove a flood....

So we have:

Gap in my knowledge = God did it

It saves all that tiresome reading and is sooo easy.

Instead of the usual attack evolution from a position of ignorance that we are very used to here I would like to pose a favourite one of my own. (see signature).

You claim what you say is science (it isn't BTW). Science is a method used to predict observable events among other things.

Would you be so kind as to inform us of any practical use or any predictions that your so-called "science" can make.

If it helps, you can show us how your "science" deals with with what is stated here:

The Molecular Sequence Evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html)

Please feel free to show us how your "science" would make the predictions or quote any biblical passage that have an alternative solution.

If not, you make my signature true.

[Nick Harman]

I have heard of the theory of plate techtonics. Many biblical creationists believe in plate techtonics but it is a catastrophic model, rather than the evolutionist fairy tale of millions and millions of years. Time is the key to evolutionary science. You believe in things that can not be observed as do I. The difference is that biblical creationists have a historical record to interpret the evidence. You say I use the flood or God did it to explain everything, well your ideas are rationalized by millions and millions of years to explain why things that will never be observed are true. The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils. That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence. There is nothing wrong with having different views. Among biblical creationists (not comprimised creationists, I don't speak for them while they are still sincere christians) there are different views on things such as plate techtonics, continental drift, etc. My point is that you all imply that evolution is a closed deal, it is a fact, but actually it is severely flawed. All for now and probably the rest of the day. See you all tomorrow.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Nick Harman]

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I have heard of the theory of plate techtonics. Many biblical creationists believe in plate techtonics but it is a catastrophic model, rather than the evolutionist fairy tale of millions and millions of years.

Plate tectonics can be proved. We can actually observe them moving.

Time is the key to evolutionary science. You believe in things that can not be observed as do I.

Wrong. We interpret observable evidence. Tons (literally) of it.

The difference is that biblical creationists have a historical record to interpret the evidence.

No. You have a collection of legends. Some of which are contradictory, as I'm sure some people have pointed out to you.

You say I use the flood or God did it to explain everything, well your ideas are rationalized by millions and millions of years to explain why things that will never be observed are true.

Many of these things can be verified by current observations.

The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils.

Wrong. There are plenty.

That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence.

No. Observations show that that is what sometimes happens.

My point is that you all imply that evolution is a closed deal, it is a fact, but actually it is severely flawed.

Do point out the flaws.



Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick rbc's? What is that?

Hans

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
I have heard of the theory of plate techtonics. Many biblical creationists believe in plate techtonics but it is a catastrophic model, rather than the evolutionist fairy tale of millions and millions of years.
Three examples have already been given – one catastrophic the earthquake that caused the tsunami, one easily measurable on a human time scale – British Columbia and one where the Indian subcontinent abuts Asia.

The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils. Ok, your ignorance is really showing on this one.
Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html) and look for yourself. If you want to see them in person travel to Washington DC and visit the Smithsonian.

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue. Not only do you not provide a link, but you apparently didn’t read the original paper your ignorance is founded upon.

Ossai

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick

Hi Nick people are being good enough to answer your questions about their claims do you think you could be good enough to answer my questions about your claims?

Thanks in advance

[Ashles]

And Nick, could you answer my question about why Humans and Dinosaurs are never found in the same geological layers?

I asked it in my first post to you.

And how can plate tectonics be purely a catastrophic model? It can only be catastrophic if the plates really do move in relation to each other. If you accept that they really do move then you have to accept the whole process. It makes absolutely no sense othewise (and contradicts what we observe perfectly clearly).

[H3LL]

Nick is avoiding answering.

I feel it is pointless us all just offering alternatives to any statement he can imagine or fantasise about.

The primary claim is that he is talking about a "science".

There is no evidence that it is either a science or follows the scientific method.

Calling it a science does not make it one.

The scientific method can be summarised such:


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

1 and 2 he is safe with. Lets see how he does with 3 and 4.

The theory of evolution meets all the above requirements. Nick's fantasy does not, unless he can show otherwise.

Failure means it is just another belief system and fairy story and not valid as a science.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils.The fossil record frequently comes up with intermediate fossils. for example, creationists used to ask to be shown a fossil of a whale with legs. Fossils of primitive whales with vestigial legs have been found (although I suspect it will be a while before creationists stop asking for them - that's a big problem if you're in the habit of ignoring the evidence).

Of course, this now means that there are new gaps for the creationists to point to, on either side of the whales with legs...:rolleyes:

[FFed]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
The problem isn't the facts that scientists study, the problem is the interpretation. There are many scientists, who are biblical creationists, contrary to what many people believe (I can provide a good list if anyone is interested).

Welcome.

I am interested, please provide the list.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick
That's true. If we are presented with undeniable evidence we have to accept it. That's the scientific approach.

By the way I would like to see your list of list of biblical creationist scientists too.

Also, you still haven't answered any of the questions I originally asked.

(Except for the fossils in different layers question. And your answer is terrible in a variety of different ways.
But just one flaw with your answer is - why are there so many marine fossils lower than humans? Did the marine animals drown before humans? Why did NO humans die straight away. Why, in essence, are humans not ever found in the same layers as certain types of animal (eg dinosaurs)?)

[Nick Harman]

Nick is avoiding answering.

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family, I am lucky if I get an hour, and I am responding to many people w/many questions as opposed to 1 person. Give me a break.

In Christ,
Nick

[cthiax]

Nick,

If God would work through a flood (rather than just willing the death and removal of all life on Earth directly), why mightn't God work through another force or process?

Even if you accept that everything in the Bible is true, do you believe that everything true is in the Bible?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family.
Hmm that sounded a little bit like an insult.
Nobody has insulted you Nick, only asked you questions. I'm pretty sure most people here have jobs and families too.

[Nick Harman]

I apologize, I didn't mean to sound ugly. It was a sarcastic/humorous response answer my question, no my question, he is avoiding the question, what about my question. I certainly wonder where you all get the time, but I didn't intend it as an insult. Talk to you later.

In Christ,
Nick

[Nick Harman]

Here is the list from answersingenesis.com. you can read about them on the site. I am out of time for the day, as I mentioned yesterday I would have very little time today. I believe Saturday, I should be able to look at many of your questions, you have priority Ashles if not before then.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite specialist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W, Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick is avoiding answering.

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family, I am lucky if I get an hour, and I am responding to many people w/many questions as opposed to 1 person. Give me a break.

In Christ,
Nick

Don’t feel pressured by the questions. My suggestion, especially to a new Member, would be deal with each question as it comes up. The time taken to answer doesn’t really matter, just that an attempt is made to answer them.

In my opinion what can sometimes cause friction here is when a Member seems to be willing to ask question after question but doesn't answer questions asked of him or her by another poster.

Another suggestion is about making claims. Quite often new Members seem quite perplexed and almost shocked at what I’m sure can seem like a pathological desire from Members to seek evidence for claims. You can make what you think is a simple “everyday statement� that “everyone knows that� and suddenly find you’re being asked to support your “everyday statement�, you may not even realise that it did contain many assumptions. Don’t take this personally, it’s just this is a board which (probably) has a high percentage of people who like to ask questions and learn.

(If I didn’t add this paragraph you’d probably see some Members ask me to support the claims I made above – I will attempt to avoid that by making it very clear the above is purely my subjective view and I do not have evidence to support my opinions – so there! :) )

[Ashles]

Thanks for that. Research - we love this.

Firstly, of course, it has to be mentioned that having a PhD does not stop you believing in whatever you want to believe. And it certainly doesn't mean your beliefs are based on scientific principles.
For example I picked a name at random "Dr John Baumgardner" and saw that his arguments were extremely poor.

His speciality is plate tectonics and he appears to believe in a catastrophic view. (But I didnt actually notice anywhere that he said he believed the world was only 6,000 years old - I may have missed that part).

Also he makes a big deal of a catastrophic event that recent evidence indicates may have happened on Venus. It may be worth mentioning that, er, Venus doesn't have life on it. The comparison seems entirely irrelevant. His arguments are, to be honest, not those of a scientist.
He talks about the unlikihood of the DNA 'code' arising by chance.
Does he really not understand that it is not really a code as we think of it. It is not symbol that refer to other things - as Talk Origins puts it: T"he protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties".

Whatever his PhD is in it is certainly not biology, paleontology or, well, quite a lot of things apparently.

[Ashles]

Here's what Dr Henry Zuill thinks (accorrding to this page (http://www.freewebs.com/scottyspot/scientificproofofcreation.htm)):

Biodiversity in nature is something that gives strong support for creation in six days simply because of the fact that so many species are interdependent on each other, that is to say if you take a certain number of organism types out of a diverse ecological area then the whole system will become unable to sustain itself. It appears that life on earth is what makes life possible on earth. The truth of the preceding statement rules out the possibility that life evolved from some chemical stew rather than being created already fully formed and integrated within the environment is a short period of days.
If scientists were priests this guy would be defrocked.

Many, many times have certain animals been removed from closed diverse environments (e.g. islands) or new animals been introduced. The system continues to sustain itself. This is a ridiculous and unjustifiable claim.
And if "so many species are interdependent on each other" that "if you take a certain number of organism types out of a diverse ecological area then the whole system will become unable to sustain itself" what effect, exactly do you think flooding the entire world would have?

It would be very tedious to go through all of these scientists and pick their errors apart one by one (although it appears it would not be too hard).
Instead why don't you tell us which you think are their most convincing arguments and we can look at those.
(Edited to add - actually this is unfair - you've been asked enough questions already. You can take your time with the previous questions before you get to these scientists - however I might keep picking the odd one out to mention)

[Hutch]

Folks, I am as interested as the rest of you in what Nick has to say, and he seems willing enough to share, but I would note that he is coming at this from a completely different perspective than most of us are.

In the April issue of Smithsonian Magazine (great perk for membership, IMHO), there is an article about Dayton, TN (the location of the Scopes 'monkey' trial). In that article they discuss Bryan College, a Fundamentalist University in Dayton, and Dr. Kurt Wise, who studied under Steven Jay Gould and indeed does have a Phd from Harvard--and he is also a YEC.

To quote from the magazine:

..."God's truth should be used to interpret--to properly interpret--all the data in the universe," Wise writes in his 2002 book, Faith, Form and Time. "All the stars of the universe, all the rocks of the earth, all the organisms on its surface must be reinterperted, as well as the worlds literature, philosophies, and religions. They can and should be reinterperted from a Christian perspective so all these things can be taken captive under the mind of Christ."

What do most other paleontologists and geologists think of this? "Absolute bunk!" says Wise with a laugh. Does he believe evolution is flawed in and of itself, or flawed because it contradicts Genesis? His answer could have come straight from the college's namesake himself: "Scripture trumps interpretations of physical data."

(Italics and Underlining mine. Any spelling mistakes are mine also)

And that is why, interesting as I hope this discussion is, there will be no real debate. Nick holds what he fervently believes is the trump card and no questions or arguments on the actual physical data will matter in the end.

[fishbob]

Nick Harmon: Here is the list from answersingenesis.com

Nick - your list includes dentists and quacks. Now here is a list for you:

Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp)

NCSE Project Steve
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

[Marvel Frozen]

I notice Nick Harmon's list only has 3 steves, Project Steve has 513 signers (as of November 8, 2004). Hmmm .....

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Here is the list from answersingenesis.com. you can read about them on the site.
But, at a quick count, only three of them are called Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18) (well, maybe four as Dr S.E. Aw could be a closet Steve).

Edited to add: Rats! Beaten to it! That's what comes of not noticing the thread has gone onto another page...

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Hello and welcome. You will be popular here I assure you (assuming you are a serious poster).

If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer?
Answer: Put water and dirt in a jar, shake it up and watch it work, you will not see 1 layer.

And why are there no dinosaurs now? Did Noah just decide not to take them?
Answer: He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind. You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case. So this would limit the number of dinosaurs required. I have read that the average size of a dinosaur is a sheep, so not all dinosaurs are these massive creatures. So yes he took them and most dinosaurs are extinct. You will scoff at this, but there are many eyewitness accounts of dinosaur like creatures. Loch Ness, Lake Champlaign, etc. Pictures of dinosaurs have been shown to tribes in relatively unexplored places like the congo and places in Africa, and they say they have seen these animals. We know of gigantic snakes. So while I am certainly not dogmatic about some dinosaurs existing today, some people and tribes would say they do in remote unexplored areas. Last comment on the ark is that it took over 100 years to build and God gave the dimmensions in cubits, there have been some large skeletons found, we do not know how big Noah and his son's were, how big was that cubit? Again, not scientific fact I understand, but interesting things to think about.

And why are there no dinosaurs and human fossils in the same geological layers (if they were all killed at the same time)?
Answer: Already mentioned intelligence, people could hold out longer, i.e. rafts, grabbing on to things and floating, etc. A dead person would float also. More factors are involved but this is one, and I do not claim to be the top authority on this or any of the matters discussed.

"If an animal dies and is left to lay, it will be eaten or decay and there will be nothing left of it"
That might be what you would assume, but that is not always correct.
Here's a sinmple site (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html) that explains how fossils form.
Answer: maybe I didn't read enough, but what I saw was talking about burial to preserve and begin depositing the minerals to start the fossilizing. I do not believe we would have as many fossils if we were limiting it to many local events.

Also, another question, if Adam and Eve gained knowledge, why were ancient people so primitive? They had stone and bone weapons and sketched crude cave paintings. Is that how Adam and Eve were when they left the garden of Eden?
Answer: I think "ancient" man was smarter than we give him credit for. Artifacts of metals are found in "primitive layers." The Egyptians built the pyramids, and what I have been told is that we couldn't do that today. Look how much we have progressed in this past century (technologically speaking only, our world is getting more and more chaotic everyday, no one can deny this, so we are certainly not better off). So I am not sure what the issue is here.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[...snip...


Answer: He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind.

...snip...
Nick

Nick - that is not what the bible says.

I asked you this question a few posts ago:

How many of each creature did God tell Noah to take into the arc?

Can I suggest you go and re-read the relevant section of the Bible before you answer it?

[Dr Adequate]

The trouble is that Nick's quite uncritically swallowed the usual stupid fundie lies. And there's lots of them. So far, he has:

(1) Confused evolution with biogenesis.
(2) Claimed that there are no intermediate forms. :cs:
(3) Passed on the usual stupid lie about Stephen Jay Gould, which the poor man has denied so often and so publicly.
(4) Maintained that "Many ancient drawings have pictures drawn of men and dinosaurs together."
(5) Asserted that evolutionary biology is founded on faith.
(6) Confounded evolutionary biology with atheism.
(7) Claimed that it would be impossible to build the pyramids with today's technology.
:dl:

He did not make up these lies himself. But he's swallowed them quite uncritically. What chance that he'll start thinking critically now?

It would have taken him literally seconds to find out about intermediate forms, or the opinion of Stephen Jay Gould, or the definition of evolution, or the large number of Christians who understand science, or how the pyramids were built --- he has the internet at his fingertips, after all --- but he couldn't be bothered. Seconds, mere seconds, to find out if he's telling the truth. But he's not that interested.

ETA: Oh great, he believes in the Loch Ness Monster as well.

[cthiax]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Answer: He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind. You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case. So this would limit the number of dinosaurs required. I have read that the average size of a dinosaur is a sheep, so not all dinosaurs are these massive creatures. So yes he took them and most dinosaurs are extinct.

Where did all the different kinds of dogs come from, then? Perhaps I am not understanding you...


Answer: I think "ancient" man was smarter than we give him credit for.

On this point you are absolutely correct.

Artifacts of metals are found in "primitive layers." The Egyptians built the pyramids, and what I have been told is that we couldn't do that today. Look how much we have progressed in this past century (technologically speaking only, our world is getting more and more chaotic everyday, no one can deny this, so we are certainly not better off). So I am not sure what the issue is here.

Here however you go astray. We could certainly reproduce the pyramids today. And I can indeed deny that the world is 'getting more and more chaotic every day', because that's a matter of opinion and interpretation, not fact, of course. Whether we are better off now than before depends on what you mean by better off - certainly far fewer people die of far fewer horrible diseases now, for a start. But that's another topic.

ETA that my husband read a bit of this exchange and commented, "How could we not build the pyramids today? We could FIRE THE PYRAMIDS INTO SPACE today." :D

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
[b]Nick Harman
Just a quick list of questions pulled from here and elsewhere. I’ve tried to remove duplicates. The one question I really want you to answer is exactly what do you believe? Is the bible to be taken literally or figuratively or a mixed bag, and how old do you believe the earth is?

Answer: Both. Most of the bible literally. It is historical as indicated by archaeolgical records and findings. Secular writings confirm the kings talked about in the bible, etc. Context will tell whether the writing is literal or figurative. A reading in Genesis is obviously to be taken literal, it is a historical account. The only question is if it is true, not if it is figuratively speaking. And I know some Christians have comprimised and used man's opinion over the God of the universe's written word. Ask a secular Hebrew scholar if the creation days are conveyed as literal days or periods of time and he will tell you days. So the question is truth, not figurative or literal.

I’ve got a few thousand more questions once you’ve hit these high points.

The whole silly flood thing.
Where did the water come from?
Answer: Genesis 7:11 (NKJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up (inside the earth), and the windows of heaven were opened. (from above, i.e. canopy or intense global rain brought on by volcanic activity, opinions vary)

Where did the water go?
answer: you see it all over the earth: Psalm 104 refers to the mountains rising and the valleys sinking.

How many animals did Noah take on the ark?
How did they all fit on there?
How big was the ark?
answer: I addressed this to ashles, refer to that post.

Work the math for the buoyancy of the ark with and without the animals.
answer: I do not know, but the ark only needed to be a gigantic floating device not a craft built to go somewhere. Certainly not diminishing this as a simple task, but do not imagine him having to build a vessel like we see today.

Now work the math allowing only the building materials available at that time.
answer: Wood my friend, the earth was very different before the flood, bible refers to the land being gathered together. Plenty of trees. Pitch I assume as a sealant, and I have no problem believing they had the means, (hardware) to fasten together. I mentioned before we find artifacts that by evolutionary time scales should not be found.

How did the animals receive care, i.e. fed, waste removal, etc
If only ‘kinds’ were taken on the ark, name and give classifications.
answer: I wasn't there, I do not know, there are theories about design of the ark to allow for waste removal and ventilation of fumes.

If only ‘kinds’ were taken on the ark, explain how they developed species diversity afterwards at such a lightning quick pace.
answer: fast changes in species is observable. I heard ken ham talking about a darwin exibit stating about how many different species of a particular animal could arise in only 700 years. I am butchering the quote, but you get the idea.


From MRC_Hans
Parasites. How did parasites, many of which cause life-threatening diseases exist while only Adam and Eve were on Earth? Did they have all those parasites?
Answer: Death is the penalty of sin, so until Adam sinned, there was no death and disease in the world per the bible.

If yes, how did they suvive? Same during the Flood; did Noah and his family host all these parasites? (Of course, same applies to animal parasites)
Bacteria and vira. Essentially the same as parasites, but some fundies are in denial about infectuous diseases (they might, for instance, be homeopaths), so it is useful to keep micro- and macroscopic parasites separated.

Answer: Don't know. At some point we will stop discussing what I believe and we will start talking about what you believe. We have plenty of time for my beliefs for now.


Starlight: We can observe stars that are far more than 6000 LY away. How can their light reach us?
Answer: I would have to assume that light was "arrived" when God created it. This is certainly logical thinking if the bible is true.

Food-chains: This is one for ID'ers. ID'ers modify the timescale of genesis, and acknowledge that creation may have taken a very long time, but that doesn't fly; nearly all life forms are part of big ecosystems, food-chains. Miss one part of an ecosystem for any amount of time, and the whole system breaks down.

answer: I wouldn't try to defend ID's postion, (while they are getting closer) only interested in defending the word of my God, your God, buddist's God, muslims God, the Only God, whether we want to believe it or not, the God of the bible.

Serving the one and only living God,
Nick

That is all the time I have until maybe later today.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[
...snip...
How many animals did Noah take on the ark?

...snip...



Sorry to be persistent but I think this is important: how many of each creature did God tell Noah to take into the arc according to the Bible?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
Nick - that is not what the bible says.

I asked you this question a few posts ago:

How many of each creature did God tell Noah to take into the arc?

Can I suggest you go and re-read the relevant section of the Bible before you answer it?

I do not need a non believer to tell me what the bible says, I realize the bible says more than that, just did't take the time. Later today I will directly quote it to you and it will not change my answer, you are straining gnats.

In Christ,
Nick

[Ashles]

thank you for your answers.
Now don't take this the wrong way but when you are trying to explain your beliefs in a scientific way then you have to understand when we explain things to you that you are incorrect about. This is not a matter of opinion or viewpoint, some things you believe are just factually incorrect.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Hello and welcome. You will be popular here I assure you (assuming you are a serious poster).

If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer?
Answer: Put water and dirt in a jar, shake it up and watch it work, you will not see 1 layer.
That is something completely different. In your jar example the largest and heaviest particles will sink to the bottom and the finest particles will rest on top.
This is obviously completely different to geological layers - you don't get the finest at the surface and the biggest rocks deepest underground.
It is acually quite worrying that you would try to argue these matters when your knowledge of the subject is so limited.
With that statement you have displayed a level of knowledge about geology that is pre-school level.

And why are there no dinosaurs now? Did Noah just decide not to take them?
Answer: He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind. You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case. So this would limit the number of dinosaurs required. I have read that the average size of a dinosaur is a sheep, so not all dinosaurs are these massive creatures.
So where do all the other types of horse, dog etc. come from? All the different types have evolved? In (less than ) 6,000 years?

So yes he took them and most dinosaurs are extinct. You will scoff at this, but there are many eyewitness accounts of dinosaur like creatures. Loch Ness, Lake Champlaign, etc. Pictures of dinosaurs have been shown to tribes in relatively unexplored places like the congo and places in Africa, and they say they have seen these animals. We know of gigantic snakes. So while I am certainly not dogmatic about some dinosaurs existing today, some people and tribes would say they do in remote unexplored areas.
This is a very silly argument. No-one can make any kind of serious scientific argument that dinosaurs exist today. Loch Ness? Doesn't it worry you that your theory is on slightly shaky ground if you are resorting to using Loch Ness to back it up?
And how did these huge dinosaurs develop from sheep sized animals in such a short period of time?

Last comment on the ark is that it took over 100 years to build and God gave the dimmensions in cubits, there have been some large skeletons found, we do not know how big Noah and his son's were, how big was that cubit? Again, not scientific fact I understand, but interesting things to think about.
Not particularly interesting really.
If you read this page about the viability of the ark (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#building) you will see how impossible it is when you give it a certain amount of thought.

And why are there no dinosaurs and human fossils in the same geological layers (if they were all killed at the same time)?
Answer: Already mentioned intelligence, people could hold out longer, i.e. rafts, grabbing on to things and floating, etc. A dead person would float also. More factors are involved but this is one, and I do not claim to be the top authority on this or any of the matters discussed.
Firstly many dinosaurs were marine animals. I think they would hav survived better than men in water.
And dead animals float like dead people so that makes even less sense.
I believe you when you say you are not a top authority in these areas. The top authorities on these matters don't believe in the flood or the ark because it doesn't match any of the actual evidence we find.
Top authorities in the area know about geology and evolution and appreciate how they fit the known facts.

"If an animal dies and is left to lay, it will be eaten or decay and there will be nothing left of it"
That might be what you would assume, but that is not always correct.
Here's a sinmple site (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html) that explains how fossils form.
Answer: maybe I didn't read enough, but what I saw was talking about burial to preserve and begin depositing the minerals to start the fossilizing. I do not believe we would have as many fossils if we were limiting it to many local events.
It's not really entirely relevant to reality whther you believe this or not. It describes how fossilisation occurs.

Also, another question, if Adam and Eve gained knowledge, why were ancient people so primitive? They had stone and bone weapons and sketched crude cave paintings. Is that how Adam and Eve were when they left the garden of Eden?
Answer: I think "ancient" man was smarter than we give him credit for. Artifacts of metals are found in "primitive layers."
So why were they using bone and stone weapons? And who were these people anyway? They are not mentioned in the Bible and Noah seemed to have a pretty acceptable level of tool knowledge. Did we forget this all after Noah?
Where do they fit in?

The Egyptians built the pyramids, and what I have been told is that we couldn't do that today.
And I am telling you we could. But you will chose to believe the story that matches your belief.
What exactly do you find so difficult to acept about the pyramids? They are large regularly shaped piles of stones. Making straight lines and regularly shaped masonry, and measuing accurately are hardly unknown skills today. What aspects strike you as beyond our current ability?
Do you, for example, actually know how they constructed the pyramids?

Look how much we have progressed in this past century (technologically speaking only, our world is getting more and more chaotic everyday, no one can deny this, so we are certainly not better off). So I am not sure what the issue is here.
What do you mean by chaotic? Our world today has a level of societal complexity that is much higher which means the systems of society are much more advanced. I think you mean it is more organised.
If we lived in a society as unregulated as that even 400 years ago our social structures could not survive.
By your comparison the human body must be more 'chaotic' than a bacteria.
In the past laws were brutal, oppression was rife, sexism and racism were prolific, people died of horrible illness much younger etc.
In what way do you feel that you, sitting safe at your computer with your family and job, would have been better off years ago?
I never understand this claim.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I do not need a non believer to tell me what the bible says, I realize the bible says more than that, just did't take the time. Later today I will directly quote it to you and it will not change my answer, you are straining gnats.

In Christ,
Nick

The Bible is meant to be for everyone isn't it? Are you saying that I shouldn’t read it? That I shouldn't question what I read in it? How else will your God reveal his word to me? (Don't consider those questions I'm expecting answers to.)

Anyway to the reason why I keep bringing this up. You have mentioned time and time again that God told Moses to take 2 of each creature into the Arc. But the Bible actually says something quite different:

Genesis Chapter 6 (KJV)

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.


So there is the "2 of each kind" yo mention, yet if we continue to read:

Genesis: Chapter 7


1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth


And now it has changed to seven pairs of each clean beast.

The Flood story in teh Bible is contradictory some of the ones I can remember are:

7 pairs of clean v 2 pairs of each
Noah sends out a raven v Noah sends out a dove
Flood lasts 40 days and forty nights v flood lasts a year

Even the Bible doesn’t seem to be sure of the facts of the Flood, so how can you be certain?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer?
Answer: Put water and dirt in a jar, shake it up and watch it work, you will not see 1 layer.Actually, most of the mud will settle into a single layer. Try doing the experiment yourself. The sediment from a single flood certainly won't settle into many layers neatly arranged into a coherent order.And why are there no dinosaurs now? Did Noah just decide not to take them?
Answer: He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind. You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.So, if two of each species were not taken, and macro-evolution (i.e. evolution from one species to another) doesn't occur (as creationists insist), where did all the currently existing species come from?You will scoff at this, but there are many eyewitness accounts of dinosaur like creatures. Loch Ness, Lake Champlaign, etc. Pictures of dinosaurs have been shown to tribes in relatively unexplored places like the congo and places in Africa, and they say they have seen these animals. We know of gigantic snakes.Snakes are reptiles, not dinosaurs. And, since we know of gigantic snakes, and other reptiles, isn't it possible that the pictures these people were shown were mistaken for pictures of gigantic reptiles? Since no recent remains of dinosaurs have ever been found, isn't this more likely? And why are there no dinosaurs and human fossils in the same geological layers (if they were all killed at the same time)?
Answer: Already mentioned intelligence, people could hold out longer, i.e. rafts, grabbing on to things and floating, etc. A dead person would float also.Even if humans were smart enough to make rafts etc., in a major disaster such as the flood described in the Bible there would be bound to be many humans who were caught unawares, didn't have the opportunity to build a raft, etc. (Noah needed to be given considerable warning, didn't he), who would therefore have died early on in the flood. Compare with what happened in the recent tsunami. And if a dead person would float, so would a dead dino. More factors are involved but this is one, and I do not claim to be the top authority on this or any of the matters discussed.Don't worry, you're doing pretty much as well as any of the others, given what you've got to work with.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
So where do all the other types of horse, dog etc. come from? All the different types have evolved? In (less than ) 6,000 years?Actually, domestic dogs (I am jumping to the completely unsupported conclusion that they are what Nick was talking about) are not a good example here. Although they come in a variety of shapes and sizes they have all been bred by humans since the original domestication of dogs, and are all of the same species.

What Nick claimed is that not every species was taken onto the ark You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.but that the limited number of species taken somehow subsequently gave rise to all the currently existing species. How this could happen without evolution is a good question, and if speciation happens rapidly enough for this to have occured, I would have thought that it would be observable within the timeframe within which evolutionary theory has been studied. And of course, creationists are always quick to point out that it hasn't.

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
And why are there no dinosaurs now? Did Noah just decide not to take them?
Answer: He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind.
Just to repeat some of my earlier questions.

How did the animals receive care, i.e. fed, waste removal, etc
If only ‘kinds’ were taken on the ark, name and give classifications.
If only ‘kinds’ were taken on the ark, explain how they developed species diversity afterwards at such a lightning quick pace?

I have read that the average size of a dinosaur is a sheep, so not all dinosaurs are these massive creatures. So yes he took them and most dinosaurs are extinct. You’re going to reference the sheep and boxcar bit in a moment here. How about actually working the math to that. Here are a few more reminders I’ve already posted.

How many animals did Noah take on the ark?
How did they all fit on there?
How big was the ark?
Work the math for the buoyancy of the ark with and without the animals.
Now work the math allowing only the building materials available at that time.
Work the math for the available internal spacing of the ark, remember support structure and subtract accordingly.

You will scoff at this, but there are many eyewitness accounts of dinosaur like creatures. Loch Ness, Lake Champlaign, etc. Pictures of dinosaurs have been shown to tribes in relatively unexplored places like the congo and places in Africa, and they say they have seen these animals. Loch Ness is more than likely a hoax and tourist attraction (http://skepdic.com/nessie.html). As for the rest – present the evidence, after all it shouldn’t be difficult to reference a reputable journal.

Last comment on the ark is that it took over 100 years to build and God gave the dimmensions in cubits, there have been some large skeletons found, we do not know how big Noah and his son's were, how big was that cubit? Again, not scientific fact I understand, but interesting things to think about.

From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: cu·bit
Pronunciation: 'kyü-b&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin cubitum elbow, cubit
: any of various ancient units of length based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and usually equal to about 18 inches (45.7 centimeters)

and from the New International Version

Genesis 6:15
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [ Hebrew 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (about 140 meters long, 23 meters wide and 13.5 meters high)]

Answer: Already mentioned intelligence, people could hold out longer, i.e. rafts, grabbing on to things and floating, etc. A dead person would float also. More factors are involved but this is one, and I do not claim to be the top authority on this or any of the matters discussed.
It has already been pointed out that this response holds no water before you even answered the question. Now go back and actually read and attempt to answer the questions about this specifically.

The Egyptians built the pyramids, and what I have been told is that we couldn't do that today. Who ever told you that lied to you. Go visit Las Vegas and see for yourself.

Look how much we have progressed in this past century (technologically speaking only, our world is getting more and more chaotic everyday, no one can deny this, so we are certainly not better off). So I am not sure what the issue is here. Progressed yet, better off yes at least in western civilization (This is what I’m familiar with and won’t make assumptions about other civilizations) – or do you consider better medical technology, quality of life and an increased lifespan not to be an improvement?

cthiax
ETA that my husband read a bit of this exchange and commented, "How could we not build the pyramids today? We could FIRE THE PYRAMIDS INTO SPACE today." Yes, but why bother. Just make a mockup even larger than the originals with a climate controlled interior, modern plumbing, charge people to stay there and give them a number of other reasons to extend their visit with such diversions as shows and gambling. :D

Ossai

[farmermike]

iOriginally posted by Nick Harman
Nick is avoiding answering.

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family, I am lucky if I get an hour, and I am responding to many people w/many questions as opposed to 1 person. Give me a break.

In Christ,
Nick
Hi Nick,I may be straying a bit but having a job and family myself,I'd like to tie this in with the comment you made about the world being more chaotic and that we're no better off.My grandfather came from a family of nine children,he was the only one to make the age of 30.He in turn had four children,two of which survived.Enter the 30s and 40s antibiotics vaccinations etc..My father had two kids,I have two kids.No more need to have as many kids as possible to ensure some survive to have kids of their own.What about your job?Are you trying to survive from one season to the next from what you can hunt,grow or forage?Probably not .How did these changes come about?I'm sure that you give thanks to god for bestowing these blessings upon you.Looking around the world now and at history,do you really think god cares whether you have a safe trip to disneyworld or if your in a dung hut watching your family starve?If on of your children became terriby sick and you could either pray or take them to a hospital which would you do?Do you rely on the master physician in the sky who is never supposed to be tested or would you rely on a fellow human trained by science that begs to be tested again and again.
My whole point being that mainstream science is resposible for the things we all take for granted.Look at your home,job ,vehicle family.Who have not benefited in some way?Creationists are not taken seriously by mainstream science.their ideas do not hold up to the scrutiny of peer review simple as that.How can we benefit from science and reject parts that don't fit in with a belief?
But I guess Hutch answered that quite well.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Mojo
Actually, domestic dogs (I am jumping to the completely unsupported conclusion that they are what Nick was talking about) are not a good example here. Although they come in a variety of shapes and sizes they have all been bred by humans since the original domestication of dogs, and are all of the same species.
From one original pair? That degree of genetic variety from one breeding pair in 6,000 years?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
From one original pair? That degree of genetic variety from one breeding pair in 6,000 years? Now that you put it like that, yes it seems a little unlikely. Maybe they took a rottweiler and a chihuahua to get a bit of genetic variety. And maybe a little step-ladder for the chihuahua.

But they are nevertheless of the same species. Nick has claimed that not all species were taken on the ark, and that all current species somehow arose from the "kinds" that were taken. I am eagerly looking foreward to his explanation of how new species could have arisen without evolution having taken place.

As long as it isn't the "God dunnit" get-out, of course.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils. That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence. Now, here's what Stephen Jay Gould (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html) has to say about that : "Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments… The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record…"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase… Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices… it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms."

(ETA : My bold.)

Nick, doesn't it worry you that your arguments are based on lies? Like I said, they're not your lies --- it's not deliberate deceit on your part--- you've just swallowed this fundie hogwash without thinking about it. Or trying to find out if it's true. But that is culpable too. If you didn't invent the lie about Gould, and you didn't, you're still helping to spread this lying gossip without bothering to discover if it's true or false. Next time, before you post a "fact" which you've got from some fundie propaganda tract --- just check and see if it's true.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Mojo
Now that you put it like that, yes it seems a little unlikely. Maybe they took a rottweiler and a chihuahua to get a bit of genetic variety. And maybe a little step-ladder for the chihuahua.

But they are nevertheless of the same species. Nick has claimed that not all species were taken on the ark, and that all current species somehow arose from the "kinds" that were taken. I am eagerly looking foreward to his explanation of how new species could have arisen without evolution having taken place.

As long as it isn't the "God dunnit" get-out, of course.
So is Nick saying that you wouldn't need to take all the birds, just one type of bird (doves presumably) and the currernt 10,000 types of bird all evolved from them?
But wait, hang on, he also definitely took ravens too

Genesis 8:
"7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth.
8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground."

So he only needed one type of dogs and horses, but at least two types of bird...
Internal logic collapse imminent...


Plus, I hate to keep bringing this up but who used the bone and stone tools?
Were these people pre or post Noah?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
So is Nick saying that you wouldn't need to take all the birds, just one type of bird (doves presumably) and the currernt 10,000 types of bird all evolved from them?It all depends on how he defines the word "kind." I suspect it would mean more than one pair of birds, but we'll have to wait for him to get back to us on that, I guess. He certainly seems to be implying that there were just 2 of the dog "kind."

So, Nick, in your statementHe took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind. You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.What exactly do you mean?

What is a "kind?" You imply that it's not the same as a species but something broader, perhaps more like a genus.

How many "kinds" were taken? Was there just, say, one "kind" of cat which gave rise to everything from the domestic cat to lions and tigers? How could a variety of different species develop from a single "kind" without evolution taking place?

By the way, dogs aren't a good example to use as despite their wide range of sizes and builds domestic dogs are in fact all of the same species.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Mojo
It all depends on how he defines the word "kind." I suspect it would mean more than one pair of birds, but we'll have to wait for him to get back to us on that, I guess. He certainly seems to be implying that there were just 2 of the dog "kind."
Good point. So maybe 'kind' does equate to 'species'.
As there are definitely at least 2 'types' of bird we must assume Noah collected all 10,000 species and took them with him.

Info on bird species (http://www.birding.com/Species.asp)
He must have spent a lot of time in South America.

[pupdog]

There was plenty of room on the Ark because there really aren't a lot of kinds of animals. There are only creeping, crawling, and flying kinds. So, taking 2 of each, Noah took 1 raven and 1 dove, 1 snake and 1 worm, and 1 velociraptor and 1 hyena. He would have taken a triceratops, but saddles were not yet invented.

[Correa Neto]

Well, if the deluge was caused by some sort of rain, how would you explain the survival of salt water fishes in the flood? And if salt waters rose, how freshwater fish species survived? Noah had tanks in the ark?

So, most dinosaurs died in the flood because they were not good swimmers, eh? The worst swimmers drowned first, right? OK. Then, why Ichtiostega and similar amphibian fossil species, clearly nice swimmers, do not appear later in the fossil records? They should be better swimmers than dinosaurs as Stegosaurus for example... And why the aquatic reptiles Mesosaurus do not appear after the fossil dinosaurs, since they were quite good swimmers? Why the fossil whales Basilosaurus were extincted and faded away from fossil record before mammoths and modern horses showed up?? Why there are fossils of humans, saber-toothed cats and mammoths at the same strata, above strata with all those dead extinct aquatic animals? Mammoths and saber-toothed cats can swim better than whales, amphibians and ammonites?

Why all those marine animals like trilobites, amonites, and countless genus and species of fishes, arthropods, mollusks, the Ediacara fauna, the weird Burgess shale fauna were extincted by the flood? They drowned? Noah did not had enough tanks at the ark?

Besides, geologists can, based on several evidence (sedimentary structures, grain size distribution, mineral composition, clast shape) tell the depositional environment of a sedimentary rock. We can tell if that mud was deposited at the bottom of a lake, a lagoon, a shallow sea, a deep sea, a river bank, a mudslide, etc. And guess what? There is no evidence for a the types of deposit a global flood would cause. Fossils are found in a variety of sedimentary environments. There is no "global flood layer" with the distribution you describe. If someone told you this, then this person is at best, ignorant when it comes to geology.

Why there are no "pre-flood" sedimentary layers, where we could find fossils of dinosaurs, trilobites, mammoths, zebras, leopards, australopitecines, humans, pelicosaurs, labirynthodonts, pterosaurs, saber-toothed cats, lions, giraffes, plesiosaurs, basilosaurus, etc. all living toghether at the same time in peace and harmony?

And why pterosaurs did not survived the flood? Noah forgot them?

[pupdog]

By the way, about one quarter of extant mammal species are bats.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Nick Harman

If a flood has killed millions of things why are their remains not all found in the same geological layer?
Answer: Put water and dirt in a jar, shake it up and watch it work, you will not see 1 layer.
--------------------

The whole silly flood thing.
Where did the water come from?
Answer: Genesis 7:11 (NKJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up (inside the earth), and the windows of heaven were opened. (from above, i.e. canopy or intense global rain brought on by volcanic activity, opinions vary)

Where did the water go?
answer: you see it all over the earth: Psalm 104 refers to the mountains rising and the valleys sinking.


How could rain and fountains shake up the many thousands of cubic miles of fossil containing sediments into worldwide mixed up mud? How could angular unconformities form in mud settling out of shook up water?
Answer: The world does not work that way. The evidence disproves Nick's assertion.
Hypothesis: Nick will not provide a less flakey response.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
[b]Nick HarmanStarlight: We can observe stars that are far more than 6000 LY away. How can their light reach us?
Answer: I would have to assume that light was "arrived" when God created it. This is certainly logical thinking if the bible is true.
Oh wow - I've only just read that bit.
That's amazing. So any evidence that disagrees with Creationism was rigged by God intentionally?

Then why bother trying to defend creationism scientifically at all?

Why not just say God created 6,000 years ago a world and a universe that appears in all measurable ways to be billions of years old.

But then He writes the Bible that says it isn't.

Seems a bit odd no?

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
At some point we will stop discussing what I believe and we will start talking about what you believe.

Just to get it out of the way:

I believe that Nick is wrong.
I believe that much of Nick's material comes from
answersingeneisis.com and similar creationist websites.
I believe that evidence and data and logic and careful observation and documentation and peer review are trivial and meaningles to Nick.

Now back to 'What Nick Believes'.

[Nick Harman]

Plus, I hate to keep bringing this up but who used the bone and stone tools?
Were these people pre or post Noah? [/B][/QUOTE]
Answer: Do we not have tribes of people today that would fit this prehistoric mold you are referring to? I have seen some folks who do not have internet on the discovery channel.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by fishbob
Just to get it out of the way:

I believe that Nick is wrong.
I believe that much of Nick's material comes from
answersingeneisis.com and similar creationist websites.
I believe that evidence and data and logic and careful observation and documentation and peer review are trivial and meaningles to Nick.

fishbob, is all your material original? Are your writing ground breaking science papers. Of course it is from reading other peoples research. I am not a scientist.

Now back to 'What Nick Believes'.

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fishbob
[B]How could rain and fountains shake up the many thousands of cubic miles of fossil containing sediments into worldwide mixed up mud? How could angular unconformities form in mud settling out of shook up water?

Answer: are you implying that all layers are angular unconformities? I have read the contrary, that more are smoothe transitions and that if the layers were over periods of time we would see more erosion in the layers. I.E. Grand Canyon.

QUOTE]

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Plus, I hate to keep bringing this up but who used the bone and stone tools?
Were these people pre or post Noah?
Answer: Do we not have tribes of people today that would fit this prehistoric mold you are referring to? I have seen some folks who do not have internet on the discovery channel.
So post-Noah then?

So ancestors of Noah's chose to turn their back on his knowledge and start from scratch? They discarded the tools and knowledge used to build the largest floating vssel in history and voluntarily went back to hunting with jaw bones and rocks?

Odd, that's not mentioned in the Bible.

[Ossai]

Ashles
From one original pair? That degree of genetic variety from one breeding pair in 6,000 years? You’re still giving the YEC too much credit. Remember that Noah was an old when building the ark. And we’re talking biblical old as in hundreds of years, not to mention the generations that came before him. If I were in a masochistic mood I’d look up the exact age and then go reference the YEC timeline, but I’m not. They usually claim the flood took place roughly 4000 years ago.


Nick Harman
Answer: Both. Most of the bible literally. It is historical as indicated by archaeolgical records and findings. Secular writings confirm the kings talked about in the bible, etc. While I agree that some of the Kings and other famous people as well as some countries and cities mentioned in the bible do have multiple sources, they by no means confirms the bible’s authenticity. It’s kind of like saying that all of Tom Clancy’s books are real because they mention real places.

A reading in Genesis is obviously to be taken literal, it is a historical account. So the world is flat.

Ask a secular Hebrew scholar if the creation days are conveyed as literal days or periods of time and he will tell you days. So the question is truth, not figurative or literal. I did, after getting a strange look on his face he proceeded to try and explain some of the symbolism contained within the Torah and why it shouldn’t be taken literally.

The whole silly flood thing.
Where did the water come from?
Answer: Genesis 7:11 (NKJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up (inside the earth), and the windows of heaven were opened. (from above, i.e. canopy or intense global rain brought on by volcanic activity, opinions vary) Work the math for this one, seriously. If you’re unable to do so then I’ll point you to a site that has done so already. Take the circumference of the earth and determine total land area. Once you’ve got that calculate the volume of water necessary to cover every mountain to a depth of at least 20 feet.
What is that volume of water and where did it come from and where is it now. The amount of water currently on earth is a paltry sum in comparison.

Actually it’s
Genesis 7
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

This doesn’t even mention the problem of how did they breathe?

Where did the water go?
answer: you see it all over the earth: Psalm 104 refers to the mountains rising and the valleys sinking. Where did all the water go? Where is it now? Sorry but your answer is meaningless in light of the evidence (water) we have available now. But the bible specifically references mountains that were used to land upon. The same mountains that were there before the flood started.

How many animals did Noah take on the ark?
How did they all fit on there?
How big was the ark?
answer: I addressed this to ashles, refer to that post.
No you didn’t. You made some vague ascertains and never actually addressed any of the questions.

Work the math for the buoyancy of the ark with and without the animals.
answer: I do not know, but the ark only needed to be a gigantic floating device not a craft built to go somewhere. Certainly not diminishing this as a simple task, but do not imagine him having to build a vessel like we see today.

Now work the math allowing only the building materials available at that time.
answer: Wood my friend, the earth was very different before the flood, bible refers to the land being gathered together. Plenty of trees. Pitch I assume as a sealant, and I have no problem believing they had the means, (hardware) to fasten together. I mentioned before we find artifacts that by evolutionary time scales should not be found.

Serious question, are you incapable of doing the math? Even grouping animals by kinds (you still haven’t answered that little question either), the space available is woefully inadequate.
Go here (http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm#ark) for a brief look at the flood story.

Go here (http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm) for a list of things you’ve yet to be ask.

Parasites. How did parasites, many of which cause life-threatening diseases exist while only Adam and Eve were on Earth? Did they have all those parasites?
Answer: Death is the penalty of sin, so until Adam sinned, there was no death and disease in the world per the bible. Didn’t the flood supposedly happen AFTER the fall? Attempt to answer the question instead of avoiding it.

Starlight: We can observe stars that are far more than 6000 LY away. How can their light reach us?
Answer: I would have to assume that light was "arrived" when God created it. This is certainly logical thinking if the bible is true. Unsupported premise.

Or think about it this way, god deliberately lied to you by having light that appears to have been generated 10,000 years ago visible to us now.

Ossai

[Ossai]

Posted by Nick Harman
I do not need a non believer to tell me what the bible says, I realize the bible says more than that, just did't take the time. Later today I will directly quote it to you and it will not change my answer, you are straining gnats.
Gee, he’s already proven his ignorance and he’s starting to get snippy. How long before he starts large ALL CAPS AND IN COLOR ?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Ossai
Posted by Nick Harman

Gee, he’s already proven his ignorance and he’s starting to get snippy. How long before he starts large ALL CAPS AND IN COLOR ?
Which is why I think we all need to make an effort to remain polite with Nick.

He is at least returning and trying to answer our questions (and we are bombarding him quite heavily).

It can't be easy for Nick as he is answering all these quesions with the inedequate explanations provided by answersingenesis.com ( and similar sources of 'information') which is, of course, only leading to yet further questions.

I'm sure Nick will remain polite with us if we do with him.

Nick, please understand we are not trying to get at you or criticise your beliefs. We are merely trying to explain that genesis, and YE creationism, does not hold up scientifically. The evidence against it is everywhere. Anyone who tells you otherwise is giving you incorrect information.

But I hope you don't mind us continuing to ask you questions as we will happily continue to answer any qurestions you have for us.

[jmercer]

[lurk mode off]
Fascinating thread.
[/lurk mode on]

[Dr Adequate]

More of the thoughts of Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms:

"If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory." --- Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History magazine, May 1994.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Answer: are you implying that all layers are angular unconformities? I have read the contrary, that more are smoothe transitions and that if the layers were over periods of time we would see more erosion in the layers. I.E. Grand Canyon.



YEC people should try to get better geologists to their rows...

The (top and bottom, in the case) boundary of a sedimentary layer are defined by changes in the depositional environment. Most layer interfaces are actually blanks in the geological records, formed at periods of non-deposition and/or erosion.

Angular uncorfomities are a special case of break in the record, usually implying a great time span. The area where the layer underneath the erosional surface was deposited has must have been uplifted, tilted and eroded, then it must undergo subsidence again, so the layers above the uncorformity will be deposited (and an eventual new uplift if the discordance is being watched in outcrop).

Note that many contacts (typical examples- eolic sandstone over mudstone deposited in a tidal flat; turbiditic sandstone layer over shales deposited at the mouth of a submarine canyon) will imply a time span without deposition. And the sum of incremental small ammounts of time will easilly be over 6ky... Actually the very "small ammount of time" my be over 6Ky.

[farmermike]

Was it true that Noah had put money away in his early years for freedom 555?

[Phaycops]

Nick (and everyone),
I've got an idea. Let's pick one component of YEC at a time to discuss and explore. Informally, of course. I'm not suggesting that we make this like a classroom, but this discussion is jumping all over the place, and most of us do in fact have real-life jobs and families :) Maybe this way, Nick can get a chance to actually read up on the topic for himself, and he also won't feel like he's under attack. What do you think? I'm very interested in how this conversation goes, so I don't want Nick to be intimidated or frustrated right off the board!

Nick, if you would, could you please read some of the links regarding the question of where all this flood water went, and let us know what you think? After you've addressed that question sufficiently, maybe we can move on to other interesting problems.

Also, as a side note, I was wondering whether Nick plans to give our side of the story any real thought. Nick, please don't just let other people tell you what to think. Read what we're posting here and give it some thought!

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
AmbulocetusThanks, Dr. A. That's the chap I was alluding to earlier, but I couldn't remember its name at the time...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Phaycops
Nick (and everyone),
I've got an idea. Let's pick one component of YEC at a time to discuss and explore.

Nick, if you would, could you please read some of the links regarding the question of where all this flood water went, and let us know what you think?
Okay. Let's focus on the flood water alone to start with.

[Nick Harman]

Here are the scriptures that described the animals that Noah had to take on the ark. I only mentioned the 2 of every kind earlier, didn't mention the clean animals. I should have taken the time to cite the full scriptures to not give a false impression, but it doesn't change my view. Biblical kind is not your classification by species. Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (a dog and a wolf can bring forth so they are the same kind.)

Genesis 6:19-20 (KJV)
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. [20] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:2-3 (KJV)
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. [3] Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Deuteronomy 14 describes clean animals vs. unclean.
Deut. 14:3-8 (KJV)
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. [4] These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, [5] The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. [6] And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. [7] Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. [8] And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

I am about out for this evening, but I wanted to give the full text about what God told Noah to take on the ark.

Ashles, I like your idea of focusing on one topic, it is hard for me to dig through all the posts. I will not be in here much tomorrow, but Saturday, I should be able to spend 3 - 4 hours. Talk to you all later.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick

[Nick Harman]

Also, as a side note, I was wondering whether Nick plans to give our side of the story any real thought. Nick, please don't just let other people tell you what to think. Read what we're posting here and give it some thought! [/B][/QUOTE]

--Understand it is impossible for me to read everything. I do not have the time. Saturday should be a good day. Why would I be intimidated. We haven't begun to focus on evolution yet. So do not worry about running me off. Eventually I will have to end this, because I simply do not have the time in my life for all this but I enjoy it, so I will be here for a while.

In Christ,
Nick

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Ashles, I like your idea of focusing on one topic, it is hard for me to dig through all the posts. I will not be in here much tomorrow, but Saturday, I should be able to spend 3 - 4 hours.
To be fair it was Phaycops idea.

[Ashles]

Okay lets focus on the flood water first.

As asked previously - where did it come from and where did it go?

Think how much water is required to cover the entire planet to 20 feet above the highest mountain.

Where did it all go?

[Correa Neto]

And where it came from...

Is the "canopy" a scientifically sound idea?

Is it possible that enough juvenile water could seep from the mantle to flood Earth?

Not to mention that we must also sooner or later will have to find evidence for the flood. It is not enough to be plausible and possible in terms of mechanisms and proccess (what it is not), there must be evidence for its existence.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
a dog and a wolf can bring forth so they are the same kind.By "bring forth" do you mean produce viable, fertile offspring?

[pupdog]

Did Noah bring a male and a female Pennicilium on board the Ark?

But back to water. If you accept the old Hebrew model of the cosmos, there was plenty of water up on top of the firmament, and I think a big lake beneath the Earth. But we now know that that model is not correct; there is no solid firmament up in the sky, beneath which are stars and the sun and moon; above which there is a lot of water.

Now, what is the evidence for a global flood? All you geologists out there, raise your hands (I know there are at least a couple of us). Some folks would like to believe that all sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood, but is there any evidence to support that hypothesis? (clue: no.) Are we to believe that there were igneous intrusions during the Deluge, forming nice tablular dikes in the sediment that was being swirled around, or that stratal deformations characteristic of consolidated rocks formed while the sediments were still being deposited?

I'm afraid that to force the Earth and the cosmos to fit the Young-Earth Creationist notions, every science must be so severely contorted that we could not expect to ever learn anything about the world in which we live.

[joobie]

Originally posted by Ashles
From one original pair? That degree of genetic variety from one breeding pair in 6,000 years?

well, there was more than one breeding pair of course, don't you know anything about how species evolve? (Sorry, couldn't resist ;)) in any case it takes a considerably shorter time to breed a generation or 5 of dogs than it does for a human to reach sexual maturity, for example.

say we have one breeding pair that breeds 2x/yr with 3 puppies in each litter. it will take the puppies a little less than a year to have reached maturity by which time the parents have had two more litters, etc...

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
fishbob, is all your material original? Are your writing ground breaking science papers. Of course it is from reading other peoples research. I am not a scientist.

Yep, my material is original, although I do get the benefit of previous work for my starting point. No, I am not writing ground breaking science papers. I attribute credit to others when I post their work. You are definitely not a scientist.

Take your jar of dirt and water out to a canyon or any big road cut. Shake up your jar and watch the dirt settle, then look at the outcrop. Look closely, study the details. See how inadequate your little demonstration is. Then come have a discussion.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by pupdog
I'm afraid that to force the Earth and the cosmos to fit the Young-Earth Creationist notions, every science must be so severely contorted that we could not expect to ever learn anything about the world in which we live.

Very well put. Thank you.

Thus my attempts to get Nick to show evidence that what he claims is a science is a science and follows the scientific method.

So far I'm invisible on my own thread. :(

[Ashles]

Originally posted by joobie
well, there was more than one breeding pair of course, don't you know anything about how species evolve? (Sorry, couldn't resist ;)) in any case it takes a considerably shorter time to breed a generation or 5 of dogs than it does for a human to reach sexual maturity, for example.

say we have one breeding pair that breeds 2x/yr with 3 puppies in each litter. it will take the puppies a little less than a year to have reached maturity by which time the parents have had two more litters, etc...
I'm not talking about the number of dogs in the world but the amount of genetic variety between them. Great Danes? Irish Wolfhounds? Border Collies? Chihuahuas? Jack Russels?

From one single pair?

That's a pretty limited gene pool to start with and a fairly short period of time to produce that level of diversity. It just doesn't sound in any way viable.
Especially when you consider we have descriptions of many different breeds of dogs going back at least 2-3,000 years, and the flood in theory only tooks place 2 or 3 thousand years before that.

"well, there was more than one breeding pair of course"
But Nick is claiming there isn't.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by pupdog
Now, what is the evidence for a global flood? All you geologists out there, raise your hands (I know there are at least a couple of us). Some folks would like to believe that all sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood, but is there any evidence to support that hypothesis? (clue: no.) Are we to believe that there were igneous intrusions during the Deluge, forming nice tablular dikes in the sediment that was being swirled around, or that stratal deformations characteristic of consolidated rocks formed while the sediments were still being deposited?


*raises hand* But I think it's simpler than that. If all the sedimentary rocks were deposited as a result of a global deluge, why do we see ancient evaporites displaying sequences indicitave of long-lived evaporative environments? Where did they come from? Not to mention I have a hard time seeing how we could have rocks from *such* different depositional environments if they were all deposited from a single, global, "mixing up," wouldn't we just have one single layer of mixed-up stuff? But instead what we see are many varieties of sedimentary rocks deposited in many different environments, and we can observe the same processes depositing the same kinds of rocks today. Interesting.

But to get back to the point at hand, where did all that pesky water go???

To be fair it was Phaycops idea.

Thanks, Ashles. I was starting to think I was invisible :D

[Sandy M]

And about those dogs/wolves... well, sure they can reproduce a lot faster than humans, but man.. . think of the inbreeding....how could you produce VARIETY, let alone a reall HEALTHY line of animals, if you're breeding parents to children to grandchildren. Some horse breeders (and dog breeders?) "line-breed" when they know they have a healthy genetic line, but they STILL introduce new bloodlines.

[joobie]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'm not talking about the number of dogs in the world but the amount of genetic variety between them. Great Danes? Irish Wolfhounds? Border Collies? Chihuahuas? Jack Russels?

From one single pair?

as you know, the smaller the gene pool the more likely there will be mutations, which is of course how a new breed comes about. as an example just look at how many new breeds have been recognized in the past quarter century.

i'm not saying of course that this is what happened - it's just not as entirely unbelievable as you might have thought it was.

Originally posted by Sandy M
Some horse breeders (and dog breeders?) "line-breed" when they know they have a healthy genetic line, but they STILL introduce new bloodlines.

of course they do - but tell me why pure breeds are more prone to health problems than a mutt? it's because they're not really all that 'healthy' to begin with.

i mean, i'm not a creationist and i think the flood is a rather silly idea, but new dog and cat breeds come from a single mutation in the line often.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by joobie
as you know, the smaller the gene pool the more likely there will be mutations, which is of course how a new breed comes about.
No that's not right at all. Are you saying that breeding from just two dalmations would be more likely to produce different species over time than breeding from a wide range of different dogs?

as an example just look at how many new breeds have been recognized in the past quarter century.
But again that is from a very large gene pool.

i'm not saying of course that this is what happened - it's just not as entirely unbelievable as you might have thought it was.
I don't see how it is any way believable that all current species of dogs have come from one single pair less than 6,000 years ago (really more like 4,000)

of course they do - but tell me why pure breeds are more prone to health problems than a mutt? it's because they're not really all that 'healthy' to begin with.
The smaller the gene pool the more likely recessive (and often undesirable) genes could come to the fore. This is why a small gene pool is undesirable.
You could take a perfectly healthy pair of closely related dogs and inbreeding over time would be likely to produce undesirable genetic mutations. A small gene pool is not advantageous to long term health or species diversity.

i mean, i'm not a creationist and i think the flood is a rather silly idea, but new dog and cat breeds come from a single mutation in the line often.
That's because there are now an enormous number of different dogs with different genes to breed with.

[Ashles]

Also from Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html):
Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?

As one poster there elaborates:
There is another powerful argument that slays the Biblical account of the ark. It is that no matter how the pairs of animals survived the ark (space issues, # of animals, etc.) they could never continue. after they were released.Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason:inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes. The high incidence of homozygous lethal genes means high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

(As a footnote: Someone there also posts an interesting reply - "The Noah's ark story states that there were only two of each kind. After the preditor animals ate the prey animals, the prey animals would become extinct and the preditor animals would starve to death.")

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Phaycops
*raises hand* But I think it's simpler than that. If all the sedimentary rocks were deposited as a result of a global deluge, why do we see ancient evaporites displaying sequences indicitave of long-lived evaporative environments?

...snip...

I was starting to think I was invisible :D

*raises hands also*

Not to mention that if a universal deluge happened, one would expect to find sediment layers deposited by the deluge. The layers (even if they were thin) would be present almost everywhere, since just it was just 6Ky ago.

I would expect to see subhorizontal layers, and we could even predict the type of sediment that would be generated. I just returned from the field. I saw no "deluge layers" today. Just regular soil profile developed over Early Cambrian and Neoproterozoic rocks.

Neither can I remember seeing "deluge layers" anywhere else. Is my memory so poor? Or the areas where I have worked are some sort of biased sample? Why no one has ever published a paper on these deposits?

I agree with pupdog and the "invisible" H3ll - one has to twist science to turn the universal deluge a possibility.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
*raises hands also*

Not to mention that if a universal deluge happened, one would expect to find sediment layers deposited by the deluge. The layers (even if they were thin) would be present almost everywhere, since just it was just 6Ky ago.

...

Neither can I remember seeing "deluge layers" anywhere else. Is my memory so poor? Or the areas where I have worked are some sort of biased sample? Why no one has ever published a paper on these deposits?

I agree with pupdog and the "invisible" H3ll - one has to twist science to turn the universal deluge a possibility.

Ok, is the argument: a) that ALL sedimentary rocks are deposited by global deluge, or b) that there was a global deluge and that there is evidence for it?

I was under the impression it was (a), because Nick mentioned some kind of problem with uniformitarianism.

Anyway, if it was (b), yes, of course you're absolutely right. Not to mention that ther are other global records of catastrophic events. I'm thinking here of the widespread iridium-rich layers between the Cretaceous and Tertiary (the dinosaur extinction) that support a large asteroid impact. I don't know if they're completely global, but they're fairly far-flung, IIRC, so if there was a global deluge, there should certainly be some indication of it.

I mean, we know what to look for, we can see floods happening today, and we can determine from their sediment deposits what rocks from a flood should look like.

Sorry, I'm totally derailing this conversation. And it was MY recommendation not to do that.

Nick -- ignore me, go ahead please and think about the water for the flood. I know you don't have a lot of time, but certainly you can find the time to read the articles we link to before replying to our questions, right? Otherwise, don't expect us to have much respect for your arguments.

[pupdog]

It seems like YECs want to blame the flood for lots of geology--forming the strata seen exposed in the Grand Canyon; cutting the gorge of the Grand Canyon before the sediments have had time to consolidate so they could maintain steep (some vertical) slopes; forming the fossil-laden sedimentary rocks of the Alps; and others.

It has long been clear that not all sedimentary rocks were formed at the same time, or by the same processes--others have mentioned unconformities and evaporites in posts above. But, as also posted above, we have not recognized a worldwide flood deposit (in contrast to the recognized Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary). Where in the geologic column should we expect to find it (i.e., how old would it be)? If it would be 6,000 to 10,000 years old, there certainly should be evidence; heck, we have evidence of all sorts of regional depositional events that occurred during this time frame.

Maybe it was Pentawater.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by pupdog
It seems like YECs want to blame the flood for lots of geology--forming the strata seen exposed in the Grand Canyon; cutting the gorge of the Grand Canyon before the sediments have had time to consolidate so they could maintain steep (some vertical) slopes; forming the fossil-laden sedimentary rocks of the Alps; and others.

It has long been clear that not all sedimentary rocks were formed at the same time, or by the same processes--others have mentioned unconformities and evaporites in posts above. But, as also posted above, we have not recognized a worldwide flood deposit (in contrast to the recognized Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary). Where in the geologic column should we expect to find it (i.e., how old would it be)? If it would be 6,000 to 10,000 years old, there certainly should be evidence; heck, we have evidence of all sorts of regional depositional events that occurred during this time frame.

Maybe it was Pentawater.

My impression is that the YEC crowd is attributing all sedimentary rocks to a single flood event. Evidence is an alien concept to these people. A YEC would not recognize evidence if it bit him. Unconformities, evaporites, paleo environments, sedimentary structures are meaningless to people that refuse to look at evidence. Randi's point about offending the terminally ignorant (see today's commentary) applies here.

[Ceinwyn]

He took them on the ark as the bible says he took two of every kind. Not 2 of every dog, or every horse, but kind. You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case. So this would limit the number of dinosaurs required. I have read that the average size of a dinosaur is a sheep, so not all dinosaurs are these massive creatures. So yes he took them and most dinosaurs are extinct. You will scoff at this, but there are many eyewitness accounts of dinosaur like creatures. Loch Ness, Lake Champlaign, etc. Pictures of dinosaurs have been shown to tribes in relatively unexplored places like the congo and places in Africa, and they say they have seen these animals. We know of gigantic snakes. So while I am certainly not dogmatic about some dinosaurs existing today, some people and tribes would say they do in remote unexplored areas. Last comment on the ark is that it took over 100 years to build and God gave the dimmensions in cubits, there have been some large skeletons found, we do not know how big Noah and his son's were, how big was that cubit? Again, not scientific fact I understand, but interesting things to think about.
You're a loony. A bona fide loony.

Why anyone even gives you the time of day, I don't know.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by fishbob
My impression is that the YEC crowd is attributing all sedimentary rocks to a single flood event. Evidence is an alien concept to these people. A YEC would not recognize evidence if it bit him. Unconformities, evaporites, paleo environments, sedimentary structures are meaningless to people that refuse to look at evidence. Randi's point about offending the terminally ignorant (see today's commentary) applies here.

I wonder what are their explanations for metasedimentary rocks...

Instant post-deluge metamorphism?
Antediluvian layers metamorphosed by the weight of the waters?

And how they explain that layers supposedly deposited during the deluge can be tilted, faulted, folded, buried underneath kilometres of rock (including massive volcanics) or uplifited miles high?
Instant post-deluge tectonics + instant post-deluge erosion?

Tectonics happens very fast and when no one is around to see it?

Or they will say post-deluge volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are enough to explain all these features?

Since they claim that sedimentary rocks were formed by sediments deposited during the deluge, diagenesis and lithification must be quite fast, after a couple of thousand tears. Why don´t we see sediments say, deposited by the time of the pharaos, that became rock? Why loose mud deposited at the bottom of a water body does not become rock almost instantly?

Oh, I got it- artifacts of the Devil to stray humans from god, using logic and reason... :cs:

I can almost hear Penn & Teller shouthing "BS"!!!!

edited to fix a couple of typos and (hopefully) for clarity...

[Nick Harman]

Did I miss a link you had put up? I didn't see any articles you wanted me to read.

Where did the water come from?

Genesis 7:11 (KJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


I already mentioned this earlier. It came from inside the earth and from above. Already mentioned a couple of theories, canopy and steam from volcanic activity. I, nor anyone knows. No creationist believes he can scientifically prove the flood. I have read a lot of books and articles and I have never heard this claimed. The problem of course is that this is an event that will never happen again (per Genesis 9:15). We can not use todays local disasters to give us full insight into what happened in the Genesis Flood. Someone asked if I thought all geology is the result of the flood. This would be a ridiculous thought since we of course see floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, that have caused some of the geology we find.

So there is your answer per the bible and supported to a certain extint by the fact that we have water in the earth today.

Did you have an article you wanted me to read?

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick

[Darat]

Hi Nick

Can you explain why you think God told Noah to take 2 of each kind into the bible when as you must have now read he actually tells Noah to take 2 of each but then later on tells him to take 7 of certain kinds? And why the time of the flood changes in the story?

Surely this is an error in the Bible and therefore it could be that the Flood story itself may also be error?

I feel these questions have to be asked because you are claiming you know the flood happened because the Bible says so. However when the Bible passages that describe the Flood actually contradict each other how can anyone be certain of which are facts and which are errors?


(Edited for an are to and.)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
So there is your answer per the bible and supported to a certain extint by the fact that we have water in the earth today. How does the existence of water in the Earth today support the notion that there was once a global Flood?

After all, surely that was equally true before there was a Flood? If people then had observed groundwater, aquifers, etc, and said: "This supports the notion that there was once a global Flood", they'd have been wrong, wouldn't they?

---

Now, can I ask a question about YEC? If the Bible story is literally true, then the the species we see today all migrated from the resting place of the Ark, on Mount Ararat, Turkey.

This does not jibe well with the distribution of species we see today. In particular, I keep wondering about the poor kangaroos and wallabies and spiny anteaters and platypuses and so on making it to Australia.

By contrast, science explains biogeography perfectly.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Nick

Can you explain why you think God told Noah to take 2 of each kind into the bible when as you must have now read he actually tells Noah to take 2 of each but then later on tells him to take 7 of certain kinds?

Answer: The certain kinds are what the bible refers to as clean animals. I have not really looked into this, but logic would say that since clean animals were animals that God allowed people to eat, he would want that population to grow quicker.


And why the time of the flood changes in the story?

Answer: I'm not sure I recall this argument before. What change would you be referring to? Save me some looking time.



I feel these questions have to be asked because you are claiming you know the flood happened because the Bible says so. However when the Bible passages that describe the Flood actually contradict each other how can anyone be certain of which are facts and which are errors?
--Good questions, your right, Jesus said, If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
-- If the bible is in error in one part, the whole book is wrong.

Let me know.

Nick





(Edited for an are to and.)

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
How does the existence of water in the Earth today support the notion that there was once a global Flood?
Answer: I intended that as support (not proof) that water came from inside the earth (fountains of deep). You would really have a hard time with the fountains of deep if the earth was bone dry inside it.

After all, surely that was equally true before there was a Flood?
Answer: No body knows if this was equally true. For the fountains of the deep to be true, there had to be more, not equal.


If people then had observed groundwater, aquifers, etc, and said: "This supports the notion that there was once a global Flood", they'd have been wrong, wouldn't they?
Answer: Again, it had to be more not equal.

---

Now, can I ask a question about YEC? If the Bible story is literally true, then the the species we see today all migrated from the resting place of the Ark, on Mount Ararat, Turkey.

This does not jibe well with the distribution of species we see today. In particular, I keep wondering about the poor kangaroos and wallabies and spiny anteaters and platypuses and so on making it to Australia.

By contrast, science explains biogeography perfectly.
Answer: I will get back to the Australia question in my next post, but I would like to point out that science also shows animals producing after their kind. Has a horse, a dog, a cat, a crocodile, whatever animal you want to pick given rise to another animal. (not a variation, but an observable change to another kind of animal)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
If the bible is in error in one part, the whole book is wrong.
I don't see how that follows at all.

This is not, after all, held to be true of any other book --- I don't see why the Bible should be placed by its admirers under such a severe disadvantage.

---

Another question. Do you also take the following passages of Scripture literally? :"The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." 1 Chronicles 16:30

"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them." 1 Samuel 2:8

"Bless the LORD... who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain...who walketh upon the wings of the wind... Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Psalms 104:1-5

"Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." Psalms 96:10I think we know where you stand on Darwin, but what of that dangerous heretic Galileo?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Has a horse, a dog, a cat, a crocodile, whatever animal you want to pick given rise to another animal. (not a variation, but an observable change to another kind of animal) What do you mean by "given rise to" and "kind"?

On the assumption that you mean "given birth to" and "species", then yes, rather surprisingly, speciation events can take place in one generation. That's not really what Darwin was talking about, though.

I suspect that you're not very familiar with the theory of evolution. Where did you get your ideas about it from?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I don't see how that follows at all.

This is not, after all, held to be true of any other book --- I don't see why the Bible should be placed by its admirers under such a severe disadvantage.
Answer: this is not any other book. the bible is the word of God. 2 Tim. 3:16 (KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
If ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and it is in error at any point, that is not a God I want to trust. How do I know when he is right or wrong? So this is very vital to scripture.




--Another question. Do you also take the following passages of Scripture literally? :I think we know where you stand on Darwin, but what of that dangerous heretic Galileo?
Answer: No not literally in the sense that the world is motionless as I believe you are implying. This is talking about God as the creator, the sustainer. He created and he will uphold the earth. This is in harmony with the whole of scripture that tells us we need to trust and dedend in God.

I do not know much about Galileo. Another time maybe. Unless you insist, post me some material.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
What do you mean by "given rise to" and "kind"?
Answer: offspring/giving birth, yes. (kind = able to reproduce)

On the assumption that you mean "given birth to" and "species", then yes, rather surprisingly, speciation events can take place in one generation. That's not really what Darwin was talking about, though.
--Darwin had a pretty good imagination on the islands. He saw varieties of finches and drew some pretty spectacular conclusions. No I have not read his book.

I suspect that you're not very familiar with the theory of evolution. Where did you get your ideas about it from?
answer: I went to public school, newspaper, magazines, internet, etc.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
...snip...

Where did the water come from?

Genesis 7:11 (KJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


I already mentioned this earlier. It came from inside the earth and from above. Already mentioned a couple of theories, canopy and steam from volcanic activity. I, nor anyone knows.

Consider this: have you ever seen heard of or read about any type of volcanic activity that leaves no trace? What you are implying by "steam from volcanic activity" means that most if not all volcanoes on earth would have to erupt at the same time. Is there any evidence for this (massive tuff, ignimbrites and lava layers of the flood age, at all continents)? No.

Now, could this contribute to an increase in the water level as YEC propose? No. Get a book on geology or do some googling on lava composition. You´ll see that the water ammount is quite small, and besides, magmtic fluids include a lot of dioxide of carbon, methane and suphuric acid. These would make things quite hard for the people in the ark.

Note that none of the theories "answering" the water source, alone or together withstand a minumum ammount of criticism. Forget about the canopy. Get a book on the Earth´s atmosphere and you´ll see why.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
No creationist believes he can scientifically prove the flood. I have read a lot of books and articles and I have never heard this claimed. The problem of course is that this is an event that will never happen again (per Genesis 9:15). We can not use todays local disasters to give us full insight into what happened in the Genesis Flood.

Yes we can. We can study the record of past cataclysmic events, we can model them and we can predict what would be the evidences of such a flood. You want me to describe what would be the expected sedimentary deposits of a universal flood? I am sure that others geologists here at JREF would also help. Than all you would have to do is try to find them. But don´t be disappointed if you fail to find them.

BTW, if you maintain your statement that nothing can be proven scientifically about the flood, than this discussion is pointless. Without evidence you will never convince us, and if you do not accept evidence that may deny anything that is written in the Bible, nothing will be gained. We will seek for evidence, none will be found and YEC will continue sticking to the Bible as a flawless source of information.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
...Someone asked if I thought all geology is the result of the flood. This would be a ridiculous thought since we of course see floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, that have caused some of the geology we find.

So, these phenomena, in your interpretation, created the geology that existed previous to the flood? If so, than you have to admit that Earth is older than 6kY. The rate if occurence of these phenomena and the time they take to shape the landscape have not suffered great changes in the past. These phenomena slowly build and reshape the crust.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
So there is your answer per the bible and supported to a certain extint by the fact that we have water in the earth today.

As you should see, the answer is far from being satisfactory.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
...Did I miss a link you had put up? I didn't see any articles you wanted me to read.
...snip...
Did you have an article you wanted me to read?


Any book on general or physical geology will do. As soon as you start to know a bit about geology you will understand how impossible is the universal flood. Not everything can be learnt from the Bible.

[Nick Harman]

Now, can I ask a question about YEC? If the Bible story is literally true, then the the species we see today all migrated from the resting place of the Ark, on Mount Ararat, Turkey.

This does not jibe well with the distribution of species we see today. In particular, I keep wondering about the poor kangaroos and wallabies and spiny anteaters and platypuses and so on making it to Australia.

In the Answers Book from AiG, they point out that animals are moved around by humans, so this could contribute. They also noted that fossilation is rare, so it is not a huge surprise that we do not see a fossil path of migration. Per the book examples would be buffalo, and lions in Israel until recently but we do not find their fossils.

Nick

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Correa Neto
[B]Consider this: have you ever seen heard of or read about any type of volcanic activity that leaves no trace? What you are implying by "steam from volcanic activity" means that most if not all volcanoes on earth would have to erupt at the same time. Is there any evidence for this (massive tuff, ignimbrites and lava layers of the flood age, at all continents)? No.

Nick: One of the theories is that steam from eruptions supplied for global rain.



Note that none of the theories "answering" the water source, alone or together withstand a minumum ammount of criticism. Forget about the canopy. Get a book on the Earth´s atmosphere and you´ll see why.

Nick: I assume you are talking about temperatures on Earth would get too hot?




Yes we can. We can study the record of past cataclysmic events, we can model them and we can predict what would be the evidences of such a flood. You want me to describe what would be the expected sedimentary deposits of a universal flood? I am sure that others geologists here at JREF would also help. Than all you would have to do is try to find them. But don´t be disappointed if you fail to find them.

Nick: This is not an argument of proof from lack of evidence but my point is that we can make assumptions but the flood of the bible can not be tested today. What we observe today is not like the event of the bible's flood. That is my point.

BTW, if you maintain your statement that nothing can be proven scientifically about the flood, than this discussion is pointless. Without evidence you will never convince us, and if you do not accept evidence that may deny anything that is written in the Bible, nothing will be gained.

Nick: Then I guess any discussion of origins is pointless. You can not prove life evolved from natural processes, but it is in the text books. Life evolving from non-life is the dumbest idea ever. Evolution scoffs at the flood, but is all about life evolving from non-living material. Where is your science to even come close to supporting that idea.

You have a totally different world view to interpret the evidence so it is certainly tough to find common ground on what can and cannot be proved.



So, these phenomena, in your interpretation, created the geology that existed previous to the flood? If so, than you have to admit that Earth is older than 6kY. The rate if occurence of these phenomena and the time they take to shape the landscape have not suffered great changes in the past. These phenomena slowly build and reshape the crust.

I am not following here. I didn't say anything about geology that existed before the flood.

[Nick Harman]

Do any of you believe in God?

Nick

[Nick Harman]

Looks like it died in here, I have to run. I will be back in here on Monday. Would like to hear more on how life started on Earth. Later.

In Christ,
Nick Harman

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
In the Answers Book from AiG, they point out that animals are moved around by humans, so this could contribute. They also noted that fossilation is rare, so it is not a huge surprise that we do not see a fossil path of migration. Per the book examples would be buffalo, and lions in Israel until recently but we do not find their fossils. I'm really having a hard time imagining people driving herds of duck-billed platypuses from Turkey to Austalia. Not to mention the spiny anteaters, the kangaroos, and... why did they just take marsupials and monotremes? Why not a few sheep or something? I hear they do well in Australia.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Do any of you believe in God?

Nick

Quite a lot of Members here believe in at least one God, I believe we have some that believe in more then one.

Will you be getting back to me about the conflicting facts the Bible gives about the Flood story?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Evolution scoffs at the flood, but is all about life evolving from non-living material. No it isn't.

The theory of evolution has no connection whatsoever with the topic which you claim it is "all about".

Once more you are repeating a fundie lie without doing the bare minimum of research to find out whether what you're saying is true or false.You have a totally different world view to interpret the evidence so it is certainly tough to find common ground on what can and cannot be proved.I can think of another reason why we aren't agreeing. It has nothing to do with worldviews or interpretation of evidence. It's that you've had your head stuffed with a lot of things which aren't actually true, and you haven't been bothered to find out if they're true or not.

Let me ask you again, doesn't this bother you? Don't you feel obliged to speak the truth?

[Dr Adequate]

You may find this article (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) of interest --- here are some salient quotes: After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood…

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems…

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.

[Correa Neto]

How he managed to pass examinations?

The correct answers to questions regarding radioactive isotopes decay constants and age of the Earth and Universe would be contrary to his beliefs.

He lied in the tests?

Somehow managed not to study such topics?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick: One of the theories is that steam from eruptions supplied for global rain.

I will repeat. This would imply an enourmous increase in volcanic eruptions at a very short ammount of time all around the world. Besides what you called "steam" (actually composed by water, carbon dioxide, sulpuhric acid and methane) volcanoes pour ashes, ignimbrite clouds, lava, cause lahars, etc.

Question: Where are the all these tuff, ignimbrite, lava and lahar layers associated with the eruptions that caused or helped to cause the deluge? Note that all of them must have the same age!

Answer: Volcanic activity has been following the same rate in the last tens of million years. Nothing can be linked to such a hypothetical recent short intense volcanic activity period.

Implication: The theory is ready to be dumped, and those who created it need to be better informed.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick: I assume you are talking about temperatures on Earth would get too hot?

Do you know of any mechanism that would allow such canopy to exist? Do you have an idea of what records such a canopy would have left? Do you know if "life as we know, Jim" would be possible under the conditions implyied by such canopy? Do you know of any planetary model with such a feature? Do you know the qualifications of those who created such model? Don´t you think their minds can be clouded by a canopy of prejudice?

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick: This is not an argument of proof from lack of evidence but my point is that we can make assumptions but the flood of the bible can not be tested today. What we observe today is not like the event of the bible's flood. That is my point.

In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence (Sagan would like the twisting of the sentence). The flood of the Bible would have left traces. And the traces are not found anywhere. The theoretical backgrounds that would allow such phenomena are also inoherent and flawed. No universal deluge. Period.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick: Then I guess any discussion of origins is pointless. You can not prove life evolved from natural processes, but it is in the text books. Life evolving from non-life is the dumbest idea ever. Evolution scoffs at the flood, but is all about life evolving from non-living material. Where is your science to even come close to supporting that idea.

No, I can not prove, but scientists can point to an immense ammount of evidence that it evolved from natural processes. Can you point a single evidence it did not? No. You just say "because its written in the Bible".

I would like to write that life not evolving from non-living material is the dumbest idea, but the universal deluge and a 6ky Earth are strong canditates.

BTW, define "life" and "non-living material". "A rock is not living" does not qualify. A virus is alive?

Originally posted by Nick Harman
You have a totally different world view to interpret the evidence so it is certainly tough to find common ground on what can and cannot be proved.

My world view is based ona simple and straightforward philosophy- weight the evidence (as well as the interpretation of the data) and check its validity. Good thing to make with the Bible too.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am not following here. I didn't say anything about geology that existed before the flood.

Yes, you did, you just haven´t (or didn´t want to) realise it. By acepting that geological phenomena that happen today -and happened at biblical times- shape the Earth, you accept that Earth is not just 6Ky old. 2.7 Gy old fluvial sandstones have the same sedimentary structures you find in sand at a river bed today.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
How he managed to pass examinations?

The correct answers to questions regarding radioactive isotopes decay constants and age of the Earth and Universe would be contrary to his beliefs.

He lied in the tests?

Somehow managed not to study such topics? He says he did no geology courses, so he wouldn't find stuff about decay constants directly in conflict with his beliefs: you need a lot of other data too.

Perhaps cosmology is optional for physicists.

Anyway, now we know how to 'cure' Young Earth Creationists --- get them jobs as geologists.

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
I already mentioned this earlier. It came from inside the earth and from above. Already mentioned a couple of theories, canopy and steam from volcanic activity.
And we’ve already ask it a number of times.
Where did the water come from?
Have you even bothered to read this thread? All you’ve done so far is:

The bible says F
There is no evidence of F.
But there was F, because the bible says so.
Why should we trust the bible?
Because the bible is right.
Why?
Because the bible says the bible is right.

It’s a meaningless cycle. Present some evidence.

Where did the water go?

Answer: No not literally in the sense that the world is motionless as I believe you are implying. This is talking about God as the creator, the sustainer. He created and he will uphold the earth. This is in harmony with the whole of scripture that tells us we need to trust and dedend in God. Then why should the flood story be taken literally?
If you bother to read the quotes, posted by Dr Adequate, in context they very clearly describe a stable, flat earth.

I do not know much about Galileo. Another time maybe. Unless you insist, post me some material. ? Galileo Galilei (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html)

This does not jibe well with the distribution of species we see today. In particular, I keep wondering about the poor kangaroos and wallabies and spiny anteaters and platypuses and so on making it to Australia.

In the Answers Book from AiG, they point out that animals are moved around by humans, so this could contribute. They also noted that fossilation is rare, so it is not a huge surprise that we do not see a fossil path of migration. Per the book examples would be buffalo, and lions in Israel until recently but we do not find their fossils. Apparently Dr Adequate’s post flew right over your head. Go back and reread it and if you still don’t understand it, ask him to explain it to you.

Nick: This is not an argument of proof from lack of evidence but my point is that we can make assumptions but the flood of the bible can not be tested today. What we observe today is not like the event of the bible's flood. That is my point. You’re not making or answering a point, you’re throwing up straw men.

Nick: Then I guess any discussion of origins is pointless. You can not prove life evolved from natural processes, but it is in the text books. Hey clueless guy, we’re doing so in labs RIGHT NOW.

Life evolving from non-life is the dumbest idea ever. Catch up on your science, being worked on now.

Ossai

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
In the Answers Book from AiG, they point out that animals are moved around by humans, so this could contribute. They also noted that fossilation is rare, so it is not a huge surprise that we do not see a fossil path of migration. Per the book examples would be buffalo, and lions in Israel until recently but we do not find their fossils.

Nick Which humans would be dumb enough to carry:

Polar Bears to the Arctic?
Tigers to Sumatra?
Komodo dragons to Komodo?
Crocodiles to Florida?
Army ants to Brazil?

Noahs family was not big enough or stupid enough to be dinner for that many predators. The story of redistribution of animals around the world would have to be one of the greatest stories ever told, but not a peep has come down through the ages.

AiG is full of beans. The clueless telling stories to the gullible.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
I wonder what are their explanations for metasedimentary rocks...

Instant post-deluge metamorphism?
Antediluvian layers metamorphosed by the weight of the waters?

And how they explain that layers supposedly deposited during the deluge can be tilted, faulted, folded, buried underneath kilometres of rock (including massive volcanics) or uplifited miles high?
Instant post-deluge tectonics + instant post-deluge erosion?

Tectonics happens very fast and when no one is around to see it? . . .

You are still trying to show evidence to people that refuse to see evidence. I applaud your persistence. I doubt your chances of success.

The YEC take pride in their ignorance. They take comfort in their lack of responsibility for their actions. Reason and logic don't fit into their world. They probably hold competitions for the title of Most Reality Impaired.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Do any of you believe in God?

Nick

Irrelevant to the topic. YEC's goofy interpretation of the bible has nothing to do with God.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ossai
Catch up on your science, being worked on now.[/B]

Nick, if you're serious about this subject and would like to be caught up to date on some evidence for evolution from current science, I work in bioinformatics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I'd be happy to answer questions, point you to papers, etc. AIM name is the same as my name here with a space instead of an underscore. Feel free to contact me.

Just a thought: you might want to understand something before you call it the "dumbest idea ever."

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Looks like it died in here, I have to run. I will be back in here on Monday. Would like to hear more on how life started on Earth. Later.

In Christ,
Nick Harman

A thread that is running to FIVE PAGES with most of the posts dealing with issues you raised is dead?!?!?!?

This is a forum, not a chatroom.

Maybe it's dead because you have no plausible answers to any questions asked and as such seems empty to you?

If you are expecting:

Person A: How do you explain the fossil record?

Nick: God did it and it's in the bible.

Person A: Oooooh! You are sooooo right! Thanks. Bless you.

I'm afraid you have come to the wrong place.



Sorry all for the big upper-case bit. I'm suffering from a bad case of invisibilitis. I'll move on to screaming and stamping my feet later.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Nick Harman

Genesis 7:11 (KJV)
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


Nick
I had it in my head that Noah was 600 when he started the ark.500 would seem a little more believable.At 600 it really is time to slow down,would also explain the absense of any great grand kids.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
Quite a lot of Members here believe in at least one God, I believe we have some that believe in more then one.

Will you be getting back to me about the conflicting facts the Bible gives about the Flood story?

I asked you where was the conflicting account to save me time searching it out, or do you know? If you can tell me where you get this idea, I will refute it.

Nick

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
I asked you where was the conflicting account to save me time searching it out, or do you know? If you can tell me where you get this idea, I will refute it. Proof you haven’t been reading the thread. The exact verses have been referenced and posted by Darat on the third page of this thread.

BTW
Genesis Chapter 6
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis: Chapter 7
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Ossai

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by fishbob
You are still trying to show evidence to people that refuse to see evidence. I applaud your persistence. I doubt your chances of success.

The YEC take pride in their ignorance. They take comfort in their lack of responsibility for their actions. Reason and logic don't fit into their world. They probably hold competitions for the title of Most Reality Impaired.

Thanks. But the appaluse should go for the people who answer posts from Kumar, Lifegazer, 1inChrist, among others. These are persistent obstinate people fighting against all odds!:clap:

I also happen to enjoy surrounding myself with a smokescreen of reason and logic:D .

EDITED TO ADD
BTW, I wonder how Noah handled these in the ark:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4409039.stm
And I also wonder how they managed to bring them to Australia...
And I´m angry because god decided they should go to oblivion... Why, oh Lord, why?

[Dr Adequate]

Australia is home to dozens of unique species of venomous snake, including the Taipan, the Red Bellied Black, Black Tiger, Copperhead, Gwardar, Collett's, Fierce, Eastern Tiger, Eastern Brown, Death Adder and the Mulga.

Here is a picture of a Death Adder...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/gunnado/files/deathadder.jpg

... feeling slightly confused at being told to "go forth and multiply".

Now, Nick, can you explain how and why anyone would herd these creatures to Australia from Turkey (without, you notice, losing any on the way --- Australian snakes are unique to Australia) and why they didn't, instead, take any domesticated meat animals such as sheep, goats, or cattle?

[Bikewer]

Those are just a few examples. There are many thousands of species ranging from fairly large mammals to tiny insects and other arthropods which exist in tiny ecological niches.

In the various South American habitats, creatures often are confined to an area of a couple of miles, and are found nowhere else on Earth.

It seems to me from glancing over this thread that our friend has memorized much chapter and verse from a variety of creationist tracts, but has little or no grounding in the sciences he's trying to refute.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Those are just a few examples. There are many thousands of species ranging from fairly large mammals to tiny insects and other arthropods which exist in tiny ecological niches.

This also begs the question how Noah managed to mainain the environment on the arc for those creatures that live in low-pressure sub-zero environments and those that live in high-pressure high-temperature environments.

Transporting them to where they live must have been rather dificult too.

[Correa Neto]

Add to the list animals adapted to live in caves. Certain cave systems have their own unique species.

Amazing work of this Noah guy, placing a given species in cave system A, another there at cave system B! I imagine Noah rappeling down a pitch-black shaft holding a torch and a box with pseudoscorpions...

Not to mention that many of these animals are quite delicate, requiring specific temperature and humidity (add water ph if its the case) conditions. Noah, your Ark must have been something!

Oh, yes, many fish species are quite delicate when it comes to water Ph, salinity, temperature and oxigen levels. How they survived the deluge? Noah had tanks in the Ark? He would need tanks for fresh water and saltwater fish, since the deluge waters must have completely messed subaquatic environment.

YEC will not care for this "tiny detail", since in their wise minds fishes are fishes - whales are also fishes. Or god took care of the fish? But if god took care of the fish, why did Noah needed to build the Ark? God for sure could protect the animals, since its omnipotent.

Thinking on this, why god needed a deluge? Being omnipotent, it could have killed al humans it did not like, sparing just Noah.

Oh, here I go again with the smokescreen of logic and reason...:rolleyes:

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Those are just a few examples. There are many thousands of species ranging from fairly large mammals to tiny insects and other arthropods which exist in tiny ecological niches.

This also begs the question how Noah managed to mainain the environment on the arc for those creatures that live in low-pressure sub-zero environments and those that live in high-pressure high-temperature environments.

Transporting them to where they live must have been rather dificult too.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Bikewer
It seems to me from glancing over this thread that our friend has memorized much chapter and verse from a variety of creationist tracts, but has little or no grounding in the sciences he's trying to refute.

Which would be fine if he was willing to listen and learn... my offer still stands on showing current biology research, but I don't think he's going to take me up on it.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Ossai
Nick Harman
Proof you haven’t been reading the thread. The exact verses have been referenced and posted by Darat on the third page of this thread.
Answer: Have I ever claimed to read every thread, no, I don't have the time you all have. I saw your reference earlier, but I thought the time of the event was in question, that was the mix up. I had never heard that questioned before.

BTW
Genesis Chapter 6
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis: Chapter 7
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Answer: I have never heard this called into question before, barely worth spending the time on. Chapter 7 is further instruction added to Chapter 6. He is telling Noah to bring more than 2 of the clean animals. He is still fulfilling the request of Chapter 6, but God is requiring a larger number of the clean animals. I see absolutely no conflict, and you are the first I have ever heard seeing issue with this.

Ossai

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B]No it isn't.

The theory of evolution has no connection whatsoever with the topic which you claim it is "all about".

Once more you are repeating a fundie lie without doing the bare minimum of research to find out whether what you're saying is true or false.

Answer: Has nothing to do with it? Your theory is telling us how everything we have today has evolved over millions of years. Trace it back and where does it lead you. That single celled organism had to come from somewhere. This earth had to come from somewhere. The stars had to come from somewhere. The sun had to come from somewhere. Call it evolution or origins, whatever you want, but it is in the science text books and no one wants to talk much about it they just want to assume it all happened.

Someone mentioned that origins is being worked out now. What is the best evidence to support a naturalistic evolution of life? Life had to start somewhere for your evolution to occur.

In Christ
Nick

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
I see absolutely no conflict, and you are the first I have ever heard seeing issue with this. Then how about going and reading them in context.

God says to take two of every kind and then specifically lists the ‘kinds’;

Genesis Chapter 6
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Then god apparently changes his mind and says seven of every clean animal and then seven fowls which is a direct contradiction of the number required.

Genesis: Chapter 7
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
How is ‘take 7’ a clarification of ‘take 2’?

BTW – how was Noah supposed to know the difference between the clean and unclean animals when that isn’t really defined until much later by, I believe, Moses?

Where did the water come from?

Where did the water go?

Ossai

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman

Answer: I have never heard this called into question before, barely worth spending the time on. Chapter 7 is further instruction added to Chapter 6. He is telling Noah to bring more than 2 of the clean animals. He is still fulfilling the request of Chapter 6, but God is requiring a larger number of the clean animals. I see absolutely no conflict, and you are the first I have ever heard seeing issue with this.



That actually does not tally with what the Bible says.

After God told Noah to take seven of each clean type into the arc the Bible then states that God only commanded 2 of each type into the arc.

The sequence in the bible is:

Genesis 6:
19 "And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark
to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female"

2 of each


Genesis 7:
2 "Of all the clean beasts, take yourself seven pairs, man and his woman; and of the beasts which are not clean, two, man and his woman"

7 of each clean, 2 of each unclean, 7 of each pair of birds

3 "Also of the birds of the heaven seven pairs, male and female, to keep alive seed on the fact of the earth"

8 "Of the clean beats and of the beasts which were not clean, and of the birds and of all those which creep upon the earth,"

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"


2 of each


So as can be seen this is not a matter of God changing his mind, the bible quite clearly states that god said "7 pairs of each clean beast", however it then says only "2 went in "as commanded by God."

(Edited for words and formatting.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I asked you where was the conflicting account to save me time searching it out, or do you know? If you can tell me where you get this idea, I will refute it.

Nick

I took the time to respond to your request when you asked me.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Life had to start somewhere for your evolution to occur. And as, quite clearly, life did start somewhere, this is hardly a problem for evolutionary biology, is it?

The theory of evolution states that species evolved from a few forms or one by a process of reproduction with random variation and natural selection. That's all (bar the genetics). The question of where the first form or forms capable of reproducing came from is therefore entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and vice versa.

---

Now, back to Noah's Ark.

(1) The following may interest you:Conservation biologists now calculate as a rough rule of thumb that unless a wlid population contains around 500 individuals, it is liable to go extinct, sooner or later. Yet even 500 is only enough to allow the population to tick over... five hundred, then, is a very conservative figure.(The Engineer in the Garden, C Tudge.)

How does this square with the story of the Ark?

(2) Every modern disease of animals must have come on the Ark, including of course diseases that affect humans. The Ark must therefore have been loaded with bubonic plague, cholera, polio, typhus, typhoid, sleeping sickness, leprosy, syphillis, smallpox, measles, malaria...

How did Noah and his family survive?

(3) The smallest estimate I can find for the number of seperate species (species, not varieties) in the world is three million. We therefore compute that each person on the Ark was engaged in taking care of at least 750,000 animals.

How is this possible?

(4) If only two of each unclean land mammal was taken into the Ark, but there were eight humans, of which at least six formed breeding pairs, then we ought to find higher genetic diversity in humans than in unclean beasts, and we should also expect the most genetically diverse mammals to be whales, which would not have undergone the same (impossible) population bottleneck.

But this is not what we find when we study genetics. Why do you think this is?

(5) When the world was covered with water to sufficient depths to drown the peaks of the highest mountains --- what happened to the world's vegetation? We are not told that two of every kind of tree and flower came to the Ark.

We should therefore expect that all modern plants, having survived the Flood, would be able to survive the prolonged submersion described in Genesis. Is this really the case?

[H3LL]

As I'm invisible I can say what I like.

On the off-chance of miraculous visibility....

Nick, if you whine once more about your lack of time, thus implying that all of us are in some way less productive elsewhere than you. You will get a severe slapping with a wet fish. MP style.

Make the (rule 8) time. Everyone else here is doing it for you.

You are not the first here with your beliefs without evidence and repetition of lies posted elsewhere on the Internet and you won't be the last.

For most here you are just one of many and they have taken the time and trouble to respond to you even though it is tiresome repetition for many here.

So far you have been mainly interesting and almost polite. Don't spoil it.

Thank you.

[H3LL]

Nick, FYI. The origins of life is not evolution and is a different area of scientific study and has a different name.

Look it up.

[Soapy Sam]

Nick- Excuse me if I repeat something already said. I have only time to glance through the thread. It seems you are as ill informed about the Grand Canyon as about the Pyramids.
May I ask you to read this link-

http://www.johncollins.org/JG/Creationism.html

After which you might back up to his home page and read the whole thing. This would make you better equipped to discuss the geology of the Colorado Plateau. At the moment, I feel you are far too ignorant of the subject. (Several of the posters here are professional geologists.) I'd be interested to hear your account of the Vishnu Schist, or the nature of the erosive unconformity at it's top.

I would repeat Dr. Adequate's plea that you check your facts , before repeating the errors or deliberate untruths of others.
Finding the site linked to above took me about thirty seconds. You could have done that, but you preferred not to bother.

Please, I beg you, believe what you will, but do not bear false witness unto others.

Being a Christian does not require justifying, or believing bronze age legend; It requires loving others as yourself.

Which is a great deal harder.

[Ashles]

And more questions for Nick (some current, some new):

Where does primitive man using bone and stone tools fit into the bible story? When did they exist, and why?

What part of the construction of the pyramids could not be achieved today (slightly off the topic I realise, but I'm interested)?

How many of each 'type' of animals were taken on the ark? You appear now to be happy that it was more than 2 of each type. What does this now imply for the size of the ark and feeding the animals on the ark?

What did the animals eat when they disembarked from the ark?

What happened to all the plants? How did they survive?

When Noah and his amazing family were distributing the animals back around the world, what was happening to the animals they weren't distributing?

I am happy for you to ignore these questions for the moment if you can address the question of
Where did water come from,
and
Where did the water go?
You haven't answered that at all. Your volcano theory comes from a lack of knowledge and is utterly incorrect.

And finally, several posters have already mentioned this, but I'll just add my say on the subject.
The subject of how life first started is not part of the study evolution and, once again, anyone or any source telling you that it is is utterly ignorant of either subject.
It is actually called abiogenesis. It is an interesting subject in its own right (and by the way it is perfectly plausible) but, to quote Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html):
One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.
Let's stick to talking about evolution for the moment.

(If you really want to know about abiogenesis then please read this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html). It goes into some detail, but it is at least factualy correct, unlike the sources you appear to be currently using for information on the subject.)

[CodeComplete]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--Good questions, your right, Jesus said, If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
-- If the bible is in error in one part, the whole book is wrong.


Nick,

Which bible do you consider to be error free, King James Bible, Good News Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, Geneva Version etc. etc. and in which language should the correct version be read for the the true word of God as I doubt Jesus spoke English? If the people who put these together were filled with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit has a bad memory...

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I would repeat Dr. Adequate's plea that you check your facts , before repeating the errors or deliberate untruths of others.
Finding the site linked to above took me about thirty seconds. You could have done that, but you preferred not to bother.


But Saaaaaam, he's too buuussyyyy! We're all just a bunch of freeloading losers who spend all our time online instead of leading happy, productive lives full of career and family-type joys. Didn't you get the memo?

Incidentally, I have to miss out on a lot of this thread because I'll be out in the field the rest of the week.

Anyway. I'm getting a little tired of listening to Nick repeat the rationalizations of others. Nick, if you're seriously that resistant to thinking for yourself, please don't waste our time. It's nice that you can point us towards relevant websites, but if we're going to take the time to read your side, you could at least do us the same favour. Before you reply to a post that links to an article, please read the article and decide what you think about it. If you don't understand some of the technical jargon, just ask. There are a LOT of people here with an impressively wide variety of experience, from truck drivers to PhD physicists! It's neat, if you ask me :) Anyway, we just want you to use your noggin!

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by H3LL
So far you have been mainly interesting and almost polite. Don't spoil it.

"Almost" at this point is giving him too much credit. He's been expecting others to listen without listening himself and berating a science he is completely ignorant of for pages now. Any offer to show him that understanding is mocked or ignored. Saying "please" and "thank you" while being rude doesn't make you polite. It's passive aggressive and brazenly un-Christian.

"But I say that if anyone is angry with his brother, he will be worthy of judgment. And if anyone says to his brother, "Empty-headed," he will be answerable to the Sanhedrin. But if anyone says, "You fool," he will be in danger of the fire of hell." - The Damn Bible

Frankly, if Nick is to be shining example of the Christan ethics, I'd rather hang out with Queequeg, Tashtego, Daggoo, and Fedallah.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
That actually does not tally with what the Bible says.

After God told Noah to take seven of each clean type into the arc the Bible then states that God only commanded 2 of each type into the arc.

The sequence in the bible is:

Genesis 6:
19 "And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark
to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female"

2 of each


Genesis 7:
2 "Of all the clean beasts, take yourself seven pairs, man and his woman; and of the beasts which are not clean, two, man and his woman"

7 of each clean, 2 of each unclean, 7 of each pair of birds

3 "Also of the birds of the heaven seven pairs, male and female, to keep alive seed on the fact of the earth"

8 "Of the clean beats and of the beasts which were not clean, and of the birds and of all those which creep upon the earth,"

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"


2 of each


So as can be seen this is not a matter of God changing his mind, the bible quite clearly states that god said "7 pairs of each clean beast", however it then says only "2 went in "as commanded by God."

Answer: Does Chapter 7 instructions void Chapter 6? No. He is still taking the 2 of each kind. Saying verse 9 in ch. 7 is an error is faulty because you are arguing error by ommission. Because in this particular part of the text it doesn't restate the 7 pairs doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same charge is made in regards to it not stating what clean is at this point in the scripture. I have no problem with that. God told Noah but it isn't in the text. Error by ommission does not prove error. Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here. Any one can read this text and know that God wanted 2 of every kind of animal and 7 of every clean animal, and 7 of fowls.

(Edited for words and formatting.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Answer: Does Chapter 7 instructions void Chapter 6? No. He is still taking the 2 of each kind. Saying verse 9 in ch. 7 is an error is faulty because you are arguing error by ommission. Because in this particular part of the text it doesn't restate the 7 pairs doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same charge is made in regards to it not stating what clean is at this point in the scripture. I have no problem with that. God told Noah but it isn't in the text. Error by ommission does not prove error. Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here. Any one can read this text and know that God wanted 2 of every kind of animal and 7 of every clean animal, and 7 of fowls.

If you want to argue that you can add to what the Bible actually says then I do not see how you can claim your facts come from the Bible. The Bible says one thing; you say another, which should I believe?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Your theory is telling us how everything we have today has evolved over millions of years. Trace it back and where does it lead you. That single celled organism had to come from somewhere. This earth had to come from somewhere. The stars had to come from somewhere. The sun had to come from somewhere. Call it evolution or origins, whatever you want, but it is in the science text books and no one wants to talk much about it they just want to assume it all happened.OK, so the first single celled organism "had to come from somewhere." But if you are going to use that argument, you are going to have to accept that God had to come from somewhere as well. What makes you think that a supreme being spontaneously arising is any more likely than a (presumably much simpler) single celled organism developing from even simpler systems?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by CodeComplete
Nick,

Which bible do you consider to be error free, King James Bible, Good News Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, Geneva Version etc. etc. and in which language should the correct version be read for the the true word of God as I doubt Jesus spoke English? If the people who put these together were filled with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit has a bad memory...


--The original text is inspired (Hebrew OT, Greek NT). I have about every translation out there. Most are good, I prefer the KJV and NKJV. NIV for example has ommitted verses as do many other more recent translations. They came from a different manuscript than the manuscript the KJV came from. I am not one of those KJV or nothing people, I just simply prefer it.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
OK, so the first single celled organism "had to come from somewhere." But if you are going to use that argument, you are going to have to accept that God had to come from somewhere as well. What makes you think that a supreme being spontaneously arising is any more likely than a (presumably much simpler) single celled organism developing from even simpler systems?


Isaiah 44:6 (KJV)
Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Rev. 1:8 (KJV)
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

God has always been. A god that has to be created is not worth worship, he is not a god. Not a problem for creationist, that is your problem.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Looks like it died in hereIn that case, it's disappointing that you didn't find time to answer a point I raised earlier. You claim that not every species was taken on the ark:Originally posted by Nick Harman
You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case. You have also claimed (by implication) that one species never arises from another.Originally posted by Nick Harman
Has a horse, a dog, a cat, a crocodile, whatever animal you want to pick given rise to another animal. (not a variation, but an observable change to another kind of animal) If this is the case, how could all the currently existing species arise from a limited number of "kinds" taken on the ark?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
God has always been.So why couldn't the single celled organism have "always been?" Why do you have to make up special rules to make God plausible?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
So why couldn't the single celled organism have "always been?" Why do you have to make up special rules to make God plausible?

--you have more problems than that. you still have to get the earth here, the stars here, the sun here. then you have to go from that single cell to today. How did you get all that information required for evolution when all we observe are losses of information.
--additionally we have a logical position of trusting in the word of the Creator. You have a position based solely on the fact that you do not want there to be a God, not because the evidence leads you there.

In Christ,
Nick

[Spektator]

Something I've always wondered about:

The Great Pyramid shows no evidence at all of ever having been submerged. Therefore, it must be of post-Flood construction.

But it is so old that it must have been constructed within a few hundred years, at most, of the Flood.

Even at optimum, Noah's descendants must have numbered in the low thousands by that time. They were spread out over the world. Maybe a couple of hundred lived in Egypt.

How was that pyramid built by so few people?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
So why couldn't the single celled organism have "always been?" Why do you have to make up special rules to make God plausible?

--I don't make the rules, God does.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--I don't make the rules, God does.

But you can add to the what the Bible says, isn't that the same?

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
---additionally we have a logical position of trusting in the word of the Creator.

Oh yes - now that really is funny. Trusting the word of an unproven entity is a logical standpoint, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[BYou have a position based solely on the fact that you do not want there to be a God, not because the evidence leads you there.[/B]
Nick, that is a lie.
The evidence actually leads us to the conclusions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a reality, and that the flood story is just a story not meant to be taken literally.

If you wish to believe that God created a world in six days that merely appears in every way to be billions of years old then you are entitled to believe that.
But please don't lie and tell us the evidence doesn't indicate that the earth is really very old. This has been demonstrated to you in many different ways during the course of this thread with links, evidence and explanations.

And why, exactly, would someone not want there to be a God? How do you come to that conclusion? Or is it yet another example of something you have been told and just believe without thinking about it?

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--additionally we have a logical position of trusting in the word of the Creator. You have a position based solely on the fact that you do not want there to be a God, not because the evidence leads you there.

Nick

Did the pope (may he rest in peace) believe in God? He believed in evolution, and he did not believe in taking the story of Noah and the flood literally. Many Christians believe in God, but do not think that facts have to be ignored in order to sustain the belief in their god.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--you have more problems than that. you still have to get the earth here, the stars here, the sun here.

Physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and geology will provide you the answers.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--then you have to go from that single cell to today.

Paleontology, biology and biochemistry will provide you the answers.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
How did you get all that information required for evolution when all we observe are losses of information.

"All we observe are losses of information"? Absolutely not. The only losses of information are in the minds of creationists.

Whoever told you this is at least an ignorant when it comes to science (this is the least worse of the interpretations).

We have a lot of information, from various fields, from independent sources, following rigid sets of criteria. And what creationists have to support their YE claims? Twisted interpretations and a gigantic ammount of data hidden under the rug and skeletons in the closet.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--additionally we have a logical position of trusting in the word of the Creator. You have a position based solely on the fact that you do not want there to be a God, not because the evidence leads you there.


Misinterpretation and prejudice again. All we require to accept that something exists is evidence. The evidence leads us to think that there was no deluge and YE ideas are faulty.

The key here are the differences between "believing" and "thinking".

BTW, will you be able to provide any evidence for your YE claims other than passages of the Bible? Are you able to show evidence, other than passages of the Bible, against at least one of the problems with the deluge myth?

If not, at least in one thing I will agree with you: this thread is dead.

As for what we think about god´s existance, this is a derailing, but as it was already written by other posters, most of us here don not think any interpretations of a deity based on the Bible is a valid possibility. And this includes most of those who belive in a deity.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
You have a position based solely on the fact that you do not want there to be a God.

In case you're too lazy to read all of this, I'm calling you a hypocrite and a bad example for your Christian brothers. Since you only seem to read negative/confrontational posts, maybe that will get your attention.

Who would not want a loving, personal God that could solve our problems by prayer? Who would not want the comfort of knowing what is right based on one absolute authority? Who would not want an absolute purpose to our existence? Who would not want to believe that humans are special and that whatever ethnicity/nationality they belong to is the MOST special? Who would not want to be free of the burden of thinking for ourselves? Who would not want to be free from the thought that everything might happen completely in vain? Who would not want to wonder if their actions might be wrong?

But that's the easy way out. That is YOUR way out. We're honest with ourselves. Aside from a book translated many times and the traditions handed down to us from holy people, we have no proof of God and no proof the Christian bible is any more true than the Koran or any other holy book. We also have no proof there is no God. You can't prove or disprove any of these things. If you were honest with yourself, you'd accept your religion on faith like you're supposed to, not physical evidence.

But you are a hypocrite. You're not exhibiting the least of Christian virtues. Your condecending talk, patronizing attitude, and outright arrogant posts are disgusting. Is this the Christian example you're supposed to be demonstrating before the godless heathen? You only take away the tenents of your faith that allow you to feel better than us. Where is your humility? "Blessed are the meek." "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and selfcontrol." "All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." I guess you don't like those verses?

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says." I guess you're going to ignore that one, too?

All of the people in this forum are trying to understand, explain, and help you think for yourself. In return, you imply we have some hidden agenda. Who are you to judge us? Who are you to say our faith is less or wrong? "Judge not..."

I personally appealed to you to offer to show you current evidence of these things, but you're ignoring any positive post. That offer still stands.

But go ahead. By all means. Keep making a hypocrite out of yourself and making your faith look bad. We all know you're saved anyway. You're one of God's chosen! Who cares about manners, compassion, or humility. Even if they are in the damn bible. You can just take the parts you like! Picking and choosing is fun! And it lets you talk down to and belittle the people in this forum. We're just agents of the devil who don't want a god to exist. It's not like Jesus would love us. " God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Oh wait! Maybe he does!

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." Did you miss that verse, too?

For someone who purports the Bible is his ultimate authority, you sure don't seem to take it very seriously. It almost seems like we've read it more closely than you have...

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
But you can add to the what the Bible says, isn't that the same?

--you are correct and many people do. I try not to, but I am sure that I do. Not on the issue of where did God come from.

Nick

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--you are correct and many people do. I try not to, but I am sure that I do. Not on the issue of where did God come from.

Nick
Aaaanyway.

Back to the specific questions we have asked you about creationism?

I shall repeat some of mine:

Where does primitive man using bone and stone tools fit into the bible story? When did they exist, and why?

What part of the construction of the pyramids could not be achieved today (slightly off the topic I realise, but I'm interested)?

How many of each 'type' of animals were taken on the ark? You appear now to be happy that it was more than 2 of each type. (This is now answered) What does this now imply for the size of the ark and feeding the animals on the ark?

What did the animals eat when they disembarked from the ark?

What happened to all the plants? How did they survive?

When Noah and his amazing family were distributing the animals back around the world, what was happening to the animals they weren't distributing? What were they eating and why didn't they eat each other?

I am happy for you to ignore these questions for the moment if you can address the question of
Where did water come from,
and
Where did the water go?

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
Originally posted by Darat
But you can add to the what the Bible says, isn't that the same?
--you are correct and many people do. I try not to, but I am sure that I do. Not on the issue of where did God come from.
Maybe not.
Answer: Does Chapter 7 instructions void Chapter 6? No. He is still taking the 2 of each kind. Saying verse 9 in ch. 7 is an error is faulty because you are arguing error by ommission. Because in this particular part of the text it doesn't restate the 7 pairs doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same charge is made in regards to it not stating what clean is at this point in the scripture. I have no problem with that. God told Noah but it isn't in the text. Error by ommission does not prove error. Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here. Any one can read this text and know that God wanted 2 of every kind of animal and 7 of every clean animal, and 7 of fowls.
Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Where did the water come from?

Where did the water go?

Ossai

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--you are correct and many people do. I try not to, but I am sure that I do. Not on the issue of where did God come from.

Nick

Apparently you read this forum like you read the bible: only paying attention to the parts you like.

I'd love for you to prove me wrong and start practicing what you preach instead of being an arrogant, rude hypocrite.

"All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.""

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
--you have more problems than that. you still have to get the earth here, the stars here, the sun here. then you have to go from that single cell to today. How did you get all that information required for evolution when all we observe are losses of information. This, again, is a lie you're repeating without checking to see whether it's true. Of course, like all YEC arguments, it is false.

Amusingly, you say "all we observe are losses of information". May I ask what you've been observing?

So where did you get your ideas from?

From a researcher in bioinformatics, such as delphi_ote?

From a science textbook?

No, from a fundie tract.--additionally we have a logical position of trusting in the word of the Creator. You have a position based solely on the fact that you do not want there to be a God, not because the evidence leads you there. Again, this is a lie you have been taught mindlessly to repeat. It is also an offensive lie. It is also a very stupid lie, because obviously you cannot convince me that I feel what I don't feel and think what I don't think. But it is what you've been taught to believe.

It is utterly false.

Instead of repeating lies to me about what I think, why don't you ask me what I think?

Instead of repeating lies about science, why don't you read some textbooks?

Why can't you be bothered to tell the truth?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Instead of repeating lies to me about what I think, why don't you ask me what I think?

As usual, Dr. A, you nail the problem right on the head. That is exactly why I am so digusted by Nick's attitude. We've all been perfectly willing to listen to what he thinks, to educate him on things of which he is ignorant, and think of clever arguments for an interesting discussion. However the "Christian" comes to our board to insult us while offering nothing productive in return. They're not even clever insults. They're the literary equivalent of being bumped into by a clumsy drunk.

Psychology needs a new term: "chosen person syndrome."

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
How did you get all that information required for evolution when all we observe are losses of information.For a comprehensive rebuttal of this "argument," see Richard Dawkins's book, A Devil's Chaplain, chapter 2.3, The 'Information Challenge'.

[Mojo]

By the way, you still haven't bothered to try to answer one of my questions. If, as you claim, not every species was taken onto the ark: Originally posted by Nick Harman
You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.(you have said that "kinds" were taken), how have all the species currently existing arisen from those "kinds," seeing as you have also claimed by implication that one species cannot arise from another?Originally posted by Nick Harman
Has a horse, a dog, a cat, a crocodile, whatever animal you want to pick given rise to another animal. (not a variation, but an observable change to another kind of animal)

[Aussie Thinker]

Nick,

You claim to be a Christian so I assume you follow the 10 Commandments.

Try this one…

Commandment # IX: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.'

I think it is one YEC proponents strike from their list.

Or I guess they must just completely twist the meaning of “false witness� and “neighbour� to allow the blatant prevarication, obfuscation, misdirection and outright lies they go through in support of their corrupt world view.

The sad thing is Nick you will, like all other YEC’s who enter this realm, RUN away like a scared rabbit. Why.. because unless you have a pea for a brain our arguments will make perfect sense and your ridiculous biblical literalist notions will start to crumble… when they do you will hightail it.. fingers in ears.. yelling yayaya.. don’t corrupt my fantasy with your devilish truths !

Hmmm.. already gone has he ?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Hmmm.. already gone has he ?

Sadly, I think you are correct. We'll never get an apology for his rude behavior.

[Dr Adequate]

Nick did come onto the forums for a while last night, but left without posting.

I always hope that the long silence we're hearing now is the sound that a fundie makes while reading a science textbook.

[Nick Harman]

Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Answer: We will have to agree to disagree as in most cases. He still took 2 of every kind, but of the clean animals he took 7 pairs. I see where your coming from, but the further instructions in Ch. 7 did not void ch. 6. If God turned around and said but only 1 of each for the clean animals I would be more likely to question this.

In Christ,
Nick



Ossai [/B][/QUOTE]

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Nick did come onto the forums for a while last night, but left without posting.

I always hope that the long silence we're hearing now is the sound that a fundie makes while reading a science textbook.
Dr A wins my Optimism Award of the Day
attachment.php?s=&postid=1870829354

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Answer: We will have to agree to disagree as in most cases. He still took 2 of every kind, but of the clean animals he took 7 pairs. I see where your coming from, but the further instructions in Ch. 7 did not void ch. 6. If God turned around and said but only 1 of each for the clean animals I would be more likely to question this.

And all the many other questions we have been asking about... ?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Answer: We will have to agree to disagree as in most cases. He still took 2 of every kind, but of the clean animals he took 7 pairs. I see where your coming from, but the further instructions in Ch. 7 did not void ch. 6. If God turned around and said but only 1 of each for the clean animals I would be more likely to question this.

In Christ,
Nick


But you are missing a very important verse, the Bible actually says:

"9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah""

This is not a matter of the Bible saying that God originally said "2 of each" then he later on changed his mind and said "make that 2 of each unclean but 7 of each of clean and fowl".

What the Bible clearly states that is even though God had said “7 of each of clean and fowl� only 2 went into the arc:

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"

Only by adding details not in the Bible can you reconcile this. And if the Bible can only be made sense of by adding details….

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Ashles
Nick, that is a lie.
Nick: Take it easy, that statement does not make me a liar, it is not an attack on anyone, it is my belief, and one that used to be a reality to me. I used to be in denial of the Creator because the reality of the Creator means there is a judge and a judgement, and I like many do not want to face that reality.

The evidence actually leads us to the conclusions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a reality, and that the flood story is just a story not meant to be taken literally.
Nick: I said the evidence leads you to God, not age of earth or evolution (although I believe that also). Design testifies of a designer. No observed process will ever show non-living material creating life naturally. Those realities are strong evidence for a creator. The details are debatable, but the facts of life arriving naturally are in my opinion and the nation's opinion overwhelming. A poll I recently saw showed 4% of country believed in purely naturalistic explanation of origin of life. Many of the believers believe God used evolution.

If you wish to believe that God created a world in six days that merely appears in every way to be billions of years old then you are entitled to believe that.
But please don't lie and tell us the evidence doesn't indicate that the earth is really very old. This has been demonstrated to you in many different ways during the course of this thread with links, evidence and explanations.
Nick: We need to define the term lie. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood - per dictionary. Lying is not disagreeing. Call ignorant or stupid or dumb, but I am telling you what I sincerely believe and not to deceive. My purpose for coming into this forum was to offer up some alternative views. Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant, and read that I need to appologize. Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else. The job comment was not meant to be rude, but sarcastic. Lying is the German anthropologist, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, being forced into retirement form the university of Frankfurt for falsifying the dates of human remains, (per UK Telegraph via AiG.)

And why, exactly, would someone not want there to be a God? How do you come to that conclusion? Or is it yet another example of something you have been told and just believe without thinking about it?
Nick: I would love to answer this question and I will later.

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
Unlike you Darat actually bothered to read the full verse and put it in context. (BTW, if you had bothered to go back and check out page 3 like I suggested, you would have seen the verses in more context there)

Where did the water come from?

Where did the water go?


Ossai

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darat
[B]But you are missing a very important verse, the Bible actually says:

"9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah""

This is not a matter of the Bible saying that God originally said "2 of each" then he later on changed his mind and said "make that 2 of each unclean but 7 of each of clean and fowl".

What the Bible clearly states that is even though God had said “7 of each of clean and fowl� only 2 went into the arc:

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"

Only by adding details not in the Bible can you reconcile this.
Nick: I do not deny this statement for a second. My point is that it is an argument of silence. This particular scripture does not break it down into clean and unclean. Could it be error, yes. Does it prove error, that it didn't happen they way the scripture says. NO. My logic is that the bible is infallible to I chose my interpretation over yours and both could possibly be correct but only 1 is.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
He still took 2 of every kindNick, what exactly do you mean by "kind?" it is apparent that you don't mean "species," as you earlier said:You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.Presumably "kind" is a broader term than species, as it was possible to take "2 of every kind" without taking every species, but what exactly does it mean?

[farmermike]

Nick Nick Nick
Rudeness comes in many different forms,one of them being not listening(thoroughly reading posts and links)pertaining to science your attempting to "refute".Using faith alone to justify your belief in the impossibe being possible is something I can respect although not agree with.OTOH using bad science,illogic and general nonsense to back up a belief cannot be respected.Good grief,this is a critical thinking forum what did you expect?I hope it wasn't that we'd all fall out of our chairs prostrate before the lord after finally getting wind of the truth.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick, that is a lie.
Nick: Take it easy, that statement does not make me a liar, it is not an attack on anyone, it is my belief, and one that used to be a reality to me. I used to be in denial of the Creator because the reality of the Creator means there is a judge and a judgement, and I like many do not want to face that reality.
Nick the evidence has lead me exactly where I have explained it leads me to, and I have backed up my explanations, so you either understand what I am saying and thus are lying, or you are not very bright, or you refuse to listen to the opinions of others.
Lying is really the most charitable of the three options.
If there were a judgement I would have no problems facing it - some people have the ability to lead moral lives without need of an instruction book.

The evidence actually leads us to the conclusions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a reality, and that the flood story is just a story not meant to be taken literally.
Nick: I said the evidence leads you to God, not age of earth or evolution (although I believe that also). Design testifies of a designer. No observed process will ever show non-living material creating life naturally.
If you can't be bothered to read the links we provide and the information available then there's not much hope for you. Shutting your eyes and covering your ears singing "I can't hear you lalala" doesn't change the facts.
So your last statement there is a lie if you have read the information I provided. And if you haven't read it then you are continuing to argue from a position of deliberate ignorance. Why would you want to do such a thing?

Those realities are strong evidence for a creator. The details are debatable, but the facts of life arriving naturally are in my opinion and the nation's opinion overwhelming. A poll I recently saw showed 4% of country believed in purely naturalistic explanation of origin of life. Many of the believers believe God used evolution.
The opinion of the majority is irrelevant to whether something is true. Most people believed the sun went round the Earth for thousands of years. Guess what? They were all wrong.
Most people are not very scientifically educated - this appears to be sadly even more true in America than most western countries.

If you wish to believe that God created a world in six days that merely appears in every way to be billions of years old then you are entitled to believe that.
But please don't lie and tell us the evidence doesn't indicate that the earth is really very old. This has been demonstrated to you in many different ways during the course of this thread with links, evidence and explanations.
Nick: We need to define the term lie. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood - per dictionary. Lying is not disagreeing. Call ignorant or stupid or dumb, but I am telling you what I sincerely believe and not to deceive. My purpose for coming into this forum was to offer up some alternative views. Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant, and read that I need to appologize. Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else. The job comment was not meant to be rude, but sarcastic. Lying is the German anthropologist, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, being forced into retirement form the university of Frankfurt for falsifying the dates of human remains, (per UK Telegraph via AiG.)
A time when a scientist is incorrect, or fraudulent does not somehow invalidate all other research into a subject.
Would a list of creationists who have come to accept evolution prove to you that evolution is real? Of course not. So what a single scientist does is irreleveant to other research that is still well carried out.

And we have explained several issues to you which you are refusing to listen to. So as I said above you are either not very bright, deliberately ignoring factual information, or lying.

If you read the information we provided you would understand why creationism is considered so implausible. If you subsequently choose to believe in it anyway then at least have the honesty to admit that you are doing so in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman

...snip...

Nick: I do not deny this statement for a second. My point is that it is an argument of silence. This particular scripture does not break it down into clean and unclean. Could it be error, yes. Does it prove error, that it didn't happen they way the scripture says. NO. My logic is that the bible is infallible to I chose my interpretation over yours and both could possibly be correct but only 1 is.

So you accept you do not know how many of each "kind" Noah took into the arc?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I used to be in denial of the Creator because the reality of the Creator means there is a judge and a judgement. I'm happy to take your word for it that that's how you feel and how you thought.

It's not in the least what I think.

For one thing, it's a stupid way to think. Not liking some idea is no reason whatsoever to think it untrue.

For another thing --- why would anyone dislike the idea? The Christian faith involves salvation for believers. Why should anyone be afraid --- why should you be afraid --- of the notion that God will judge you, find you saved by your faith in him and justified by Jesus, and take you to live with him in heaven for all eternity? That is not in the least a scary thought. The idea that when you're dead, you're dead, is much more scary. But different people are scared of different things. To speak for myself, I'm more frightened of death than I am of eternal bliss. But perhaps that's just me. I'm at a loss to see why you should actually dislike the idea which for the last two thousand years has been called, in one language or another, "The Good News".

Now, do you have anything more to say in favour of YEC or against science? Or have you shot your bolt?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
My purpose for coming into this forum was to offer up some alternative views. Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant, and read that I need to appologize. Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else.
Let me just address this. Since coming here you have said:


The flood seems so foreign to you because you reject the word of the God who created and will judge you.

It is interesting to hear intellectuals scoff at a creationist

That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence.
(patronising insult, and factually incorrect statement)

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family
(to be fair Nick apologised for this one)

I do not need a non believer to tell me what the bible says, I realize the bible says more than that, just did't take the time. Later today I will directly quote it to you and it will not change my answer, you are straining gnats.

Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here.
Okay, not the strongest insults we have ever seen, but I think they are why some acusations may have been made towards you.

Also looking back over the thread there appear to be several questions now that you have promised to 'come back to' or answer in your next post and haven't.
Does this mean you can't answer them?
If you can then could you go back and answer those first before getting onto to the next ones.

For example MRC Hans' question about whether Noah took parasites, bacteia and vira.
Or Dr Adequate's question about taking animals to Australia (and of course everyone then subsequently forgetting that Australia or America exist).
Or his question about Galileo
Or my question about why would anyone not want there to be a God
Or my question about stone age man and his tools
Or Ossai's question about where the water came from and went to.

They're mounting up now.

Finally, as a side issue, just in case you still refuse to click on any links about abiogenesis here is some information that I have cut and pasted so you don't even have to follow a link about it:
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)
There, now the next time someone tells you that life couldn't start from non-life you can correct them.

But as it says, that is all irrelevant to how evolution works.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ashles
Okay, not the strongest insults we have ever seen, but I think they are why some acusations may have been made towards you.

The most insulting thing he's said is that none of us want there to be a God. He's told us what he believes AND told us what we believe. When I pointed out how rude that was, he didn't even bother to reply.

"Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant..."

Don't forget hypocrite and un-Christian!

"Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else."

You've been a rude and arrogant hypocrite. You're not listening to us, but still judging and condemning us. You can't walk into a group of people, wrong them, and then compare the number of accusations they make about you to the number of accusations you've made about them. You are in the wrong and that's why these accusations have been made. Instead of being a man and admitting fault, you're compounding it with this childish persecution act.

Now I can add to my list: you are an unrepentant rude and arrogant hypocrite.

[Dr Adequate]

Nick, here's another question for you to think about.

Scientists, who study science and nature, overwhelmingly endorse evolution, whatever their religious faith. Doesn't this worry you? As you'll have seen by now, the fundie tracts you quote are full of childish mistakes about science and nature. Doesn't this worry you?

If there was anything to be said for YEC, why would their pamphlets be filled with such crass errors? If they were sincere and conscientious, wouldn't they try to get rid of these errors --- which are easy to check --- instead of perpetuating them? I'll repeat my plea. As you cannot rely on these people for the simplest piece of scientific information, you yourself must learn to be conscientious. You must check your facts.

As it is, we are not looking at the same evidence. I look in a book on paeleontology to find out if there are intermediate forms. You look in a fundie tract. I look in a book on biology to find out if "all we ever observe is loss of information". You look in a fundie tract. I look in a book on archeology to find out how the pyramids were built. You look... where? Another fundie tract, maybe? I look in a book on geology to find out if there is evidence of a global flood. You look in a fundie tract. I read Darwin to find out what the theory of evolution is all about, and discover that it's all about inheritance, random variation, and natural selection. You read a fundie tract, and find out that it was "all about life from non-life". (I think Darwin gets to say what his own theory is.) I read Stephen Jay Gould's books to find out what he thought about intermediate forms. You read a fundie tract. (Again, I think Stephen Jay Gould has the last word on what his opinion is.)

I look at the scientific evidence. You look at propaganda stuffed with falsehood and written by non-scientists who have done no research themselves except to look at other fundie tracts. You and I --- and scientists and fundies generally --- are not looking at the same evidence. Scientists are looking at the evidence. Fundies are looking at books written by other fundies, which is not "the same evidence", nor, indeed, "evidence".

You say it is "interesting" to see "intellectuals" (by which, judging by the context, you mean peeople who know more about science than you do) scoffing at YEC. It is indeed interesting. It's so interesting, you might start wondering why. Why, Nick? Why do the people with knowledge of science and nature, of whatever religious faith, so overwhelmingly endorse evolution, and why are the YECs so pitifully ignorant of science and nature --- and so unconcerned with accuracy --- that their tracts are riddled with ridiculous falsehoods? Think it over.

[Correa Neto]

Slightly OT questions:

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but YEC and fundies belive the Bible holds the truth, that all parts of it are true and holy.

Is the above correct? If so, please keep on reading. If not, sorry for the ignorance and please ignore the following.

Do YEC and fundies follow everything that the Bible commands?

Dietary restrictions (how to prepare the food included), how to wear, ritual baths, questions regarding the purity of people, sacrifices, etc. Do they follow them?

If not, why?

[Dr Adequate]

C.N: try reading the Acts of the Apostles.

The New Testament does away with a lot of the Old Testament taboos. Christianity is founded, in part, on the idea that we can't take a literal intepretation of the O.T. as a moral guide. The question we're asking here is whether we can still use a literal interpretation of the O.T. as a science textbook.

You and Nick both are raising questions that don't really belong in this debate.

Let's talk about science versus YEC!

[Correa Neto]

Sorry, but I don´t think so (using tortuous logic).

See, is there any part of the NT that states the Genesis story is still valid? Are there parts of the OT taken as obsolete by Christians but not stated as obsolete in the NT? If not, then YEC are babbling over something that their own sacred text has deemed obsolete. So, the whole debate is futile, for the word is with science, since the Bible would have nothing to say about it. Do fundies acknoweledge the the way the NT was pasted?

I could continue digressing over what sort of omni-everything deity would need to correct its own rules, but that would be OT.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You and Nick both are raising questions that don't really belong in this debate.

Let's talk about science versus YEC!

I think these questions do belong here. If the NT declares null and void the OT, how can you then turn around and use the OT as your inerrant, word-of-God account of history?

Nick,
I've been as nice as humanly possible, and you STILL continue to ignore and evade the very politely posed questions that I and other posters have asked you. I even tried to keep the debate on topic by suggesting that we stick to one question. If you somehow think the debate on the question Where did the water come from? Where did it go? has been settled, you are mistaken. Please stop ignoring us and engage in an actual debate. And don't use the excuse that you have no time. I specifically suggested the above "stick to one topic" rule because we all have other things to be doing besides posting here. If we can take the time to read and think about your posts, you at least owe us the same courtesy. In other words, respond to our questions, and also please please please learn to use the quote function.

Here's a basic tutorial. When you want to pull out a specific section as a quote, you use the quote tag, which is the word "quote" in square brackets. When you want the quote to end, you use the end quote tag, which is this slash here "/" followed by the word "quote," all in square brackets. Dig? Thanks.

[Synapse Fire]

Originally posted by Throg
You have missed the true subtlety and horror of the fundamentalist position: God is deceitful and he is to be trusted.

Or if there was extinction then God makes mistakes.

[Nick Harman]

Nick,


[i]Where did the water come from?
[/B][/QUOTE] I have answered this before. Per the bible, Gen. 7:11, the water came from inside the earth and from above. Why do I believe this? #1 cuz the bible told me so as the song says. #2 I believe the evidence does support this idea. Billions of dead things buried. Polystrate fossils (trees upside down), Fossils in general, it seems unlikely to me to have as many as we do if it wasn't a ww flood. For more information go to q & a flood on AiG. I do not believe it can be proven as I have already mentioned since this was a one and only event so we can make predictions but can not no for sure the effects and all the events of the fountains of deep breaking up and windows of heaven opening.

Where did it go?

It is still here. If the surface of the earth was flattened out, there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. The mountains were formed as the flood waters rushed off at the end of the flood. Psalm 104 gives the idea of the valleys sinking and the mountains raising up.
5You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.
That is my answer to those 2 questions. Didn't ever say that settled anything, but that is my answer. More detail can be found on AiG q & a.

I will probably not be back in here until Monday. Have a good weekend.

In Christ,
Nick Harman

[Correa Neto]

I don´t think anything was answered in the above, again.

Same ammount of usual gibberish. YEC "scholars" are uniformed, ignorant and quite probably at least malicious and/or flawed when it comes to treat data.

You´ve been told here, by people who actually work with such issues that none of the presented ideas are viable. Neither your line "I do not believe it can be proven as I have already mentioned since this was a one and only event so we can make predictions but can not no for sure the effects and all the events of the fountains of deep breaking up and windows of heaven opening." works.

We can be sure of the effects. We can search for them. They were searched for. None were found.

Therefore, the fountains of deep never broke up and the windows of heaven never opened.

Please get some information that is not from the ultra-biased YEC sites and think about it.

edited for spelling

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
#2 I believe the evidence does support this idea. Billions of dead things buried. Is this in fact what we see after a flood? Also, 90% of fossils are marine life. Did they all drown?Polystrate fossils (trees upside down)You do not explain how fossil evidence for mudslides is evidence for the Flood. Fossils in general, it seems unlikely to me to have as many as we do if it wasn't a ww flood. Really? It seems unlikely to you? You interest me.

Nick, without looking it up, how many fossils are there?

I bet you don't know. I don't know, either.

So why do you find the number of fossils "unlikely" if you don't know how many there are?

If we did know the number of fossils, do you have any geological expertise that would lead you to think that this number, whatever it is, either proves a global flood or is impossible given billions of years of geological activity?

No.

So what are you basing this pronouncement on. You've wandered off from Made-Up Facts, and gotten into Unsubstantiated Arguments. It's not an improvement.

How many times do I have to say this? You're not getting your geology from people who study rocks. You're getting it from fundie tracts. You refer us to AiG, for pity's sake. You have seen how ignorant and wrong these people can be. Yet you still parrot their arguments without any thought on your part. If you do this again, I shall have to think you personally dishonest. You know now that they cannot be relied on. Let me make myself plain. If you wish to say, "I read in some fundie tract (insert stupid pseudoscience here)", that's fine, we'lll knock the nonsense down. If you just go about saying "This (insert stupid pseudoscience here) is true" --- when you know perfectly well by now that the people you're parroting are fools at best and liars at worst --- then you are dishonest: you know by now that the odds are that you are repeating a falsehood.It is still here. If the surface of the earth was flattened out, there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. The mountains were formed as the flood waters rushed off at the end of the flood. A couple of things here. Mountains are great huge rocks miles high. How can they be formed by "flood waters rushing off"? Does this usually happen after floods?

The other thing is, Genesis says that the floodwaters covered the highest mountains. So if Genesis is right, there were mountains before the Flood.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Psalm 104 : 5 You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever... You yourself agreed that this bit of the Bible should not be taken literally, on account of this line.

By the way, you never came back to us on this --- if this can be taken as a metaphor, why not the first few books of Genesis?

[H3LL]

</p>


</p>


</p>









</p>


</p>

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
If the surface of the earth was flattened out, there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. The mountains were formed as the flood waters rushed off at the end of the flood.

Bah, I must be transparent. Uh, well, maybe its the sig... :roll:

Back on track, that is an utterly stupid argument. Have your wise creationist experts who came with such a bright idea ever considered the average depth of the oceans? 3500 m. And the average elevation of the continents? 800 m.

Now, try to "flatten out" this surface. Try to consider what you are proposing: As the deluge was going on, Earth´s crust was levelled!!!! Later, as the waters receeded, mountains were carved. But if the crust was levelled, where the waters were receeding to????? Or at a certain point of the deluge the oceanic basins were formed? :cs:

And even if the receeding waters carved the mountains, why can´t I see mountains undergoing major and fast changes in their shape now? Streams flow from them, and during storms, they carry a lot of water. Proporcional changes would be seen. Why receeding waters of the asian tsunami carved no mountains?

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You do not explain how fossil evidence for mudslides is evidence for the Flood.

To be fair, one would expect widespread mudslides deposits as evidence for the flood. Intense rains would soak the soil and create conditions for mudflows. After the waters covered the continents, loose or poorly consolidated materials would collapse again here and there, creating turbidity flows (sort of subaquatic landslide that runs through long distances). Later, when the waters receeded, more subaerial mudslides would happen.

That´s just a part of the sedimentary record the flood would have left all around the world. If someone is interested, I offer myself again to post a more complete description on what it would be (contributions from fellow evil-atheist-geologists will be more than welcome).

But the question is: Is the geological record compatible?

No.

The above shows a couple of things:

(1) We CAN predict what sort of deposits the universal flood would have created, contrary to what you are saying Nick.
(2) There are no sedimentary records of global flood deposits. Preserved mudflow deposits are quite confined and compose a small volume. Whenever you find them, there´s no need to look hard to find a non-flood explanation- they are adjacent to faults, for example. Besides, their vertical distribution along the geological record also do not match.
(3) THERE WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
To be fair, one would expect widespread mudslides deposits as evidence for the flood. Intense rains would soak the soil and create conditions for mudflows. After the waters covered the continents, loose or poorly consolidated materials would collapse again here and there, creating turbidity flows (sort of subaquatic landslide that runs through long distances). Later, when the waters receeded, more subaerial mudslides would happen. True --- but we would also find evidence for mudslides if there had been no global flood, but there had been mudslides. We know there have been mudslides. They don't point particularly to a global flood, any more than deposits of burnt material prove that the Earth was once consumed by fire. You'd need more evidence --- as set out further in your own post.

And, indeed, lots of other people's posts.

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
I have answered this before. Nope, you’ve posted the same thing again and again but have yet to answer the question. Where did the water come from?

Per the bible, Gen. 7:11, the water came from inside the earth and from above. I’ve already told you numerous times to work the math. If you’ve had basic algebra you should be able to work it. Even splitting the source to ½ from the earth and ½ from above (ie the water canopy) you still end up with an uninhabitable mess. “It’s not life as we know it.� – Bones Where did the water come from?

Why do I believe this? #1 cuz the bible told me so as the song says. The bible also says the world is flat and that Pi=3. Do you believe those as well?

#2 I believe the evidence does support this idea. Billions of dead things buried. Polystrate fossils (trees upside down), Fossils in general, it seems unlikely to me to have as many as we do if it wasn't a ww flood. Argument from ignorance again.
I don’t understand it.
Therefore god exists.

Sorry your idiocy has already been pointed out by others for those.

For more information go to q & a flood on AiG. I do not believe it can be proven as I have already mentioned since this was a one and only event so we can make predictions but can not no for sure the effects and all the events of the fountains of deep breaking up and windows of heaven opening. So you do believe the earth is flat and that stars are nothing more than bright lights hung from the canopy over the earth.

Where did it go? Sorry but the mountains were referenced before the flood.

Ossai