ASSUMING an age of 6 million years, bottles them into thinking the sediments are completely solid and would require much more water. On the other hand than, if you more recent deposit of sediments your could easily see that it wouldn't require nearly as much water. But we all know they reject anything that doesn't support an old earth and evo. So let them continue scratching their heads while the rest of us look at it and say "makes sense to me".
Unfortunately for these uniformitarianists, the lake was one of the many left behind by the flood of Noah, and it broke it's natural dam about 4,200 yrs ago, and carved the Grand Canyon in a few weeks. That's what science demonstrates. What uniformitarianists believe is not science, buyt a denial of science in an attempt to deny the flood, which by itself discredits evolutionism.
@NephilimFree yeah all those geologist are not really scientist whereas you the highschool dropout who thinksscientific research means looking up things on AiG and Cnservapedia, is the real scientist
What you do is not science at al,l therefore science isn't demonstrating the flood nor your wackamainy moon crater "hypothesis"
@Toudiyama The earth is covered with an aerage of over 1/2 mile of sedimentary material. If you can demonstrate how this is possible without global innundation, you'll go down in the history books. Go for it.
@Toudiyama So you can demonstrate how the earth can become covered with an average of over 1/2 mile of sedimentary material without global innundation? Tell us more.
@Toudiyama "Layers of younger sedimentary strata up to 2000 meters deep cover most of the basement rock. These sedimentary deposits are sometimes called the platform of the continents." w w w . physicalgeography . net / fundamentals / 10o . h t m l
@Toudiyama There is no such thing as a million years. Radiometric dating processes are based upon assumptions, ignore a considerable measure of scientific facts (in order to use them), employ Fudge Facrtors (terribly unscientific), and are circular reasoning. To make it worse, when they date something they get wildly varying dates, then pick the one they like based upon what they assume about the age of the strata, or another fossil or rock to line thier dates up.
@Toudiyama The Unikaret Lava Formation at the bottom of the Grand Canyone has been dated as various dates between 117 million yrs old and 2.6 billion years old. Which one is correct? Well, none of them, but they pick the one they like and that's the one they tell you.
@Toudiyama So I ask you again - how can the earth be covered with such deep sediment if it has not been globally innundated? Will you never answer me? Will you endlessly run from the question? Must I give up and forget you? I'll give you one more chance. There is an alternative however, which is that you admit the earth has been globally innundated. You do realize that every mountain on earth (except some volcanos) has sea creature fossils to it's peak, don't you?
@NephilimFree ok Mr. I know everything. If the flood of Noah caused the sedimentary layers in the earth, shouldn't there be 1 giant layer since it was caused by 1 massive flood?
@Toudiyama I don't know what you mean by "no global layer 1/2 mile". Nobody thinks there should be a single layer. That's not how hydrology works, nor is it how huge local floods work. They create many strata. So let's be upfront. Are you saying the earth is not covered by this depth of sediment? If you're not, then you have yet to tell me what I have asked you repeatedly. HOW does such sediment cover the earth without global innundation?
@Toudiyama Are you ever going to tell me the science that verifies that the flood did not create this deep sediment across the earth? I have asked you at least 3 times to tell me how such deep sediment could cover the earth if it has not been globally innundated. So tell me how such deep sediment covering the earth could be created without global innundation. Don't be a chickenchit. Tell me the science that demonstrates this happened without global innundation. Are you a coward or what?
@NephilimFree so you are giving up telling lies? then I have won
you can not provide any evidence for your claim that hundreds if not thousands of Strata or layers can be laid in fast moving water in under a years time and be destict from eachother
@NephilimFree I could have expected this as you are the champion of projection.
"Sedimentary rocks are formed when sediment is deposited out of air, ice, wind, gravity, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension. " See or waterflows not just waterflows real science does start with a conclusion by wich a hypothesis is made and then sift though the evidence others have found and pick only those fact supporting it and denying those that constradict it
@NephilimFree Cont. nor would I ever state that those people that studied for someting and who are doing the research, are in the lab or in the field and are writing paper and presenting it to anonimous peer review, are wrong where as I with my lack of education know it all better
And I certainly would not redefine any terminology used by those same scientist or purposely misinterpret data, quotemine or lie about the people or matter
if I only had read internet pages the last 3-4 years
@NephilimFree shockingly hypocritical from a man that provides ZERO evidence or sources to provide his psychosis induced ramblings that he calls science
@buddhastaxi I really don't get, how americans are able to ruin religion so much? living in a Christian country myself hasn't found any single person that would suggest that earth is 6000 years old.
I like how NG says they do not know how the river formed but that they do know over four million years ago.....It's going to be a long time before uniformitarianism is to be reexamined and Velikovsky redeemed!
I like Romans 1 and 2 Peter's eternal reply to the stubborn of heart.
Are you serious? Open up a science book and read. Noahs flood is a childs story. Fully grown adults such as yourself need to mature and get in the real world here. We are alive for a short period of time, we learn as much as we can about the world we live in, then we die. Just because someone put this into your head when you were a child doesnt mean its okay stop learning as an adult. You can believe what you want, but make the world a better place and keep god out of science.
Airicks1, this spillover theory would provide evidence that the GC was cut out in a very short amount of time. Second the flood that came in the days of Noah covered the Earth as it was in those days which didn't have mountains as we know them today. the Bible says the mountains rose up and other places sank down. (research The Hoving Theory) Lastly Noah's boat only needed to carry 2 of every kind of animal not including Fish, water dwelling animals or Insects.
Walt Brown's theory is a good one too. Although it might be too scientific for evolutionists, so I'd not recommend it to them. They might trip over super-critical water and that the mantle is solid.
powers, they are still dependent on not-being. Being-itself, on the other side of nothingness, is neither defied nor anthropomorphized...Maori's [evolution] myths...continued through the evolution of various forms of being to the creation of man.1.Sproul, Primal Myths.
The virigin of copyright is slain, much like Darwin Evolutionists must steal from the creationists. The virgin of objectivity is when they explicitly say there is evidence of a lake, yet then in the end say its controversial. I was left asking, why is that controversial?? Simply because that means Walt Brown is correct and many other creationists who argue for a young earth and many geographical phenomenas are results of the Flood as per Bible.
The next virgin to be sacrifice is the virgin of objectivity. In science we ought to follow where the evidence leads, there are huge problems, such as water flowing up hill, with the traditional academia explanation given in the movie the first time. They explain the 'spill-over' theory which is exactly the same, just change the names of the lakes, as Walt Brown's hydro-plate theory and how he says the Grand Canyon, and many other geographical and geological phenomena were formed.
This didn't require millions of years to carve this experiment, as you can see it probably required a few minutes, to be fair maybe hours, to finish that experiment. Yet they still cling to uniformitarianism, and they (National Geographic) will worship the god of the strata of Grand Canyon showing millions of years of evolution. Many huge problems with this claim, which can be saved for another day.
lol wait.. are you seriously saying you think the grand canyon took a few hours to be made?
and if you believe that there was a worldwide flood that coverd the earth to the highest mountain top and some broze age man build a bout which held 2 of every animal then you shouldn't try to be disproving anything.
don't know what a bout is, or broze, I'd say you shouldn't be attempting to write. I mean you're welcome to defend uniformitarianism. And slay more science at the alter of mythology, evolution. The Maori envision a gradual evolution of Being-Itself, described as pure thought, first into not-being (the void, chaos, darkness) and then into being (sky and earth, order, light). Like the early Vedic thinkers, they argue that gods evolved with the specific forms of being: as personifications of great
This virgin of science.Some may wonder what virigin?? Consider this.4.5 million years ago according to National geographic the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon. The first god of Darwin and Lyell to be appeased is old age/uniformitarianism. @ 1:45-2:00 an experiment is shown showing how the 'river' from the overflowing lake quickly carves a Grand Canyon.
I certainly didn't expect any intelligent response to any of my claims, I suppose you saw the word virgin and got stimulated... Hopefully you were stimulated enough to read it all. I highly doubt it... What happened to the evolutionary imagination, come now where is my dark matter, hopeful monsters, and defying universal physics that I so greatly enjoy reading.
such fancy words. As Eugenie Scott is stated, don't argue with the creationists, you'll loose:
AVOID DEBATES. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds[Actually Eugenie it opens up minds, funny thing eh?]; creationists stage them mainly in hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences[In hope to get the truth out rly]...
"And you probably will get beaten."
Eugenie scott. "Monkey Business" The Science. jan '96
"don't argue with the creationists, you'll loose" When they walk away from the arguement, that's not you winning, they're probably tired of trying to explain the truth to you and listening to your ignorance.
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort of another are being invoked.4.1.Colin Patterson, Clasdistics Interview on BBC program(March 4, 1982)
You can't create a specie because natural selection needs millions of years to create a specie... But you can see an evidence, the dogs... The human beings are breeding them for lets say about 100,000 years or so.. there are variety of dogs, and since its not that long of a time since human did breeding, they can still be considered as a specie, but some of them can't interbreed physically...
Cannot create a new 'species' period, only reshuffle the alleles in the given gene pool. All of the domesticated dog 'species' are dogs, even wild dog 'species' dingos, wolves, etc can interbreed with domesticated ones. The fruit fly had its 'evolution' accelerated and at the end of their experiments, all they had was fruit flies, albeit mutated and natural selection would eliminate them.
yeah, we cannot create, because, as i said, nature needs millions of years to create a diversion in a gene of a single specie, for that specie to be a new one.. and humans are here in earth for what, a hundred thousand... maybe, two hundred..
Actually the reason wasn't time, as the experiment effectively 'sped' up evolutionary time, the problem was mutations cannot create new information. Its intellectual suicide to believe in evolutionary myths. Also the Bible can be proven to have an external source, prophecies (dead sea scrolls) have shown that it has accurately to the name predicted history hundreds sometimes thousands of years before hand. Daniel wrote during the time of second Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar.
he Maori envision a gradual evolution of Being-Itself, described as pure thought, first into not-being (the void, chaos, darkness) and then into being (sky and earth, order, light). Like the early Vedic thinkers, they argue that gods evolved with the specific forms of being: as personifications of great powers, they are still dependent on not-being. creation of man.
powers, they are still dependent on not-being. Being-itself, on the other side of nothingness, is neither defied nor anthropomorphized...Maori's [evolution] myths...continued through the evolution of various forms of being to the creation of man. 1.Sproul, Primal Myths. Trust Eugene you'll loose.
You aren't educated in the matter either, and haven't responded to any of the claims. Simply blowing hot air about. Not only that, but your claim is totally fantasy, how do you know everyone that believes in creation isn't educated? Do you know everyone? Evolution is the revival of ancient mythology, its just-so stories hinder science. Today its completely intellectual suicide to believe in evolution with the advances of information theory, and science in general.
defend your point young man, else your point is invalid. Do you even know why you believe in evolution? Marxist education system systematically eliminates your ability to critically think, but its still possible. The evidence will lead you away from evolution and reveal the academic fraud the house of cards we call evolution is. A religion without any credibility, and extremely dangerous which leads to Hitler, Mao, Stalin.
It's simple, I believe in evolution because it is what I was taught. I don't think I'll ever become part of a facist totalitarian government, if thats what evolution will come to I would renounce my beliefs immediatly.
read War against the Weak by Edwin Black, you'll see the fruits of evolution, Nazism started not in Germany, but mostly in Academia with evolutionists. It only required a strong leader to enforce the ideas Academia had postulated since the enlightenment.
If that's the case then scientific debates shouldn't be done, by your logic. As such this is one, if there were no such thing as debates you'd still be believing the pagans that the world is flat and that planets move about epicycles.
not only that but you have a severe lack of understanding of the word 'prove' only mathematicians can 'prove' anything, To be able to 'prove' something in science you'd need to be omnipresent, and omniscient. In stead science gives evidence, and if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory is tweaked(but eventually epicycles reemerge) or they get a new theory. Evolution has yet to explain anything without requiring tweaking with the theory, and falls into epicycles type theories.
i don't have a lack of understanding of the word prove.. when you say prove, in the scientific community, evidence is not enough.. the same with the religions' claims of existence of their messiah or prophets, all they have until now were evidences, write ups, hear say, and no proof... as i am saying, debating will prove nothing, but working on it might get us close....
and predicted Alexander the great's conquest, Rome's takeover of the Greek empire, predicted Rome's division into two legs, and predicted its fall, then predicted events in 2009 AD where a global empire is founded from the ashes of Eastern Rome, and soon to be Western Rome as well. Eastern Rome being the Anglo-Saxon Empire. Predicted, to the date and place of origination via Temple Mount, when (1948) Israel would be made a nation in 1 day. Evolution's 'proof' is not even a fraction of a percent.
It is stretching it to say that wisdom teeth (mine and most of my friends came in just fine) are a sign of evolution. When there are organs that scientist do not understand it is evidence of only one thing. That they don't understand. To take that lack of understanding and apply it as fact to some subject is totally non scientific.
Some people are so bogged down in the details that the picture is lost.
You are welcome to your beliefs. I have found more than enough evidence for mine.
The track record of scientist is extremely shaky. The bible has been question for centuries and never has it failed to be accurate on every detail. This includes the area of science when it touches on it. Comparing the history of the 2 you can choose which one you will stake your life on. The choice is very simple to me.
The bible has a perfect track record ONLY because you refuse to allow anything else, Example?
8 people cannot provide animal care for 60,000 animals, its simply not possible
Also the dates "extrapolated" by early biblical scholars are simply not accurate
Science has proven this so often and so accurately that there is no doubt in the minds of geologists as to the age of the earth. Additionally many non western cultures have written records that go back >4500 year and disprove a global flood
AND 60,000 does not even take into account all of the now extinct species that wound have had to have been on the ark like the dinosaurs.
(or do you not believe in those either? I know that there are some fundamentalists who think that Dinosaur bones were buried Satan to lead you astray or bye god to test your faith)
Biological ignorance, distinct species which itself is an ambiguos term, need not have been on the Ark. Distinct kinds needed to be and that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no problem the volume on the Ark was more than sufficient for the creatures that the Bible says needed to be on the ark.
Wrong, if you admit that species can gradually change over time, then admit that evolution is real, if you deny that species can gradually change over time then the ark is required to have to many species.
Polar bears are the only species of bears that have hollow hair.
Either there were bears on the ark with both hollow hair and regular hair, in which case the ark is not big enough,
or there was only one kind of bear and you admit that hallow hair "evolved".
I know "the ark can hold all the animals" is thrown around alot but if you actually look at the equations, all of them rely on assuming that evolution created most of the species that we have today from a few family representatives
Most of them also fail to take into account
The 99.9% of species that are extinct but would have technically had to have seats on the ark,
That actual shape of the ark (L*W*H = volume of a box, not the ark),
Or the fact that 8 people can't care for that many animals.
If the ark was real it would have required God's direct intervention. The old testament is littered with God's direct interventions but for some reason creationists continue to use erroneous math and fabricated science to defend the idea that the impossible is possible and that God is unable to ever take an active role in biblical stories (for what reason I surely can't figure)
"Wrong, if you admit that species can gradually change over time, then admit that evolution is real,"
Selective breeding didn't start with Darwin. The theory of Evolution states that all creatures share a single common ancestor, not that variety exists?? The fact that natural selection acts on genetic variations is not in dispute, that they are derived from one single organism is. Those changes are limited and the boundries distinct both in living organisms and the fossil record.
i agree with Jamesbowman777. God only had to bring two of each kind of animal, not every variation of every species. the DNA all the other species was already there, and from those two animals of every species would come all the variations of every kind of animal and human.
There is that impossible thing gain. And the dates we have covered especially the age of the earth. too many times geologist have changed their dates to match the more correct bible account.
2370bc was the year of the flood. So whats the problem with written records?
How about we agree to disagree. I have no desire to shove anything down your throat. If that is how you wish to believe you are certainly welcome to it. I will say I have enjoyed our debates.
The problem with the written record is that not everybody seems to have experienced the flood, There is no real mention of it in Egyptian history (to name one) and they seemed to have maintained a thriving population from 2371 BC straight on through 2369.
Other cultures like the Sumerians did record a flood event, and I would not put it past a historian of those people to look upon the complete destruction of their corner of a global as a global flood and record it as such.
I am 24 and there have been no changes in the age of the earth in my life time (or in the life time of any person under 50)
You are discussing the fundamental difference between a measured/calculated value
The story of the speed of light reads almost identically
First it was thought to be infinite, then it was measured for the first time and that measurement was pretty off, then over the decades technology continued to improve and estimates got better
those updates moved farther along the decimal chain
The measured value for the age of the earth has gotten more accurate over time but has only undergone fine tuning over the last 50 yrs
I will "agree to disagree" but only if you agree to keep a skeptical mind and remember that there will a always be those who will readily abandon scientific rigor to obtain results that don't conflict with their pre-existing beliefs,
It is not stretching to say that wisdom teeth USED to serve a purpose and now only serve the purpose of getting infected and required emergency surgery (as I said before I have known people to whom this happened).
Where as science can offer a reason for an organ whose only apparent function is to harm me, the bible cannot.
wisdom teeth are a remainder of human bodies that lived 969 years old, before the flood, Gen ch.6 describes giants on the earth, such as dinasaurs, ( of which elephants, crocs still remain etc. ).If I stand on the edge of a skyscraper and flap my hands a 1000 years I will not grow wings, only muscular arms.The mammoths were frozen suddenly with vegetation still in thier mouths, hence the flood destroyed them.God put all animals where they now are after the flood.God positioned the stars where
"wisdom teeth are a remainder of human bodies that lived 969"
Wisdom teeth become a problem for adolescents as they receive the last of their permanent teeth. My friends teeth got infected when when she was in High school and she had to have them surgically removed. Making people live older could never effect wisdom teeth in any way, the are a problem for the young, not the old.
Erosion along the Arctic coast varies from 3 to 22 feet (1 to 7 m) a year, spilling an enormous number of woolly mammoth bones from the sea cliffs. In a report in the Smithsonian magazine, Stewart refers to an estimate made by Vereshchagin for a section along the Arctic coast between the Yana and Kolyma rivers:
Through such causes almost 50,000 mammoth tusks are said to have been found in Siberia. between 1660 and 1915, serving an extensive mammoth ivory trade... Look for the link on my channel.
there is a difference between thousands of tusks and your claim of millions of frozen bodies. And while what I said about 39 mammoth bodies is correct I also know of the extensive collection of fossilized mammoth bones found each year. And I am sure your link is correct, I am curious to know whether it includes a scientific estimate of the age of the bones and what your reaction is to its agreements with every other estimate of the age of those types of fossils in the tens of thousands of year?
It goes on to say how they come to the conclusion of millions.I can not and do not see the need to rewrite these articles here. There are also many different types of animals frozen there.
Suffice it to say the the entire area was green and full if life and with out a chance for these creatures to migrate they where frozen there still standing. Many hit with violent forces strong enough to brake the Mammoth's bones in many places. My world is not based on this. I just find it too coincidental.
How did the flood freeze them? Live animal tissue is just dense enough to sink, but once dead the bodies buoyancy goes up just enough to float. This is why dead animals/people float on the top of the water. Even if the mammoths were covered by water, and trapped and some how prevented from floating up, there is no way for them to become frozen at the bottom of the ocean. Every mammoth that is preserved is proof of a NON-FLOOD event.
Read the article my friend the answers you ask are in it.
IF they where living in deep water I would understand your point. I'm aware that once the lungs fill with water the cadaver sinks only to resurface after bacterial build up enough hydrogen sulfide and methane gas withing the body. HOWEVER they were living on land. We were talking about a flash freeze of 150deg temp drop.
I understand that there are some scientist that scoff at this conclusion but cant deny that the area was once green.
I will agree with you there, we see evidence that many areas that are now land were ocean thousands of years ago, we also areas that are now water were land thousand of years ago,
One this is for sure, the earth is a constantly changing one, in fact we can even measure these kinds of shifts happening under our feet today.
Read the article my friend the answers you ask are in it.
IF they where living in deep water I would understand your point. I'm aware that once the lungs fill with water the cadaver sinks only to resurface after bacterial build up enough hydrogen sulfide and methane gas withing the body. HOWEVER they were living on land. We were talking about a flash freeze of 150deg temp drop.
I understand that there are some scientist that scoff at this conclusion but cant deny that the area was once green.
And if you take a normal lizard and put them in a cave for a few months their eyes don't become like those of the cave lizards, the cave lizards evolved that way, sorry.
My purpose here is to show that organs that are not stimulated atrophy. My source was a tour of the Florida caverns. This does not say that the organs have NO USE but that unused they cease to work. Being that there is no stimulation it follows that the brain would not even wire the organ. However the lizard still remains a lizard blind or not. And as in humans the possibility of blindness or rather useless eyes can be a genetic trait. Still the offspring is a human.
Ops I was helping this new friend set up his Channel. He gave me his password so I could do it for him and I forgot to log out of his account. Terribly sorry.
yes, however, the difference between a cave lizard and none cave lizard simply cannot be achieved in one lizards lifetime. If what you said were true the offspring of every lizard, cave or no, would be identical. This is not the case. cave lizards are BORN with sightless eyes, the children INHERIT the adaptations of their parents, they EVOLVE to be more efficient.
Either God created them with sightless eyes, or they evolved them.
Your comment on the Mammoths btw was referring to one specific mammoth "Berezovka Mammoth". One scientist says it was frozen the other debates it. Still it does not cover the millions of mammoths frozen in different areas which are still rolling out of the ice. Claims of 150deg drop in temp caught whole herds who had no time to migrate and whose red blood cells and sperm are collectible. They are even thinking of cloning one.
Millions? You sir are talking out of your butt, I challenge you to show me "millions" of Mammoths.
Oh wait, I can go to answers in genesis too,
lets see,
Millions of mammoths frozen? No evidence/proof even in the slightest?
Whole herds frozen?
Try 39 preserved bodies have been found in all of human history.
And the sperm/ red blood cell mammoth you are talking about is the Jarkov mammoth, his complete case is accessible as wiki's 4th reference on the woolly mammoth page.(cont)
no person ever uttered "we are even thinking about cloning"
More like "scientists are skeptical but are hopping that something inside this mammoth is cloneable"
Unfortunately
"Stories abound about frozen mammoth corpses that were still edible once defrosted, but the original sources indicate that the corpses were in fact terribly decayed, and the stench so unbearable that only the dogs accompanying the finders showed any interest in the flesh.[5]"
Noahs ark had grizzly and polar bears, because the knowledge of the flood water was given to those pairs of unclean, not practicle, palatable foods and the 7 of clean easily farmed and 1 spare for sacrifice and the 8 survivores to eat after the flood. etc. God calmed the animals as he did the lions with Daniel in thier den.Jesus preached to the spirits in prison in th days of noah
Plus the numbers of animals that ENTER the ark is clearly stated as 2 of each, the fact that this is simply not possible, given the consumption needs of the carnivorous animals and the sacrificial needs of Noah and his family both during the 40 days and afterwards does not change that fact.
Here again, what you NEED for the bible to be literally true is numbers of animals on the ark greater than 2 per species, therefore you distort whatever piece of information you have to to make it true.
You sure like that word "Impossible". And again if you READ THE ACCOUNT you will see that Noah was clearly told that 7 was required of some of the animals.
We do not NEED this for the bible to be true you are the one NEEDING it.
I think you are confusing natural diversity of animals with evolution. The same mistake Darwin made. Diversity is observable but the extreme interpretation of it is not. So weather or not a Polar Bear was needed on the ark is debatable to no end.
Natural diversity is not at all what we are talking about here, a polar bear and a grizzly are not the same things as people with two different ethnic backgrounds. The two bears have certain fundamental biological differences. Like for example, polar bears have hollow hair. This is not some kind of recessive grizzly jean, you couldn't just use selective breading and create a grizzly with a coat of polar bear hair even in the 3500 years between now and the flood years.(cont)
God adapted humans to live from 969 years old to 120 years in Gench.5-6 and later in psalms to 70 years old.Also one race grew to 12 feet tall, if we look at an account of a mans bed legnth in the bible.God placed each animal in its habitat, and designed them to survive there with a food/water chain to survive. Those organs humans did not need are since said to be needed, even adams spare rib for eve.Cats bear cats and there arnt to many, only enough according to prey to eat.nature is ordered
Humans have exceeded 70 and 120. Even in the bible humans exceeded these ages AFTER god "adapted" them.
The evidence for giants in anecdotal. As fundamentalists have done over and over, they took a concept that is necessary for a literal interpretation of genesis to be correct, in this case a second race of "giant" humans, and searched diligently for any scrap of evidence that might make this true. Then, once they found it, they completely stone walled all other incoming ideas and evidence.
If you look for anything hard enough you will find it. If you look for evidence that people in biblical times are NOT giants you will find some of that was well.
Furthermore you comment on human organs sill does not address the fact that lizards in caves with no light have large sightless eyes.
Most fundamentalists concede the fact that there is no room for the hundreds of thousands of species that would have had to have been on the ark and that micro evolution afterwards was necessary.
Micro evolution? So now we are calling the inherent genetic potential for diversity withing a species micro evolution. Wow so my daughter evolved blond hair from 2 dark haired parents because too many magazines promote blonds are more beautiful. Why don't you watch the vid on "Meet the Supper Cow" (link to the right) and tell me how they where able to BREED them. IS this still a cow?
"Micro evolution", creationists invented this term because even in their intense efforts to deny the scientific research the proves evolution, "Micro evolution" can be observed experimentally and ever created in a lab. So rather the admit the truth, which is that evolution is real, they decided to persevere what they could by saying that evolution is a little bit true, but not all the way, and that while "Micro evolution" is indisputable, it does not prove that "Macro Evolution" is real.
Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". The term was brought into English-speaking by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937)[1].
Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and even fallen into disfavor amongst scientists who prefer to speak of biological evolution as one process. - Wikipedia
"When discussing the topic, creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution".[1]"
God created the world the proper distance from the sun and created all creatures for the climate they already exist in etc. The flood was an act of God nd the valleys were deepened etc we edin the psalms and this was implied after the flood, also the mountains wee pushed up. If there was even a nagging doubt that the bile is true about creation, err on the bibles side n make Jesus your lawyer for Gods broken laws and our sns. Our conscience needs peace withGod through Jesus who created miracles
"God created the world the proper distance from the sun and created all creatures for the climate they already exist in"
Why do lizards in caves with no light have useless/sightless eyes?
Why do wales have finger bones?
Why do countless other lifeforms, including humans, have numerous functionless vestigial organs?
There was no room on the arc for Polar bears AND Grizzlies. Which is why creationists concede that SOME evolution (gradual change over time) HAS to exist.
Ok so we agree that the oceans where not always as salty as they are now. Which then you could have answered your own question about how the fish survived the flood.
One assumption your making is that the flood was only 40 days long. While it rained 40 days the flood was far longer. Even when the water subsided far enough to expose land there was still quite some time till it arrived at todays point. So land geography did not change in 40 days. This vid shows its still happening.
That does absolutely nothing to answer my question, if fish are adapted to fresh water how much salt will kill them? Here again you prove that you are look for excuses to believe the bible and discontinue all academic pursuit once you have them. When I checked how the salinity of the ocean changes over time I saw that rather than being linear that the salinity rises and falls. Even so, the estimates for the changes of the salinity are rather small even over vast periods...
Every square inch of the earth is covered in water, and at the end of 40 days enough water has receded to allow the ark to unload. This still required unnatural events.
If the topology of the earth changed AS A RESULT of the flood receding, then the initial recession of waters CANNOT have been caused by changing topology, and ice caps can't form that quickly and that much water can't evaporate with out raining back down on the earth. If it did happen (it might have) it took an act of God
You are welcome to keep insisting on the 40 days if you like. But don't credit your source as the bible.
That the ice poles could form that fast is proven by the woolly mammoth found in Siberia frozen so fast that the vegetation was still in its mouth and stomach, and its flesh was even edible when thawed out. Yuk!
I don't believe you have a question about fish. If you do you want no answer for it.
I get it now your dancing the Can't Can't. I thought you were saying everything can't happen.
Here is an in depth analysis of why everything you saying about you mammoth is wrong with numerous factual citations.
talkorigins DOT
org /
faqs /
mammoths DOT
html
Read at your own risk, I know that as a rule you only look for excuses to believe that bible is literal and not for scientific explanation's for the world around you.
I never said the flood only lasted 40 days. The flood began to rise, and after 40 days it had reached its peak AND receded enough to allow Noah to get off the ark. THIS IS BIBLICAL FACT, as much as anything is the bible is a fact.
If you say that changes in the topology of the earth caused the waters to recede enough for Noah get off the ark then you are saying that the earth under went major changes in topology in under 40 days which is still impossible without the hand of god.
Please you are making your self look silly now. You really need to read the account. Then tell me how long Noah was in the ark. IF you still insist on 40 days I give up on you. This is chapter 7 and 8.
Sadly too many people listen to what others say is in the bible without checking.
There is that word IMPOSSIBLE. Hallelujah least your bringing God into your reasoning. IF HE started the flood why would he not conclude it. 41,564,160,000,000 lbs of water has to do some kind of damage
SOMEONE HAD to bring god in here, it has been your claim all along that ONLY by COMPLETELY natural process did all of these events unfold and it has ONLY BEEN ME who has insisted that without Gods direct intervention these events would not be possible.
It seems then that we are miss reading each other. My intent is not to rule out GOD. Rather to point out more accurately the biblical account so as not to incorporate the errors of over simplification, thus turning these accounts into a mythological story that grind against all known facts. When examined as the bible records, there is great harmony in discovered factual evidence.
Again points throughout your comment reveal you are not reading the flood account in the bible. You are assuming way too many points. And that a flood happened all over the world is not disputed even by evolutionists.
While all vertebrate blood is similar in salinity ratio (.9% salt)the ocean is 4x that. I am merely pointing out possibilities that are stated all over science that offer plausible explanations. Since you have seemed to learned everything you don't need me for answers.
I have made no assumptions about the flood other than it happened all over the world, and that the time between when began and when it peaked was under 40 days. This is the second time you have challenged my knowledge about the flood and insinuated that I make "too many" assumptions. Please list any assumptions that you think that I am making that you think are erroneous. The definition of accretion and the data on the earths age both come from Wiki articles which contain all relevant sources.
"While all vertebrate blood is similar in salinity ratio(.9% salt)the ocean is 4x that" Which is correct, and my response to this, (That.9 represents the salinity of the oceans when animals evolved internal circulatory systems)was incorrect/based on a source I now know to be dated.Here is a much better estimation of the changing salinity of the oceans over time CONT.
I also include a link to an explanation of how even in the absence of a less salty ocean animals evolved their current salinity.
Several problems and statements like: "Because the exact accretion time of the Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different
accretion models vary from several millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of the Earth is difficult to determine." - have me not basing my life one the stated "facts.
The bible has a far better track record. I think I will stick with it.
You and I have a different definition of "read". I think your must be "scanned until I hit the first disputed claim, stopped reading, and copied and pasted". I know you were scanning because the sentence right before it said "the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system -- are 4.567 billion years old"
If you even bothered to read the first paragraph you would see that "accretion" is not a model used to date the earth.
accretion "is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter" The accretion period of the earth is not exactly known, but the time since then is, "these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error"
I am not saying the flood did not happen, but science does not suport it
Do you even read about the things you try to disprove? Perhaps you should go back and read the flood account. You are overlooking some major points. No wonder your chasing your tale. If your not going to read it you surly wont read what I have to say.
As for the fish the rain was FRESH water. And to this day there are accounts of fresh water and salt water not mixing but layering. The oceans where guessed to be at least 100x smaller than they are today.
In addition even your evolutionists claim that the oceans where not near as saline as they are today. And that fish adapted to the rising concentration of salt in the oceans over the centuries.
IT seems that if not given a simple answer or you can't come up with one on your own then its not fact or its not possible. This line of limited thinking will greatly hinder you. 24 is kind of young to stop learning.
Religion systematically destroys your ability to think. You know the that flood "must" be real, and since if all the oceans coalesced the fish would die from the different salt, that must not be what happened, so you look for a way out, and low and behold, just like with anything else, if you look hard enough you find that the salt content of water can later itself. You did not bother to find out what is necessary for them to exist/ be created, or whether marine animals are aware of them...
that is, whether animals will use them, or whether they could be created in under 40 days, or whether the layers are big enough for whales to operate in. But non of this could ever matter to a person like you. All you want is an excuse to believe in what you already "know" to be true.
Also the distribution of fossilized ocean beds makes the theory that the oceans 6000 years ago were 100X smaller than they are today utterly impossible...
Additionally the saline content of the oceans is changing SLOWLY 6000 years ago the oceans were almost identical to the oceans of today. One of my favorite scientific TidBits is that if your take how fast the oceans change and plot it backwards to the estimated time when animals first evolved closed circulatory systems, at that time oceans had salt content identical to human blood. With open circulatory systems Sea waters functioned like out blood does today, when we evolved closed ...
circulatory systems, we needed to develop an internal mechanism that functioned as the Sea water did. It is not a coincidence that the the period in the earth history when the oceans would have had the same salt as our blood, and the fossil records for when animals first developed closed circulatory systems is identical.
grow sooooo tired of these claims. God, the easter bunny, and Santa Clause are not REAL.
It seems to me that this life, world, universe has a lot of shit that seems unexplainable. But the nature of the human mind doesn't allow for this and if an answer can't be found the mind rationalizes an answer
If the 6000 year Earth theory is correct, how come you'd be very hard pressed to find young Earth 'scientists' working in oil and gas, or mineral exploration industries (whose only goal is to make money, not support secular sciences). Its because the models based on the 6000 year Earth don't work!
Correct! The bible says the earth was created "In the beginning". It could be millions,billions,or trillions of years old. It is man that is a little over 6k. BTW each creative day is 7k years. A day is a time period. Compare Gen 2:4.
Gen 1:9 Is when the land appears, Along with plants and trees. Gen 1:14 The light(THE SUN) was created. Gen 1:20 The birds fish and land animals are created.
There was not thousands of years in between each day. That would be pretty hard on those plants waiting for the sun to come up. It would also be hard for them to live if there weren't any insects to pollinate the plants for thousands of years.
The world was not created over thousands of years. It was created in 6 days.
Gen 1:14 is not talking about the creation of the sun but the appearance to an earthy observer if present. Famous Gen1:3 "Let there be light"
Second day is a deviding of the waters between earth and sky. Gen1:6-8
Down to the 4th day this atmospheric water or Canopy became clear enough to discern the Sun, Moon, and stars. This canopy eventually became part of the flood waters.
As for a 24h period being the only interpretation of "day" compare Gen 2:4 where all 6 days are called one day.
Again we see classical Fundamentalist logic. The water canopy "needs" to exist in order for the bible to be true. The "evidence" for its existence is that the bible is can't be literal without it. "Let there be light" means light did not exist and God created it, your "interpretations" makes alot more sense with regard to the physical world but there is no mention of the watery canopy existing or being the mechanism by which God "revealed" light to these fictitious non existent observers.
Gen 1:6-8 shows the creation of this water canopy.
The bible is written for man from his viewpoint before space craft. Hence the creation account is described from that vantage. This is not the point of the bible and is apparent by the fact it goes in to more detail when chapter 2 starts talking about man. Many things we take for granted today are very recent discoveries. To tell the account back then from such an angle would have been difficult to relate to. Try talking to a child.
How could you explain evolution to child? OR explained things in terms of time periods like "billions of years".
You agree that EVERYTHING in the bible HAD to be in terms that the original authors would have understood.
Therefore EVEN IF god created the earth 4.5 billion years ago and USED evolution to create all the life on earth there would be NO POSSIBLE WAY that it could EVER have been included inteh bible.
What is this about I thinking God does not directly effecting the natural world? I believe he does. Some are over simplifying the account. Its important to remain true to the limited insight given on these accounts or there will be no harmony with the facts. This is scientific. Or by definition knowledge. I believe GOD set all the laws of the universe in order for a reason. And this was done 'in the beginning'. Why would he not use those laws creating life on earth. Evidently he did.
"there's no concencus on how it formed, but what we DO KNOW it that it begun flowing 4,5 MYA"
lol you can question everything but it's age!
indoctrinated ppl don't catch that
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
Comment removed
TonyWilkesAyalew 9 months ago
ASSUMING an age of 6 million years, bottles them into thinking the sediments are completely solid and would require much more water. On the other hand than, if you more recent deposit of sediments your could easily see that it wouldn't require nearly as much water. But we all know they reject anything that doesn't support an old earth and evo. So let them continue scratching their heads while the rest of us look at it and say "makes sense to me".
neoverse 1 year ago
Unfortunately for these uniformitarianists, the lake was one of the many left behind by the flood of Noah, and it broke it's natural dam about 4,200 yrs ago, and carved the Grand Canyon in a few weeks. That's what science demonstrates. What uniformitarianists believe is not science, buyt a denial of science in an attempt to deny the flood, which by itself discredits evolutionism.
0o
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree yeah all those geologist are not really scientist whereas you the highschool dropout who thinksscientific research means looking up things on AiG and Cnservapedia, is the real scientist
What you do is not science at al,l therefore science isn't demonstrating the flood nor your wackamainy moon crater "hypothesis"
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama The earth is covered with an aerage of over 1/2 mile of sedimentary material. If you can demonstrate how this is possible without global innundation, you'll go down in the history books. Go for it.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree I'll go doen into history book by claiming something that has been show over and over ? wow, is it that easy
Don't I have to redefine all scientific termnology so that it means what I want it to believe?
Don't I have to misinterpret charts and information?
I can just repeat what others say and become famous?
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama So you can demonstrate how the earth can become covered with an average of over 1/2 mile of sedimentary material without global innundation? Tell us more.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree can you demonstrate the earth actually is covered by a 1/2 mile of sedimentarry material in one stratum
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama "Layers of younger sedimentary strata up to 2000 meters deep cover most of the basement rock. These sedimentary deposits are sometimes called the platform of the continents." w w w . physicalgeography . net / fundamentals / 10o . h t m l
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree "The deposits making up the platform were laid down in shallow seas in repeated episodes over the last 600 million years"
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama There is no such thing as a million years. Radiometric dating processes are based upon assumptions, ignore a considerable measure of scientific facts (in order to use them), employ Fudge Facrtors (terribly unscientific), and are circular reasoning. To make it worse, when they date something they get wildly varying dates, then pick the one they like based upon what they assume about the age of the strata, or another fossil or rock to line thier dates up.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree "Radiometric dating processes are based upon assumptions" thank for another lie, you should visit the potholer54debunks channel
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama The Unikaret Lava Formation at the bottom of the Grand Canyone has been dated as various dates between 117 million yrs old and 2.6 billion years old. Which one is correct? Well, none of them, but they pick the one they like and that's the one they tell you.
There is no such thing as a million years. 0o
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@Toudiyama So I ask you again - how can the earth be covered with such deep sediment if it has not been globally innundated? Will you never answer me? Will you endlessly run from the question? Must I give up and forget you? I'll give you one more chance. There is an alternative however, which is that you admit the earth has been globally innundated. You do realize that every mountain on earth (except some volcanos) has sea creature fossils to it's peak, don't you?
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree ok Mr. I know everything. If the flood of Noah caused the sedimentary layers in the earth, shouldn't there be 1 giant layer since it was caused by 1 massive flood?
lefayad1991 1 year ago
@NephilimFree once again it is not , what of having no cover of sedimentary rock don't you understand? ergo there is no global layer of 1/2 a mile
therefore your premise is false and I do not have to show how it is possible
the post I did 5 hours ago were the sentence following the ones you posted
as proof of one layer 1/2 a mile wide
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama I don't know what you mean by "no global layer 1/2 mile". Nobody thinks there should be a single layer. That's not how hydrology works, nor is it how huge local floods work. They create many strata. So let's be upfront. Are you saying the earth is not covered by this depth of sediment? If you're not, then you have yet to tell me what I have asked you repeatedly. HOW does such sediment cover the earth without global innundation?
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree one of the URLs you posted stated that there are places with no sedimentairy rock at
If there are many distinct strata(which there are) then each stratum had time to settle, time your flood can't give them
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama Are you ever going to tell me the science that verifies that the flood did not create this deep sediment across the earth? I have asked you at least 3 times to tell me how such deep sediment could cover the earth if it has not been globally innundated. So tell me how such deep sediment covering the earth could be created without global innundation. Don't be a chickenchit. Tell me the science that demonstrates this happened without global innundation. Are you a coward or what?
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@Toudiyama
"Sedimentary rocks have an average thickness of about 1800 m on the continents."
Occurrence, Mineralogy, Textures, and Structures of Sedimentary Rocks
w w w . tulane . e d u / ~sanelson / geol212 / sedrxintro . h t m
1800 meters is equal to 5,905.51 feet, which is equal to 1.8 kilometers or 1.12 miles.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree with some areas, like the Canadian Shield having no cover of sedimentary rocks, and other areas""
Toudiyama 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Toudiyama If you can demonstrate how this is possible without global innundation, you'll go down in the history books. Go for it.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@Toudiyama I accept your failure because you were unwilling and/or unable to supprt yuor absurd claim made in the name of evolutionism. CYA
NephilimFree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NephilimFree so you are giving up telling lies? then I have won
you can not provide any evidence for your claim that hundreds if not thousands of Strata or layers can be laid in fast moving water in under a years time and be destict from eachother
don't let the door hit you on your way out
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@NephilimFree I could have expected this as you are the champion of projection.
"Sedimentary rocks are formed when sediment is deposited out of air, ice, wind, gravity, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension. " See or waterflows not just waterflows real science does start with a conclusion by wich a hypothesis is made and then sift though the evidence others have found and pick only those fact supporting it and denying those that constradict it
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Cont. nor would I ever state that those people that studied for someting and who are doing the research, are in the lab or in the field and are writing paper and presenting it to anonimous peer review, are wrong where as I with my lack of education know it all better
And I certainly would not redefine any terminology used by those same scientist or purposely misinterpret data, quotemine or lie about the people or matter
if I only had read internet pages the last 3-4 years
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@NephilimFree shockingly hypocritical from a man that provides ZERO evidence or sources to provide his psychosis induced ramblings that he calls science
lefayad1991 1 year ago
@buddhastaxi
.
Can you name the transitional fossils ancestors
of the 100 Phylum of the Cambrian Explosion?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@buddhastaxi I really don't get, how americans are able to ruin religion so much? living in a Christian country myself hasn't found any single person that would suggest that earth is 6000 years old.
Leikonel 1 year ago
Oh maybe a COMBINATION of factors? or perhaps a volcanic eruption started the building and a river finished it up? I don't know, work harder.
ThisIsMyDeen 1 year ago
tiene relacion con el efecto spillover (derramamiento) ?
jesjaz6 1 year ago
maybe you should jesus what happened!:(
SuperNerdsrus 1 year ago
i liked the old youtube layout why do they keep changing things it worked before?
boogiebuddy01 1 year ago
I like how NG says they do not know how the river formed but that they do know over four million years ago.....It's going to be a long time before uniformitarianism is to be reexamined and Velikovsky redeemed!
I like Romans 1 and 2 Peter's eternal reply to the stubborn of heart.
srglepore 2 years ago
Are you serious? Open up a science book and read. Noahs flood is a childs story. Fully grown adults such as yourself need to mature and get in the real world here. We are alive for a short period of time, we learn as much as we can about the world we live in, then we die. Just because someone put this into your head when you were a child doesnt mean its okay stop learning as an adult. You can believe what you want, but make the world a better place and keep god out of science.
brax303 2 years ago 2
Airicks1, this spillover theory would provide evidence that the GC was cut out in a very short amount of time. Second the flood that came in the days of Noah covered the Earth as it was in those days which didn't have mountains as we know them today. the Bible says the mountains rose up and other places sank down. (research The Hoving Theory) Lastly Noah's boat only needed to carry 2 of every kind of animal not including Fish, water dwelling animals or Insects.
tommyroc3 2 years ago
Walt Brown's theory is a good one too. Although it might be too scientific for evolutionists, so I'd not recommend it to them. They might trip over super-critical water and that the mantle is solid.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
powers, they are still dependent on not-being. Being-itself, on the other side of nothingness, is neither defied nor anthropomorphized...Maori's [evolution] myths...continued through the evolution of various forms of being to the creation of man.1.Sproul, Primal Myths.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
The virigin of copyright is slain, much like Darwin Evolutionists must steal from the creationists. The virgin of objectivity is when they explicitly say there is evidence of a lake, yet then in the end say its controversial. I was left asking, why is that controversial?? Simply because that means Walt Brown is correct and many other creationists who argue for a young earth and many geographical phenomenas are results of the Flood as per Bible.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
The next virgin to be sacrifice is the virgin of objectivity. In science we ought to follow where the evidence leads, there are huge problems, such as water flowing up hill, with the traditional academia explanation given in the movie the first time. They explain the 'spill-over' theory which is exactly the same, just change the names of the lakes, as Walt Brown's hydro-plate theory and how he says the Grand Canyon, and many other geographical and geological phenomena were formed.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
This didn't require millions of years to carve this experiment, as you can see it probably required a few minutes, to be fair maybe hours, to finish that experiment. Yet they still cling to uniformitarianism, and they (National Geographic) will worship the god of the strata of Grand Canyon showing millions of years of evolution. Many huge problems with this claim, which can be saved for another day.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
lol wait.. are you seriously saying you think the grand canyon took a few hours to be made?
and if you believe that there was a worldwide flood that coverd the earth to the highest mountain top and some broze age man build a bout which held 2 of every animal then you shouldn't try to be disproving anything.
Airicks1 2 years ago
don't know what a bout is, or broze, I'd say you shouldn't be attempting to write. I mean you're welcome to defend uniformitarianism. And slay more science at the alter of mythology, evolution. The Maori envision a gradual evolution of Being-Itself, described as pure thought, first into not-being (the void, chaos, darkness) and then into being (sky and earth, order, light). Like the early Vedic thinkers, they argue that gods evolved with the specific forms of being: as personifications of great
orderslayer1 2 years ago
Oh Great God of Darwin and Lyell we offer you...
This virgin of science.Some may wonder what virigin?? Consider this.4.5 million years ago according to National geographic the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon. The first god of Darwin and Lyell to be appeased is old age/uniformitarianism. @ 1:45-2:00 an experiment is shown showing how the 'river' from the overflowing lake quickly carves a Grand Canyon.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
Time you had a lie down to try and lose those incessant thoughts of virgins.
Better still, just have a wank.
revjimbob 2 years ago
I certainly didn't expect any intelligent response to any of my claims, I suppose you saw the word virgin and got stimulated... Hopefully you were stimulated enough to read it all. I highly doubt it... What happened to the evolutionary imagination, come now where is my dark matter, hopeful monsters, and defying universal physics that I so greatly enjoy reading.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
It is quite hard (oo-er) to write an intelligent response to your incoherence.
revjimbob 2 years ago
such fancy words. As Eugenie Scott is stated, don't argue with the creationists, you'll loose:
AVOID DEBATES. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds[Actually Eugenie it opens up minds, funny thing eh?]; creationists stage them mainly in hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences[In hope to get the truth out rly]...
"And you probably will get beaten."
Eugenie scott. "Monkey Business" The Science. jan '96
orderslayer1 2 years ago
"such fancy words"
Only if you are a fucking illiterate.
I will debate you any time, mate - but only if you write in a way that I can understand what the fuck you are saying.
revjimbob 2 years ago
"don't argue with the creationists, you'll loose" When they walk away from the arguement, that's not you winning, they're probably tired of trying to explain the truth to you and listening to your ignorance.
Shika511 2 years ago
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort of another are being invoked.4.1.Colin Patterson, Clasdistics Interview on BBC program(March 4, 1982)
orderslayer1 2 years ago
You can't create a specie because natural selection needs millions of years to create a specie... But you can see an evidence, the dogs... The human beings are breeding them for lets say about 100,000 years or so.. there are variety of dogs, and since its not that long of a time since human did breeding, they can still be considered as a specie, but some of them can't interbreed physically...
yamikatana 2 years ago
Cannot create a new 'species' period, only reshuffle the alleles in the given gene pool. All of the domesticated dog 'species' are dogs, even wild dog 'species' dingos, wolves, etc can interbreed with domesticated ones. The fruit fly had its 'evolution' accelerated and at the end of their experiments, all they had was fruit flies, albeit mutated and natural selection would eliminate them.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
yeah, we cannot create, because, as i said, nature needs millions of years to create a diversion in a gene of a single specie, for that specie to be a new one.. and humans are here in earth for what, a hundred thousand... maybe, two hundred..
yamikatana 2 years ago
Actually the reason wasn't time, as the experiment effectively 'sped' up evolutionary time, the problem was mutations cannot create new information. Its intellectual suicide to believe in evolutionary myths. Also the Bible can be proven to have an external source, prophecies (dead sea scrolls) have shown that it has accurately to the name predicted history hundreds sometimes thousands of years before hand. Daniel wrote during the time of second Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
he Maori envision a gradual evolution of Being-Itself, described as pure thought, first into not-being (the void, chaos, darkness) and then into being (sky and earth, order, light). Like the early Vedic thinkers, they argue that gods evolved with the specific forms of being: as personifications of great powers, they are still dependent on not-being. creation of man.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
powers, they are still dependent on not-being. Being-itself, on the other side of nothingness, is neither defied nor anthropomorphized...Maori's [evolution] myths...continued through the evolution of various forms of being to the creation of man. 1.Sproul, Primal Myths. Trust Eugene you'll loose.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
half the creationists in the world are completely uneducated on the subject and make it near impossible for them to win.
Shika511 2 years ago
You aren't educated in the matter either, and haven't responded to any of the claims. Simply blowing hot air about. Not only that, but your claim is totally fantasy, how do you know everyone that believes in creation isn't educated? Do you know everyone? Evolution is the revival of ancient mythology, its just-so stories hinder science. Today its completely intellectual suicide to believe in evolution with the advances of information theory, and science in general.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
I never asked to argue with you, and I won't. I'm simply making a point.
Shika511 2 years ago
defend your point young man, else your point is invalid. Do you even know why you believe in evolution? Marxist education system systematically eliminates your ability to critically think, but its still possible. The evidence will lead you away from evolution and reveal the academic fraud the house of cards we call evolution is. A religion without any credibility, and extremely dangerous which leads to Hitler, Mao, Stalin.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
It's simple, I believe in evolution because it is what I was taught. I don't think I'll ever become part of a facist totalitarian government, if thats what evolution will come to I would renounce my beliefs immediatly.
Shika511 2 years ago
read War against the Weak by Edwin Black, you'll see the fruits of evolution, Nazism started not in Germany, but mostly in Academia with evolutionists. It only required a strong leader to enforce the ideas Academia had postulated since the enlightenment.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
Debates doesn't PROVE anything.. It only shows the audience who is better in speaking publicly...
yamikatana 2 years ago
If that's the case then scientific debates shouldn't be done, by your logic. As such this is one, if there were no such thing as debates you'd still be believing the pagans that the world is flat and that planets move about epicycles.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
yup... they should prove it rather than stay in a large room, with their beards and stuff, and talk about it... we can do much progress...
yamikatana 2 years ago
not only that but you have a severe lack of understanding of the word 'prove' only mathematicians can 'prove' anything, To be able to 'prove' something in science you'd need to be omnipresent, and omniscient. In stead science gives evidence, and if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory is tweaked(but eventually epicycles reemerge) or they get a new theory. Evolution has yet to explain anything without requiring tweaking with the theory, and falls into epicycles type theories.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
i don't have a lack of understanding of the word prove.. when you say prove, in the scientific community, evidence is not enough.. the same with the religions' claims of existence of their messiah or prophets, all they have until now were evidences, write ups, hear say, and no proof... as i am saying, debating will prove nothing, but working on it might get us close....
yamikatana 2 years ago
and predicted Alexander the great's conquest, Rome's takeover of the Greek empire, predicted Rome's division into two legs, and predicted its fall, then predicted events in 2009 AD where a global empire is founded from the ashes of Eastern Rome, and soon to be Western Rome as well. Eastern Rome being the Anglo-Saxon Empire. Predicted, to the date and place of origination via Temple Mount, when (1948) Israel would be made a nation in 1 day. Evolution's 'proof' is not even a fraction of a percent.
orderslayer1 2 years ago
so predictions are more accurate than proof?...
yamikatana 2 years ago
i disagree, just this culture has stupidified a good portion of the population. Keep your head on if you still got it.
SuperHalfie 2 years ago
The depth of human perception falls short of deep.
Deuxsean 2 years ago
it looks like a dragon from top...
lycongtu 3 years ago
interesting....!!
=)
daancincurlz 3 years ago
It is stretching it to say that wisdom teeth (mine and most of my friends came in just fine) are a sign of evolution. When there are organs that scientist do not understand it is evidence of only one thing. That they don't understand. To take that lack of understanding and apply it as fact to some subject is totally non scientific.
Some people are so bogged down in the details that the picture is lost.
You are welcome to your beliefs. I have found more than enough evidence for mine.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
The track record of scientist is extremely shaky. The bible has been question for centuries and never has it failed to be accurate on every detail. This includes the area of science when it touches on it. Comparing the history of the 2 you can choose which one you will stake your life on. The choice is very simple to me.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
The bible has a perfect track record ONLY because you refuse to allow anything else, Example?
8 people cannot provide animal care for 60,000 animals, its simply not possible
Also the dates "extrapolated" by early biblical scholars are simply not accurate
Science has proven this so often and so accurately that there is no doubt in the minds of geologists as to the age of the earth. Additionally many non western cultures have written records that go back >4500 year and disprove a global flood
herbzilla11 3 years ago
AND 60,000 does not even take into account all of the now extinct species that wound have had to have been on the ark like the dinosaurs.
(or do you not believe in those either? I know that there are some fundamentalists who think that Dinosaur bones were buried Satan to lead you astray or bye god to test your faith)
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Biological ignorance, distinct species which itself is an ambiguos term, need not have been on the Ark. Distinct kinds needed to be and that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no problem the volume on the Ark was more than sufficient for the creatures that the Bible says needed to be on the ark.
Jamesbowman777 3 years ago
Wrong, if you admit that species can gradually change over time, then admit that evolution is real, if you deny that species can gradually change over time then the ark is required to have to many species.
Polar bears are the only species of bears that have hollow hair.
Either there were bears on the ark with both hollow hair and regular hair, in which case the ark is not big enough,
or there was only one kind of bear and you admit that hallow hair "evolved".
herbzilla11 3 years ago
I know "the ark can hold all the animals" is thrown around alot but if you actually look at the equations, all of them rely on assuming that evolution created most of the species that we have today from a few family representatives
Most of them also fail to take into account
The 99.9% of species that are extinct but would have technically had to have seats on the ark,
That actual shape of the ark (L*W*H = volume of a box, not the ark),
Or the fact that 8 people can't care for that many animals.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
If the ark was real it would have required God's direct intervention. The old testament is littered with God's direct interventions but for some reason creationists continue to use erroneous math and fabricated science to defend the idea that the impossible is possible and that God is unable to ever take an active role in biblical stories (for what reason I surely can't figure)
herbzilla11 3 years ago
"Wrong, if you admit that species can gradually change over time, then admit that evolution is real,"
Selective breeding didn't start with Darwin. The theory of Evolution states that all creatures share a single common ancestor, not that variety exists?? The fact that natural selection acts on genetic variations is not in dispute, that they are derived from one single organism is. Those changes are limited and the boundries distinct both in living organisms and the fossil record.
Jamesbowman777 3 years ago
i agree with Jamesbowman777. God only had to bring two of each kind of animal, not every variation of every species. the DNA all the other species was already there, and from those two animals of every species would come all the variations of every kind of animal and human.
princeofpersia4life 3 years ago
There is that impossible thing gain. And the dates we have covered especially the age of the earth. too many times geologist have changed their dates to match the more correct bible account.
2370bc was the year of the flood. So whats the problem with written records?
How about we agree to disagree. I have no desire to shove anything down your throat. If that is how you wish to believe you are certainly welcome to it. I will say I have enjoyed our debates.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
The problem with the written record is that not everybody seems to have experienced the flood, There is no real mention of it in Egyptian history (to name one) and they seemed to have maintained a thriving population from 2371 BC straight on through 2369.
Other cultures like the Sumerians did record a flood event, and I would not put it past a historian of those people to look upon the complete destruction of their corner of a global as a global flood and record it as such.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
I am 24 and there have been no changes in the age of the earth in my life time (or in the life time of any person under 50)
You are discussing the fundamental difference between a measured/calculated value
The story of the speed of light reads almost identically
First it was thought to be infinite, then it was measured for the first time and that measurement was pretty off, then over the decades technology continued to improve and estimates got better
Even though it continued to be updated(cont)
herbzilla11 3 years ago
those updates moved farther along the decimal chain
The measured value for the age of the earth has gotten more accurate over time but has only undergone fine tuning over the last 50 yrs
I will "agree to disagree" but only if you agree to keep a skeptical mind and remember that there will a always be those who will readily abandon scientific rigor to obtain results that don't conflict with their pre-existing beliefs,
I will of course promise to do the same.
It has been a pleasure for me as well
herbzilla11 3 years ago
It is not stretching to say that wisdom teeth USED to serve a purpose and now only serve the purpose of getting infected and required emergency surgery (as I said before I have known people to whom this happened).
Where as science can offer a reason for an organ whose only apparent function is to harm me, the bible cannot.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
wisdom teeth are a remainder of human bodies that lived 969 years old, before the flood, Gen ch.6 describes giants on the earth, such as dinasaurs, ( of which elephants, crocs still remain etc. ).If I stand on the edge of a skyscraper and flap my hands a 1000 years I will not grow wings, only muscular arms.The mammoths were frozen suddenly with vegetation still in thier mouths, hence the flood destroyed them.God put all animals where they now are after the flood.God positioned the stars where
bibliosca 3 years ago
"wisdom teeth are a remainder of human bodies that lived 969"
Wisdom teeth become a problem for adolescents as they receive the last of their permanent teeth. My friends teeth got infected when when she was in High school and she had to have them surgically removed. Making people live older could never effect wisdom teeth in any way, the are a problem for the young, not the old.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
"If I stand on the edge of a skyscraper and flap my hands a 1000 years I will not grow wings, only muscular arms."
Yes I agree, every element to biological diversity was either created as it is now, or, evolved that way over time.
It is curious that god would give some creatures body parts with no functions.
"The mammoths were frozen suddenly with vegetation still in thier mouths, hence the flood destroyed them."
This is untrue, nothing like this has ever been found, sorry.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
I am not sure I can agree with this part about the teeth. You will have to clarify it.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Hay you twit stop spreading my name all over the place. You'll give me a bad rap lol. And what ever he says is right (if you can understand it)
O and this Q needs a good woman so drop him a note in his email. There we are even. lmao 8P
smeemergogin 3 years ago
Erosion along the Arctic coast varies from 3 to 22 feet (1 to 7 m) a year, spilling an enormous number of woolly mammoth bones from the sea cliffs. In a report in the Smithsonian magazine, Stewart refers to an estimate made by Vereshchagin for a section along the Arctic coast between the Yana and Kolyma rivers:
Through such causes almost 50,000 mammoth tusks are said to have been found in Siberia. between 1660 and 1915, serving an extensive mammoth ivory trade... Look for the link on my channel.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
there is a difference between thousands of tusks and your claim of millions of frozen bodies. And while what I said about 39 mammoth bodies is correct I also know of the extensive collection of fossilized mammoth bones found each year. And I am sure your link is correct, I am curious to know whether it includes a scientific estimate of the age of the bones and what your reaction is to its agreements with every other estimate of the age of those types of fossils in the tens of thousands of year?
herbzilla11 3 years ago
It goes on to say how they come to the conclusion of millions.I can not and do not see the need to rewrite these articles here. There are also many different types of animals frozen there.
Suffice it to say the the entire area was green and full if life and with out a chance for these creatures to migrate they where frozen there still standing. Many hit with violent forces strong enough to brake the Mammoth's bones in many places. My world is not based on this. I just find it too coincidental.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
How did the flood freeze them? Live animal tissue is just dense enough to sink, but once dead the bodies buoyancy goes up just enough to float. This is why dead animals/people float on the top of the water. Even if the mammoths were covered by water, and trapped and some how prevented from floating up, there is no way for them to become frozen at the bottom of the ocean. Every mammoth that is preserved is proof of a NON-FLOOD event.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Read the article my friend the answers you ask are in it.
IF they where living in deep water I would understand your point. I'm aware that once the lungs fill with water the cadaver sinks only to resurface after bacterial build up enough hydrogen sulfide and methane gas withing the body. HOWEVER they were living on land. We were talking about a flash freeze of 150deg temp drop.
I understand that there are some scientist that scoff at this conclusion but cant deny that the area was once green.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
I will agree with you there, we see evidence that many areas that are now land were ocean thousands of years ago, we also areas that are now water were land thousand of years ago,
One this is for sure, the earth is a constantly changing one, in fact we can even measure these kinds of shifts happening under our feet today.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Read the article my friend the answers you ask are in it.
IF they where living in deep water I would understand your point. I'm aware that once the lungs fill with water the cadaver sinks only to resurface after bacterial build up enough hydrogen sulfide and methane gas withing the body. HOWEVER they were living on land. We were talking about a flash freeze of 150deg temp drop.
I understand that there are some scientist that scoff at this conclusion but cant deny that the area was once green.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
"Why do lizards in caves with no light have useless/sightless eyes?"
Human will also go blind if in the dark for several months. Visit Florida Caverns or the like.
"Why do wales have finger bones?"
That is simply the term scientist apply to bones structures that are like our fingers.
"Why do countless other lifeforms, including humans, have numerous functionless vestigial organs?"
Because scientist at the time did not SEE a use for them. Today they eating their words.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
You sir are truly gifted, most people need at least two separate posts to contradict themselves.
Each vestigial organ either has a secret hidden use or it doesn't.
"Human will also go blind if in the dark for several months. Visit Florida Caverns or the like."
You must believe that human organs can become 100% useless on just a few months.
But yet you believe it impossible for any human organ to be totally without function.
HOW CONFUSING!
herbzilla11 3 years ago
You can't go blind from darkness,
Wisdom teeth serve no purpose,
And if you take a normal lizard and put them in a cave for a few months their eyes don't become like those of the cave lizards, the cave lizards evolved that way, sorry.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
My purpose here is to show that organs that are not stimulated atrophy. My source was a tour of the Florida caverns. This does not say that the organs have NO USE but that unused they cease to work. Being that there is no stimulation it follows that the brain would not even wire the organ. However the lizard still remains a lizard blind or not. And as in humans the possibility of blindness or rather useless eyes can be a genetic trait. Still the offspring is a human.
smeemergogin 3 years ago
Ops I was helping this new friend set up his Channel. He gave me his password so I could do it for him and I forgot to log out of his account. Terribly sorry.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
yes, however, the difference between a cave lizard and none cave lizard simply cannot be achieved in one lizards lifetime. If what you said were true the offspring of every lizard, cave or no, would be identical. This is not the case. cave lizards are BORN with sightless eyes, the children INHERIT the adaptations of their parents, they EVOLVE to be more efficient.
Either God created them with sightless eyes, or they evolved them.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Your comment on the Mammoths btw was referring to one specific mammoth "Berezovka Mammoth". One scientist says it was frozen the other debates it. Still it does not cover the millions of mammoths frozen in different areas which are still rolling out of the ice. Claims of 150deg drop in temp caught whole herds who had no time to migrate and whose red blood cells and sperm are collectible. They are even thinking of cloning one.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Millions? You sir are talking out of your butt, I challenge you to show me "millions" of Mammoths.
Oh wait, I can go to answers in genesis too,
lets see,
Millions of mammoths frozen? No evidence/proof even in the slightest?
Whole herds frozen?
Try 39 preserved bodies have been found in all of human history.
And the sperm/ red blood cell mammoth you are talking about is the Jarkov mammoth, his complete case is accessible as wiki's 4th reference on the woolly mammoth page.(cont)
herbzilla11 3 years ago
no person ever uttered "we are even thinking about cloning"
More like "scientists are skeptical but are hopping that something inside this mammoth is cloneable"
Unfortunately
"Stories abound about frozen mammoth corpses that were still edible once defrosted, but the original sources indicate that the corpses were in fact terribly decayed, and the stench so unbearable that only the dogs accompanying the finders showed any interest in the flesh.[5]"
AnswerInGenesis = LiesToPerpetuateGenesis
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Noahs ark had grizzly and polar bears, because the knowledge of the flood water was given to those pairs of unclean, not practicle, palatable foods and the 7 of clean easily farmed and 1 spare for sacrifice and the 8 survivores to eat after the flood. etc. God calmed the animals as he did the lions with Daniel in thier den.Jesus preached to the spirits in prison in th days of noah
bibliosca 3 years ago
Plus the numbers of animals that ENTER the ark is clearly stated as 2 of each, the fact that this is simply not possible, given the consumption needs of the carnivorous animals and the sacrificial needs of Noah and his family both during the 40 days and afterwards does not change that fact.
Here again, what you NEED for the bible to be literally true is numbers of animals on the ark greater than 2 per species, therefore you distort whatever piece of information you have to to make it true.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
You sure like that word "Impossible". And again if you READ THE ACCOUNT you will see that Noah was clearly told that 7 was required of some of the animals.
We do not NEED this for the bible to be true you are the one NEEDING it.
I think you are confusing natural diversity of animals with evolution. The same mistake Darwin made. Diversity is observable but the extreme interpretation of it is not. So weather or not a Polar Bear was needed on the ark is debatable to no end.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
I NEED nothing.
Natural diversity is not at all what we are talking about here, a polar bear and a grizzly are not the same things as people with two different ethnic backgrounds. The two bears have certain fundamental biological differences. Like for example, polar bears have hollow hair. This is not some kind of recessive grizzly jean, you couldn't just use selective breading and create a grizzly with a coat of polar bear hair even in the 3500 years between now and the flood years.(cont)
herbzilla11 3 years ago
You know this how?
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Again Debating weather Noah needed a polar bear on the ark or not is debatable to no end.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
God adapted humans to live from 969 years old to 120 years in Gench.5-6 and later in psalms to 70 years old.Also one race grew to 12 feet tall, if we look at an account of a mans bed legnth in the bible.God placed each animal in its habitat, and designed them to survive there with a food/water chain to survive. Those organs humans did not need are since said to be needed, even adams spare rib for eve.Cats bear cats and there arnt to many, only enough according to prey to eat.nature is ordered
bibliosca 3 years ago
Humans have exceeded 70 and 120. Even in the bible humans exceeded these ages AFTER god "adapted" them.
The evidence for giants in anecdotal. As fundamentalists have done over and over, they took a concept that is necessary for a literal interpretation of genesis to be correct, in this case a second race of "giant" humans, and searched diligently for any scrap of evidence that might make this true. Then, once they found it, they completely stone walled all other incoming ideas and evidence.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
If you look for anything hard enough you will find it. If you look for evidence that people in biblical times are NOT giants you will find some of that was well.
Furthermore you comment on human organs sill does not address the fact that lizards in caves with no light have large sightless eyes.
Most fundamentalists concede the fact that there is no room for the hundreds of thousands of species that would have had to have been on the ark and that micro evolution afterwards was necessary.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Micro evolution? So now we are calling the inherent genetic potential for diversity withing a species micro evolution. Wow so my daughter evolved blond hair from 2 dark haired parents because too many magazines promote blonds are more beautiful. Why don't you watch the vid on "Meet the Supper Cow" (link to the right) and tell me how they where able to BREED them. IS this still a cow?
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
"Micro evolution", creationists invented this term because even in their intense efforts to deny the scientific research the proves evolution, "Micro evolution" can be observed experimentally and ever created in a lab. So rather the admit the truth, which is that evolution is real, they decided to persevere what they could by saying that evolution is a little bit true, but not all the way, and that while "Micro evolution" is indisputable, it does not prove that "Macro Evolution" is real.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". The term was brought into English-speaking by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937)[1].
Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and even fallen into disfavor amongst scientists who prefer to speak of biological evolution as one process. - Wikipedia
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
"When discussing the topic, creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution".[1]"
herbzilla11 3 years ago
I am noticing the [1] in the apparently pasted text. What is the source for this so I may understand you better?
smeemergogin 3 years ago
All of my references containing those so far are pasted from WIKI
herbzilla11 3 years ago
That student's model sure scored some points with me. That's pretty strong evidence
Blackmailman 3 years ago
God created the world the proper distance from the sun and created all creatures for the climate they already exist in etc. The flood was an act of God nd the valleys were deepened etc we edin the psalms and this was implied after the flood, also the mountains wee pushed up. If there was even a nagging doubt that the bile is true about creation, err on the bibles side n make Jesus your lawyer for Gods broken laws and our sns. Our conscience needs peace withGod through Jesus who created miracles
bibliosca 3 years ago
"God created the world the proper distance from the sun and created all creatures for the climate they already exist in"
Why do lizards in caves with no light have useless/sightless eyes?
Why do wales have finger bones?
Why do countless other lifeforms, including humans, have numerous functionless vestigial organs?
There was no room on the arc for Polar bears AND Grizzlies. Which is why creationists concede that SOME evolution (gradual change over time) HAS to exist.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Ok so we agree that the oceans where not always as salty as they are now. Which then you could have answered your own question about how the fish survived the flood.
One assumption your making is that the flood was only 40 days long. While it rained 40 days the flood was far longer. Even when the water subsided far enough to expose land there was still quite some time till it arrived at todays point. So land geography did not change in 40 days. This vid shows its still happening.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
That does absolutely nothing to answer my question, if fish are adapted to fresh water how much salt will kill them? Here again you prove that you are look for excuses to believe the bible and discontinue all academic pursuit once you have them. When I checked how the salinity of the ocean changes over time I saw that rather than being linear that the salinity rises and falls. Even so, the estimates for the changes of the salinity are rather small even over vast periods...
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Every square inch of the earth is covered in water, and at the end of 40 days enough water has receded to allow the ark to unload. This still required unnatural events.
If the topology of the earth changed AS A RESULT of the flood receding, then the initial recession of waters CANNOT have been caused by changing topology, and ice caps can't form that quickly and that much water can't evaporate with out raining back down on the earth. If it did happen (it might have) it took an act of God
herbzilla11 3 years ago
You are welcome to keep insisting on the 40 days if you like. But don't credit your source as the bible.
That the ice poles could form that fast is proven by the woolly mammoth found in Siberia frozen so fast that the vegetation was still in its mouth and stomach, and its flesh was even edible when thawed out. Yuk!
I don't believe you have a question about fish. If you do you want no answer for it.
I get it now your dancing the Can't Can't. I thought you were saying everything can't happen.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Here is an in depth analysis of why everything you saying about you mammoth is wrong with numerous factual citations.
talkorigins DOT
org /
faqs /
mammoths DOT
html
Read at your own risk, I know that as a rule you only look for excuses to believe that bible is literal and not for scientific explanation's for the world around you.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
I never said the flood only lasted 40 days. The flood began to rise, and after 40 days it had reached its peak AND receded enough to allow Noah to get off the ark. THIS IS BIBLICAL FACT, as much as anything is the bible is a fact.
If you say that changes in the topology of the earth caused the waters to recede enough for Noah get off the ark then you are saying that the earth under went major changes in topology in under 40 days which is still impossible without the hand of god.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Please you are making your self look silly now. You really need to read the account. Then tell me how long Noah was in the ark. IF you still insist on 40 days I give up on you. This is chapter 7 and 8.
Sadly too many people listen to what others say is in the bible without checking.
There is that word IMPOSSIBLE. Hallelujah least your bringing God into your reasoning. IF HE started the flood why would he not conclude it. 41,564,160,000,000 lbs of water has to do some kind of damage
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
SOMEONE HAD to bring god in here, it has been your claim all along that ONLY by COMPLETELY natural process did all of these events unfold and it has ONLY BEEN ME who has insisted that without Gods direct intervention these events would not be possible.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
It seems then that we are miss reading each other. My intent is not to rule out GOD. Rather to point out more accurately the biblical account so as not to incorporate the errors of over simplification, thus turning these accounts into a mythological story that grind against all known facts. When examined as the bible records, there is great harmony in discovered factual evidence.
I then apologize for the misunderstanding.
smeemergogin 3 years ago
Again points throughout your comment reveal you are not reading the flood account in the bible. You are assuming way too many points. And that a flood happened all over the world is not disputed even by evolutionists.
While all vertebrate blood is similar in salinity ratio (.9% salt)the ocean is 4x that. I am merely pointing out possibilities that are stated all over science that offer plausible explanations. Since you have seemed to learned everything you don't need me for answers.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
IF you could please instead of spamming just post a reference that I might be able to read.
Thanks.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
I have made no assumptions about the flood other than it happened all over the world, and that the time between when began and when it peaked was under 40 days. This is the second time you have challenged my knowledge about the flood and insinuated that I make "too many" assumptions. Please list any assumptions that you think that I am making that you think are erroneous. The definition of accretion and the data on the earths age both come from Wiki articles which contain all relevant sources.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
"While all vertebrate blood is similar in salinity ratio(.9% salt)the ocean is 4x that" Which is correct, and my response to this, (That.9 represents the salinity of the oceans when animals evolved internal circulatory systems)was incorrect/based on a source I now know to be dated.Here is a much better estimation of the changing salinity of the oceans over time CONT.
I also include a link to an explanation of how even in the absence of a less salty ocean animals evolved their current salinity.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Wikipedia-Age_of_the_Earth
I read the whole thing and found it interesting.
Several problems and statements like: "Because the exact accretion time of the Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different
accretion models vary from several millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of the Earth is difficult to determine." - have me not basing my life one the stated "facts.
The bible has a far better track record. I think I will stick with it.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
You and I have a different definition of "read". I think your must be "scanned until I hit the first disputed claim, stopped reading, and copied and pasted". I know you were scanning because the sentence right before it said "the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system -- are 4.567 billion years old"
If you even bothered to read the first paragraph you would see that "accretion" is not a model used to date the earth.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
accretion "is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter" The accretion period of the earth is not exactly known, but the time since then is, "these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error"
I am not saying the flood did not happen, but science does not suport it
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Do you even read about the things you try to disprove? Perhaps you should go back and read the flood account. You are overlooking some major points. No wonder your chasing your tale. If your not going to read it you surly wont read what I have to say.
As for the fish the rain was FRESH water. And to this day there are accounts of fresh water and salt water not mixing but layering. The oceans where guessed to be at least 100x smaller than they are today.
qaz1qaz1qa 4 years ago
In addition even your evolutionists claim that the oceans where not near as saline as they are today. And that fish adapted to the rising concentration of salt in the oceans over the centuries.
IT seems that if not given a simple answer or you can't come up with one on your own then its not fact or its not possible. This line of limited thinking will greatly hinder you. 24 is kind of young to stop learning.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Religion systematically destroys your ability to think. You know the that flood "must" be real, and since if all the oceans coalesced the fish would die from the different salt, that must not be what happened, so you look for a way out, and low and behold, just like with anything else, if you look hard enough you find that the salt content of water can later itself. You did not bother to find out what is necessary for them to exist/ be created, or whether marine animals are aware of them...
herbzilla11 3 years ago
that is, whether animals will use them, or whether they could be created in under 40 days, or whether the layers are big enough for whales to operate in. But non of this could ever matter to a person like you. All you want is an excuse to believe in what you already "know" to be true.
Also the distribution of fossilized ocean beds makes the theory that the oceans 6000 years ago were 100X smaller than they are today utterly impossible...
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Additionally the saline content of the oceans is changing SLOWLY 6000 years ago the oceans were almost identical to the oceans of today. One of my favorite scientific TidBits is that if your take how fast the oceans change and plot it backwards to the estimated time when animals first evolved closed circulatory systems, at that time oceans had salt content identical to human blood. With open circulatory systems Sea waters functioned like out blood does today, when we evolved closed ...
herbzilla11 3 years ago
circulatory systems, we needed to develop an internal mechanism that functioned as the Sea water did. It is not a coincidence that the the period in the earth history when the oceans would have had the same salt as our blood, and the fossil records for when animals first developed closed circulatory systems is identical.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
grow sooooo tired of these claims. God, the easter bunny, and Santa Clause are not REAL.
It seems to me that this life, world, universe has a lot of shit that seems unexplainable. But the nature of the human mind doesn't allow for this and if an answer can't be found the mind rationalizes an answer
such as man's creation of GOD.
soahcalm 4 years ago 2
Maybe a lake from the glaciation... I think I heard that from somewhere (Discovery maybe) so I didn't invent it xD
habeascor 4 years ago
lets not bring the bible in this...lol
RadientProductions 4 years ago
The Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood that is mentioned in the bible.
heyitzadam 4 years ago
Lol~ Its kinda true there though it wasn't anything religious on the flood making I suppose ^^;;
The Canyon was formed by rushing water which the bible called the Great Flood :3
lilblkrose 4 years ago
If the 6000 year Earth theory is correct, how come you'd be very hard pressed to find young Earth 'scientists' working in oil and gas, or mineral exploration industries (whose only goal is to make money, not support secular sciences). Its because the models based on the 6000 year Earth don't work!
originalblend 4 years ago
Correct! The bible says the earth was created "In the beginning". It could be millions,billions,or trillions of years old. It is man that is a little over 6k. BTW each creative day is 7k years. A day is a time period. Compare Gen 2:4.
qaz1qaz1qa 4 years ago
Gen 1:9 Is when the land appears, Along with plants and trees. Gen 1:14 The light(THE SUN) was created. Gen 1:20 The birds fish and land animals are created.
There was not thousands of years in between each day. That would be pretty hard on those plants waiting for the sun to come up. It would also be hard for them to live if there weren't any insects to pollinate the plants for thousands of years.
The world was not created over thousands of years. It was created in 6 days.
lreel16 4 years ago
My answer to your Delima Ireel16 does not seem to post. This is a test
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Gen 1:14 is not talking about the creation of the sun but the appearance to an earthy observer if present. Famous Gen1:3 "Let there be light"
Second day is a deviding of the waters between earth and sky. Gen1:6-8
Down to the 4th day this atmospheric water or Canopy became clear enough to discern the Sun, Moon, and stars. This canopy eventually became part of the flood waters.
As for a 24h period being the only interpretation of "day" compare Gen 2:4 where all 6 days are called one day.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
Again we see classical Fundamentalist logic. The water canopy "needs" to exist in order for the bible to be true. The "evidence" for its existence is that the bible is can't be literal without it. "Let there be light" means light did not exist and God created it, your "interpretations" makes alot more sense with regard to the physical world but there is no mention of the watery canopy existing or being the mechanism by which God "revealed" light to these fictitious non existent observers.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
If you really think that god has no ability to directly effect the natural world then how is it possible to consider yourself a Christian?
herbzilla11 3 years ago
Gen 1:6-8 shows the creation of this water canopy.
The bible is written for man from his viewpoint before space craft. Hence the creation account is described from that vantage. This is not the point of the bible and is apparent by the fact it goes in to more detail when chapter 2 starts talking about man. Many things we take for granted today are very recent discoveries. To tell the account back then from such an angle would have been difficult to relate to. Try talking to a child.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago
If its from man's viewpoint then how do you explain passages before the creation of man?
herbzilla11 3 years ago
"Gen 1:6-8 shows the creation of this water canopy."
Sorry nothing in here about the creation of a watery canopy that defies the laws of physics in the way you describe.
You NEED the canopy.
This is the ONLY passage that your desperation could massage into the creation of the canopy.
And that is all that you and other fundamentalists like you need to know.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
How could you explain evolution to child? OR explained things in terms of time periods like "billions of years".
You agree that EVERYTHING in the bible HAD to be in terms that the original authors would have understood.
Therefore EVEN IF god created the earth 4.5 billion years ago and USED evolution to create all the life on earth there would be NO POSSIBLE WAY that it could EVER have been included inteh bible.
I am glad we agree on this point.
herbzilla11 3 years ago
What is this about I thinking God does not directly effecting the natural world? I believe he does. Some are over simplifying the account. Its important to remain true to the limited insight given on these accounts or there will be no harmony with the facts. This is scientific. Or by definition knowledge. I believe GOD set all the laws of the universe in order for a reason. And this was done 'in the beginning'. Why would he not use those laws creating life on earth. Evidently he did.
qaz1qaz1qa 3 years ago