As a Christian, I believe God created this universe, BUT, Science still must not be ignored. This pseudo-mueseum ignores the scientific evidence of our Earth's 4.5 billn. y,o. age. (Pseudo-Science) Yes, God did create everything, but not in 6 literal days. The "days" described in Genesis are figurative. Want more info on OLD-EARTH creationism? Google "Answers in Creation" (Not to be confused with the pseudo science of "Answers in Genesis"!)
@Domodeath I think you just can't comprehend that this Earth is really old.
You want to keep things relevant. You're kicking a dead horse.
And besides, whenever I join that skeptics society my school's forming next year, I'm gonna organize a trip up here. Coach buses, paid meals at the Ryan's, and everything.
@eleminatus Well, over the last three months I've had changes in three of my beliefs, I no longer believe the Earth or the land is only 6 0 0 0 years old.
Were any of you there when the universe was created? I didn't think so. God was there and he recorded it in Genesis 1:1. It's not rocket science. People who believe in evolution just don't want to be accountable to a holy God for their sin. As long as you're still breathing, it's not too late to be eternally forgiven!
@estesreporter ''he recorded it in Genesis'' WHAT? The bible was written by men. And most ''evolutionists' accept God, stop lying or you will go to hell.
@estesreporter seriously? "Were any of you there" is your argument? Fantastic ignorance. Cant stand when people get on a high horse when dont even know the basics of science.
@BalmungSama0 Creation is science in that it explains God's hand print upon the world He created. It doesn't explain *how* He works, but that He did it. How God created Adam from dust, we don't know, but that God created Adam, and about 6K years ago at that, we do know.
@goodguy30k1 No, it is not science. Every scientific observation contradicts Creation and the Flood.
I'm agnostic. God may be real. But if He is, he did not mean for creation to be interpreted as these people use it. Kings says God is seen in nature. That means He wouldn't lie by making nature contradict creation.
@BalmungSama0 It is interesting that you make the statement that "every scientific observation contradicts Creation and the Flood." If this statement is true, then Evolution is contradicted as well, as it uses concepts also known and accepted to Creation. Unless, of course, you are inferring that only macro-evolution exists?
@goodguy30k1 O_O Wow. You know Carbon dating isn't a reliable method for anything older than 10,000 years due to its short half-life, right? And can you cite a source for this? We can trace TREE rings back over 10,000 years. Ar-K dating takes us back from 10,000 to over 3 billion years ago.
@goodguy30k1 Wait a minute. AIG is the only source for this? SEriously? The evolution conspiracy is so powerful that it prevents all except AIG from having this info?
Searching Carbon dating on the site gives me 327 results. Can you please narrow it down for me? I don't feel like reading 100s of articles to find the one you mentioned.
@goodguy30k1 The article has already made a crutial mistake. The cited the estimate of Dr. Libby, and stated since the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, it must be younger than the 30,000 yrs Libby estimated it would take to reach equilibrium. Those calculations were done before the carbon cycle was properly understood. We now know they do not apply. This was 50 years ago. AIG has no excuse.
We use corrective methds to calibrate c14/c12 now.
@goodguy30k1 Those calibration techniques also discredit their claims on the Earth's magnetic feild, as they take into account the variation.
they use the assumption that for fossil fuels to be possible, there must've been 500 times more life before the flood, and this would increase carbon production. Problem 1) tehy assume they're right to prove they're right 2) 500x more life? Where are you gonna put all of that extra biomass?
@goodguy30k1 In response to the coal being dated at only 50,000 years old:
Sulfur bacteria, which grow on coal, can add more carbon to the sample, and secondary carbonates from ground water can also contaminate it.
Strangely enough, no claim in the article mentioned the earth's crust being 30K years old; probably because even these guys aren't stupid enough to use c14 dating on rock.
2) Based off your comment, you imply that you have not visited the Creation Museum yet. The museum presents many scientific arguments for the flood, genealogy, micro-evolution, etc., and is well worth checking out.
@goodguy30k1 I've read many ANswers in genesis articles on all those topics. I can disprove almost every one by memory, and disprove the rest with a few minutes of research a peice.
Name a few in the comments on in a private message. I can disprove them.
Creation is not science. It is an absence of science.
@BalmungSama0 The only reason I accept Creation is because it is understandable, logical, and scientifically-accurate. I am interested on listening to your view and argument against Creation.
@goodguy30k1 I have posted many comments agianst creation so far. You've reponded to one.
On, and btw, I was mistaken. Ancient Egypt actually established itself 3150 BC. That's actually over 5000 years ago. As I recall, the flood was about 4,400 years ago. Very interesting that this civilization managed to continue, despite being erraticated by the Flood.
Oh, and flood sorting of the fossils makes no sense by any method other than chrnological sorting.
@BalmungSama0 If you've noticed, you've made several spelling mistakes and have not correctly cited all of your references. This is not a race against time--you may wish to review your comments before you post them. I myself am busy juggling several different projects, and am therefore not necessarily able to read and comment on your posts as fast as you can post them.
@goodguy30k1 Spelling mistakes. ....Are you seriously criticizing my arguments based on typos? Select a specific argument and I'll cite it. I don't want to spam the comment section will seemingly disjointed references.
@BalmungSama0 I am not criticizing your arguments based on spelling, but on how your arguments are presented and readable. I am surprised that you criticize me for not responding as quickly (momentarily) as you would like, yet you are offended that I would suggest you simply re-read your comment for errors before posting?
@goodguy30k1 No, museums also present historical arguments. These guys fail in that aspect as well. For example, just a few hundred years after their great flood that reduced the worl'd population to 8 people, we were given the Egyptian empire (along with all the scientific advancements the Egyptians gave us that would've taken centuries and a vast population to develop), the Greeks, the Hebrews, and many other civilizations all throughout the world.
@BalmungSama0 Historically, people had many children, and abortions were few. The Egyptian empire came along a couple thousand years after the flood. This allows for a translation of population.
@goodguy30k1 Many children. Yes, with 6 children a peice, that still isn't enough. And with the world flooded and devoid of resources, infant mortality had to be much higher than usual.
Ancient Egypt started about 3150 years ago. Only 1000 years after the Flood. You're telling me that in 1000 years, those 8 people reproduced enough to form all of these seperate empires and races, developed scientific advancements that would've taken centuries, and spread across the world?
@BalmungSama0 This is actually quite humorous, as I have 7 siblings of my own--and we are not exactly a "large" family.
Keep in mind that Noah and his family did not leave the ark until after the flood waters had receded considerably, and the ark was already stocked well with food and supplies, as well as seed.
According to archeologists, the earliest known evidences of the Egyptians' existence is around 4,000 B.C.
@goodguy30k1 My father has 12. That's not typical. And yes, that is a large family. the hebrews liked large families, but with food so scarce, they can hardly support 7.
Yes, food that had to be eaten by the incredible zoo on boar and his family over the course of 40 days. Any food they had wouldn't last too long. The animals needed food as well. And crops take time to cultivate. And I coubt they'd grow too well with the earth being over-saturated for a good time after the waters receeded.
@BalmungSama0 You already mentioned how advanced people were thousands of years ago. How would Noah lack this same level of knowledge, to not be able to stock food for a period of months?
The ark was not designed like one of those curved, tipsy, cartoonish arks you may see depicted. It was large enough to house animals and food for them.
As you mentioned earlier, gravity was and is always in effect. Why then would gravity cease to exist during the recession of the flood waters?
@goodguy30k1 4000BC. That is 6000 years ago. That is BEFORE the flood. If the flood were true, there should be no evidence of a civilization from before that period, as everything was destroyed.
And there is evidence of the earliest known civilization existing in what is now Iraq roughly 10,000 years ago, before the universe existed, according to you.
@BalmungSama0 I mentioned the 4,000 B.C. date as an example of evolution-based knowledge. What's interesting about the geographic placement itself is that Egypt and the Rhine are relatively close to each other, and both are considered the "starting" place of life/humans, if you will.
@goodguy30k1 Evolution-based knowledge? How is the historical documentation of ancient Egypt in any way "evolution-based"? Face it, there is a civilization older than the point in time when every civilization was destroyed.
@goodguy30k1 they say the water from teh Great Flood was hidden under a layer of rock. MANY problems with that. Rock doesn't float on water, so its impossible for that to be suported. The water cannot defy gravity and float up. If it did float up through some hole, why didn't it simply flow back down into whatever space it espaced from? Did gravity just not apply during this period? And why isn't the ocean floor in shattered peices of stone when the rock layer collapsed?
they mention the fountains of the deep as oceans beneath the earth. Not possible.
I know water can be beneath the earth. but not that much. The stone would have to be impossibly thick to be able to stay supported over that water. Much thicker than the earth's crust, as it has to span the distance of the oceans. It would collapse.
@BalmungSama0 How is water beneath the Earth's surface impossible? We currently have water beneath the surface today, just not in the amount in existence pre-flood. I could find no "floating rocks" referenced in the article you cited.
@goodguy30k1 The ocean floor is made of large peice of crust, but if the earth collapsed, it would be made of jagged chunks of MANY different layers of crust, and not the large peices we see today. Its not possible. The stone would have to drop to the bottom in almost a single large peice.
@BalmungSama0 The "core" of the ocean floor is in fact one large piece of crust due to its distance from Earth's core. We have the many different layers of rock because of gravity, (which is always in existence), and the rules follow those of the fossils. Even Evolution agrees with this.
@goodguy30k1 Let me simplify this; if the earth's crust is made of broken pieces of rock covering the oceans, we would epect the coean to be far more fragmented and with fewer mountains. And even if this was the case, every other argument I made still holds up.
@goodguy30k1 To get the kind of diversity of life we have now in just a few hundred years after the flood, as tehy propose, coming from mainly just two of each "kind" (still waiting on a definition for that, btw), mutation rates would have to be hundreds of thousands of times higher than today, and selective pressures would have to be hundreds of times higher and more diverse (not possible when the world was flooded to a barren wasteland). All those conditions = death for every animal.
@BalmungSama0 Mutations have never, and do not, change an animal from one kind to another. The word "kind" actually comes from Genesis, and refers to an "order," if you will, of animals. I'm surprised that you do not recognize the word from Genesis, if you have studied the historical account?
@goodguy30k1 Actually, the first person to develop the system of taxonomy, and the first person to label humans as primates, was, in fact, a creationist. He had no secret motives in labelling humans as primates. He simply went with what he saw.
@goodguy30k1 The animals on the flood would also have to be carying many diseases and bacteria, or else we wouldn't have that incredible diversity today. All that bacteria and viruses in such a small population would kill them very quickly. Especially if they were mainly infant animals, as AIG claims.
@BalmungSama0 Diseases and bacteria do adapt over time. Nothing gains information, but only loses it. With the presence of these bacteria and diseases, the animals would have developed an immunity to such enemies, just as Europeans were immune to certain diseases that were life-threatening to the Indians of North America.
@goodguy30k1 Diseases do not adapt that fast. We have millions of diseases for each species. These will not all evolve in 4000 years. Interesting that your reject evolution, and yet to get all this diversity among people and all of these different species, all from on species of each kind in only 4000, your theory requires Super Evolution (like if Superman flew around the world really fast and made evolution flow faster, which is only slightly less scientific than what AIG is actually proposing)
@goodguy30k1 If humans all descended from 2 people, it is biologically impossible for us to be as diverse as we are. And humans aren't very diverse compared to other animals. That means many other animals are even more genetically impossible, thanks to the Flood.
@BalmungSama0 Again, nothing gains information, but only loses it. Adam and Eve started with the most genes. That's why marriage within a family was healthy for many generations, as there was little conflict between genes. There would have been a sufficient amount of genes in Noah's family by the time of the flood recession.
@goodguy30k1 ....Adam and Eve could not have started with the most genes. We Many genes we have now are mutually exclusive. One of each per chromosome. Having all of them could cause genetic deformities. This also makes no sense, as we have dated mitochondrial DNA of humans and have never found any significant increase in genetic variation.
Also, things do gain info. Creationists are the only people who deny this. Scientists have known this for decades.
@goodguy30k1 I'll find that name soon. I was always bad at finding people in my research. I'm beat and I'm gonna take a nap, but I'll get back to you with that name.
@goodguy30k1 radiometric dating of many sorts disprove teh 6K earth. Radiometric dating is also based on the same principles as nuclear power plants. If Radiometric dating didn't work, then nuclaer power shouldn't either.
Radiometric dating has also been confirmed across other methods of radiometric dating, tree rings, and historical records. The few examples AIG comes up with of radiometric dating being wrong are all examples where something that shouldn't be done in dating was done.
@goodguy30k1 One of the better know methods of dating is K-Ar, but Ar-Ar dating is also very reliable and often used to colaborate the results of K-Ar.
@goodguy30k1 I'm on the link you gave me. I'm not finished reading yet, but I found one interesting statement. "When a scientists interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible." These people BEGIN with the conclusion, and look for evidence that fits it. they stated it very clearly.
@goodguy30k1 Their claim that c14 dated wood millions of years old to be a few 10thousand:
Snelling wasn't even sure if it was wood, and it may not have contained any of its original carbon. Dating it was pointless. The sample was also very pourous and could have absorbed a lot of carbon from the environment. And lastly, 30thousand years old is still way older than what you say the earth is. And this article acknoledges c14 is accurate (though I doubt they'l admit the same for other methods).
@answersvideo I've been to the website and read more than a few of your articles. I've seen Ken Ham's lectures. I can disprove almost all of it from memory alone. I wouldn't even call it junk science, but even that implies it has some scientific basis. This stuff is about as legit as comic book physics- only not nearly as awesome.
Evidence isn't speculation, atheists.
GeniusSpark 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
That is some nice animation. A shame it was wasted on the Creation museum.
eldrewto55 1 month ago
what the f?
c1cter 3 months ago
I've been to this "museum." There is no science in it.
1993TRS1 9 months ago
What a bunch of unintelligent, superstitious, evidence ignoring, bunch of fools.
bigmanguydude 9 months ago 3
As a Christian, I believe God created this universe, BUT, Science still must not be ignored. This pseudo-mueseum ignores the scientific evidence of our Earth's 4.5 billn. y,o. age. (Pseudo-Science) Yes, God did create everything, but not in 6 literal days. The "days" described in Genesis are figurative. Want more info on OLD-EARTH creationism? Google "Answers in Creation" (Not to be confused with the pseudo science of "Answers in Genesis"!)
Timbrock1000 1 year ago
@Timbrock1000 Your mistaken, there is scienific evidence that states that the Earth cannot be billions of years old, but only thousands
Domodeath 11 months ago
@Domodeath I think you just can't comprehend that this Earth is really old.
You want to keep things relevant. You're kicking a dead horse.
And besides, whenever I join that skeptics society my school's forming next year, I'm gonna organize a trip up here. Coach buses, paid meals at the Ryan's, and everything.
JohnFordDanceTroupe 10 months ago
@JohnFordDanceTroupe I seek Truth, and just honest Truth. If you are willing to look at the facts please send me a message
Domodeath 10 months ago
@Domodeath well then provide this evidence!
eleminatus 9 months ago
@eleminatus Where is the evidence you're truly a Christian?
Domodeath 9 months ago
@Domodeath im not, thats why Im curious about your facts!
eleminatus 9 months ago
@eleminatus Well, over the last three months I've had changes in three of my beliefs, I no longer believe the Earth or the land is only 6 0 0 0 years old.
Domodeath 9 months ago
Were any of you there when the universe was created? I didn't think so. God was there and he recorded it in Genesis 1:1. It's not rocket science. People who believe in evolution just don't want to be accountable to a holy God for their sin. As long as you're still breathing, it's not too late to be eternally forgiven!
estesreporter 1 year ago
@estesreporter I simply love how the existence of an unprovable being is used to support your false mythology about the creation of the world.
mime454 1 year ago
@estesreporter ''he recorded it in Genesis'' WHAT? The bible was written by men. And most ''evolutionists' accept God, stop lying or you will go to hell.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@estesreporter seriously? "Were any of you there" is your argument? Fantastic ignorance. Cant stand when people get on a high horse when dont even know the basics of science.
eleminatus 9 months ago
I've been to the museum. All of their "evidence" is complete lies.
hab99rry 1 year ago 11
@hab99rry
Good show of super-evolution tho.
Harizl 1 year ago
aaaaahahahaha ahahahahahaha ahahhhhhaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
philateliceun 2 years ago
looks awesome, it would be cool if it aired on television
iToyRobot 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Creation is science in that it explains God's hand print upon the world He created. It doesn't explain *how* He works, but that He did it. How God created Adam from dust, we don't know, but that God created Adam, and about 6K years ago at that, we do know.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 No, it is not science. Every scientific observation contradicts Creation and the Flood.
I'm agnostic. God may be real. But if He is, he did not mean for creation to be interpreted as these people use it. Kings says God is seen in nature. That means He wouldn't lie by making nature contradict creation.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 It is interesting that you make the statement that "every scientific observation contradicts Creation and the Flood." If this statement is true, then Evolution is contradicted as well, as it uses concepts also known and accepted to Creation. Unless, of course, you are inferring that only macro-evolution exists?
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 no, macro-evolution is simply lots of microevolution. The only difference is time.
How exactly is evolution contradicted? Please give me examples.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
Still waiting on examples of how evolution is contradicted by science.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 I apologize, I had to break for lunch but did not feel it was necessary to make a comment for such an activity.
Carbon-14 dating provides us with an approximate 6,000-year age of Earth's crust.
No living being or substantial fossil has been found to provide evidence for macro-evolution.
Life cannot be zapped into minerals.
Fossilized trees extend through several rock layers supposedly millions of years apart.
Fossilization only occurs under flood-like conditions.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 O_O Wow. You know Carbon dating isn't a reliable method for anything older than 10,000 years due to its short half-life, right? And can you cite a source for this? We can trace TREE rings back over 10,000 years. Ar-K dating takes us back from 10,000 to over 3 billion years ago.
Carbon dating is not the only deting method
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0, Carbon dating is, in fact, accurate up to 80,000 years, and is reliable when conducted under controlled conditions.
Carbon-14 is a an unstable element, while Carbon-12 is a stable element. Because of Carbon-12's existence, carbon dating is accurate.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Of, so you are right.
...I know was Carbon 14 is. Explaining that little bit of info did not help you argument.
I cannot find a single source that confirms your claim that c-14 dating dated the earth's crust at 6000years.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 You're only going to find that kind of information on a Creation website, as it provides very strong evidence against Evolution.
Go to AiG's website and search up "Carbon Dating."
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Wait a minute. AIG is the only source for this? SEriously? The evolution conspiracy is so powerful that it prevents all except AIG from having this info?
Searching Carbon dating on the site gives me 327 results. Can you please narrow it down for me? I don't feel like reading 100s of articles to find the one you mentioned.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 It's the first result, "Doesn't Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?"
And why do you call Evolution a conspiracy?
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 The article has already made a crutial mistake. The cited the estimate of Dr. Libby, and stated since the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, it must be younger than the 30,000 yrs Libby estimated it would take to reach equilibrium. Those calculations were done before the carbon cycle was properly understood. We now know they do not apply. This was 50 years ago. AIG has no excuse.
We use corrective methds to calibrate c14/c12 now.
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1(dot)html
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Those calibration techniques also discredit their claims on the Earth's magnetic feild, as they take into account the variation.
they use the assumption that for fossil fuels to be possible, there must've been 500 times more life before the flood, and this would increase carbon production. Problem 1) tehy assume they're right to prove they're right 2) 500x more life? Where are you gonna put all of that extra biomass?
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 In response to the coal being dated at only 50,000 years old:
Sulfur bacteria, which grow on coal, can add more carbon to the sample, and secondary carbonates from ground water can also contaminate it.
Strangely enough, no claim in the article mentioned the earth's crust being 30K years old; probably because even these guys aren't stupid enough to use c14 dating on rock.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
You call evolution a conspiracy by stating all information that contradicts evolution is repressed by the scientific community.
If you manage to disprove evolution, you'll probably win a Nobel prize for uncovering centuries worth of mistaken scientific observations.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
Why is this called a meseum? Don't those things normaly have scientific information in them?
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
1) Museums are not all "science" museums
2) Based off your comment, you imply that you have not visited the Creation Museum yet. The museum presents many scientific arguments for the flood, genealogy, micro-evolution, etc., and is well worth checking out.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 I've read many ANswers in genesis articles on all those topics. I can disprove almost every one by memory, and disprove the rest with a few minutes of research a peice.
Name a few in the comments on in a private message. I can disprove them.
Creation is not science. It is an absence of science.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 The only reason I accept Creation is because it is understandable, logical, and scientifically-accurate. I am interested on listening to your view and argument against Creation.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 I have posted many comments agianst creation so far. You've reponded to one.
On, and btw, I was mistaken. Ancient Egypt actually established itself 3150 BC. That's actually over 5000 years ago. As I recall, the flood was about 4,400 years ago. Very interesting that this civilization managed to continue, despite being erraticated by the Flood.
Oh, and flood sorting of the fossils makes no sense by any method other than chrnological sorting.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 If you've noticed, you've made several spelling mistakes and have not correctly cited all of your references. This is not a race against time--you may wish to review your comments before you post them. I myself am busy juggling several different projects, and am therefore not necessarily able to read and comment on your posts as fast as you can post them.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Spelling mistakes. ....Are you seriously criticizing my arguments based on typos? Select a specific argument and I'll cite it. I don't want to spam the comment section will seemingly disjointed references.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 I am not criticizing your arguments based on spelling, but on how your arguments are presented and readable. I am surprised that you criticize me for not responding as quickly (momentarily) as you would like, yet you are offended that I would suggest you simply re-read your comment for errors before posting?
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 No, museums also present historical arguments. These guys fail in that aspect as well. For example, just a few hundred years after their great flood that reduced the worl'd population to 8 people, we were given the Egyptian empire (along with all the scientific advancements the Egyptians gave us that would've taken centuries and a vast population to develop), the Greeks, the Hebrews, and many other civilizations all throughout the world.
Humans can't reproduce that fast.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Historically, people had many children, and abortions were few. The Egyptian empire came along a couple thousand years after the flood. This allows for a translation of population.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Many children. Yes, with 6 children a peice, that still isn't enough. And with the world flooded and devoid of resources, infant mortality had to be much higher than usual.
Ancient Egypt started about 3150 years ago. Only 1000 years after the Flood. You're telling me that in 1000 years, those 8 people reproduced enough to form all of these seperate empires and races, developed scientific advancements that would've taken centuries, and spread across the world?
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 This is actually quite humorous, as I have 7 siblings of my own--and we are not exactly a "large" family.
Keep in mind that Noah and his family did not leave the ark until after the flood waters had receded considerably, and the ark was already stocked well with food and supplies, as well as seed.
According to archeologists, the earliest known evidences of the Egyptians' existence is around 4,000 B.C.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 My father has 12. That's not typical. And yes, that is a large family. the hebrews liked large families, but with food so scarce, they can hardly support 7.
Yes, food that had to be eaten by the incredible zoo on boar and his family over the course of 40 days. Any food they had wouldn't last too long. The animals needed food as well. And crops take time to cultivate. And I coubt they'd grow too well with the earth being over-saturated for a good time after the waters receeded.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 You already mentioned how advanced people were thousands of years ago. How would Noah lack this same level of knowledge, to not be able to stock food for a period of months?
The ark was not designed like one of those curved, tipsy, cartoonish arks you may see depicted. It was large enough to house animals and food for them.
As you mentioned earlier, gravity was and is always in effect. Why then would gravity cease to exist during the recession of the flood waters?
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 By today's standard, a dozen children is considered large, but based on the Bible's historical account of early life, this is not so.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 The Bible's early account of life contradicts the remains of people found at that time. SHould I believe a a book or physical evidence?
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 4000BC. That is 6000 years ago. That is BEFORE the flood. If the flood were true, there should be no evidence of a civilization from before that period, as everything was destroyed.
And there is evidence of the earliest known civilization existing in what is now Iraq roughly 10,000 years ago, before the universe existed, according to you.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 I mentioned the 4,000 B.C. date as an example of evolution-based knowledge. What's interesting about the geographic placement itself is that Egypt and the Rhine are relatively close to each other, and both are considered the "starting" place of life/humans, if you will.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Evolution-based knowledge? How is the historical documentation of ancient Egypt in any way "evolution-based"? Face it, there is a civilization older than the point in time when every civilization was destroyed.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 they say the water from teh Great Flood was hidden under a layer of rock. MANY problems with that. Rock doesn't float on water, so its impossible for that to be suported. The water cannot defy gravity and float up. If it did float up through some hole, why didn't it simply flow back down into whatever space it espaced from? Did gravity just not apply during this period? And why isn't the ocean floor in shattered peices of stone when the rock layer collapsed?
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Rock never floated on water. I am interested in hearing where exactly you derived this information?
Water is capable of being bottled beneath Earth's surface. I suggest visiting Yellowstone National Park.
The ocean floor is, in fact, made up of various-sized stones. Upon greater depth, the surface is molten, as is the earth's core.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 answersingenesis(dot)org/home/area/tools/flood-waters(dot)asp
they mention the fountains of the deep as oceans beneath the earth. Not possible.
I know water can be beneath the earth. but not that much. The stone would have to be impossibly thick to be able to stay supported over that water. Much thicker than the earth's crust, as it has to span the distance of the oceans. It would collapse.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 How is water beneath the Earth's surface impossible? We currently have water beneath the surface today, just not in the amount in existence pre-flood. I could find no "floating rocks" referenced in the article you cited.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 The ocean floor is made of large peice of crust, but if the earth collapsed, it would be made of jagged chunks of MANY different layers of crust, and not the large peices we see today. Its not possible. The stone would have to drop to the bottom in almost a single large peice.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 The "core" of the ocean floor is in fact one large piece of crust due to its distance from Earth's core. We have the many different layers of rock because of gravity, (which is always in existence), and the rules follow those of the fossils. Even Evolution agrees with this.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Let me simplify this; if the earth's crust is made of broken pieces of rock covering the oceans, we would epect the coean to be far more fragmented and with fewer mountains. And even if this was the case, every other argument I made still holds up.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 To get the kind of diversity of life we have now in just a few hundred years after the flood, as tehy propose, coming from mainly just two of each "kind" (still waiting on a definition for that, btw), mutation rates would have to be hundreds of thousands of times higher than today, and selective pressures would have to be hundreds of times higher and more diverse (not possible when the world was flooded to a barren wasteland). All those conditions = death for every animal.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Mutations have never, and do not, change an animal from one kind to another. The word "kind" actually comes from Genesis, and refers to an "order," if you will, of animals. I'm surprised that you do not recognize the word from Genesis, if you have studied the historical account?
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 I do recognize the word. It has just never been defined. No creationist manages to stick to a definition.
SO kind means "oder", huh? Well humans are of the primate order. Ergo, by your logic, we can easily be related to other apes.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 You're using Evolutionistic sources when apes are paired with humans.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Actually, the first person to develop the system of taxonomy, and the first person to label humans as primates, was, in fact, a creationist. He had no secret motives in labelling humans as primates. He simply went with what he saw.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Could you please name this person? I am interested in learning more about him.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 The animals on the flood would also have to be carying many diseases and bacteria, or else we wouldn't have that incredible diversity today. All that bacteria and viruses in such a small population would kill them very quickly. Especially if they were mainly infant animals, as AIG claims.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Diseases and bacteria do adapt over time. Nothing gains information, but only loses it. With the presence of these bacteria and diseases, the animals would have developed an immunity to such enemies, just as Europeans were immune to certain diseases that were life-threatening to the Indians of North America.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Diseases do not adapt that fast. We have millions of diseases for each species. These will not all evolve in 4000 years. Interesting that your reject evolution, and yet to get all this diversity among people and all of these different species, all from on species of each kind in only 4000, your theory requires Super Evolution (like if Superman flew around the world really fast and made evolution flow faster, which is only slightly less scientific than what AIG is actually proposing)
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 If humans all descended from 2 people, it is biologically impossible for us to be as diverse as we are. And humans aren't very diverse compared to other animals. That means many other animals are even more genetically impossible, thanks to the Flood.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Again, nothing gains information, but only loses it. Adam and Eve started with the most genes. That's why marriage within a family was healthy for many generations, as there was little conflict between genes. There would have been a sufficient amount of genes in Noah's family by the time of the flood recession.
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 ....Adam and Eve could not have started with the most genes. We Many genes we have now are mutually exclusive. One of each per chromosome. Having all of them could cause genetic deformities. This also makes no sense, as we have dated mitochondrial DNA of humans and have never found any significant increase in genetic variation.
Also, things do gain info. Creationists are the only people who deny this. Scientists have known this for decades.
/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 I'll find that name soon. I was always bad at finding people in my research. I'm beat and I'm gonna take a nap, but I'll get back to you with that name.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 radiometric dating of many sorts disprove teh 6K earth. Radiometric dating is also based on the same principles as nuclear power plants. If Radiometric dating didn't work, then nuclaer power shouldn't either.
Radiometric dating has also been confirmed across other methods of radiometric dating, tree rings, and historical records. The few examples AIG comes up with of radiometric dating being wrong are all examples where something that shouldn't be done in dating was done.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 Could you please name the methods of dating that you are referring to?
goodguy30k1 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 One of the better know methods of dating is K-Ar, but Ar-Ar dating is also very reliable and often used to colaborate the results of K-Ar.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 I'm on the link you gave me. I'm not finished reading yet, but I found one interesting statement. "When a scientists interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible." These people BEGIN with the conclusion, and look for evidence that fits it. they stated it very clearly.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@goodguy30k1 Their claim that c14 dated wood millions of years old to be a few 10thousand:
Snelling wasn't even sure if it was wood, and it may not have contained any of its original carbon. Dating it was pointless. The sample was also very pourous and could have absorbed a lot of carbon from the environment. And lastly, 30thousand years old is still way older than what you say the earth is. And this article acknoledges c14 is accurate (though I doubt they'l admit the same for other methods).
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 We welcome you to come to the museum and see the science for yourself instead of flaming it from an anonymous distance.
answersvideo 1 year ago
@answersvideo I've been to the website and read more than a few of your articles. I've seen Ken Ham's lectures. I can disprove almost all of it from memory alone. I wouldn't even call it junk science, but even that implies it has some scientific basis. This stuff is about as legit as comic book physics- only not nearly as awesome.
BalmungSama0 1 year ago
@answersvideo There is no science in the museum. Science does not start with 'Answers' and look for evidence to support your bias.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@answersvideo The 'museum' does not have ANY science in it. Everything is based on the bible. Can't you see that? Why not?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@answersvideo We don't have to go to the museum and spend our hard earned money just to realize this shit isn't science. It simply isn't scientific!
Forlo12345 7 months ago 5