It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 30
11
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I know what invalidates the Old Testament Flood story.


Physics...

Please oh please lets start debating the science of the flood story. I love that debate... mostly because SCIENCE WORKS!




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
I know what invalidates the Old Testament Flood story.


Physics...

Please oh please lets start debating the science of the flood story. I love that debate... mostly because SCIENCE WORKS!



boy, you are eager...tooo, really...


Go ahead, how do we see Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon

sandstone??

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
I know what invalidates the Old Testament Flood story.


Physics...

Please oh please lets start debating the science of the flood story. I love that debate... mostly because SCIENCE WORKS!


ok, please explain the intricate design of the ARK way way way before engineering determined this?

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by Triarchic
I know what invalidates the Old Testament Flood story.


Physics...

Please oh please lets start debating the science of the flood story. I love that debate... mostly because SCIENCE WORKS!


And what about..........?



Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. 9 Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets. 9

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9 This strongly suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were uprooted and re-deposited there.

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France. Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access. One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition. Curiously a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a 'black swan’ in geological literature. Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of the relevant phenomena was never published. However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils. In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." 12

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is (still) the case has more to do with one's personal bias against the concept of a Creator / God to whom we might very well have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions of years old Earth that it requires (to appear plausible). However, T-I-M-E is simply not enough: not even BILLIONS of years of it.

See also The Organic Levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest 13 and The Yellowstone Petrified "Forests" 14 by Harold Coffin.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. 15 Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. 16 Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes: According to Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass." 17


"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 17
Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in that massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state.

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone, yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) "younger" sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19

Mt. St. Helens:
Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin laminations up to 25 feet thick 10,11,12 The third eruption was a lava flow, which turned into a hot mud-flow as it crossed the Toutle River. This hot mud flow not only diverted the river, but carved a 17 mile long series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours. They call it the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River." 20,21,22 And to this very day, the neither the mass media, nor any popular "science" publications have told the public what happened. 23 For more on this see Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe.

Palouse Canyon:
In Eastern Washington State there is a canyon that was eroded through solid basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is 300 to 500 feet deep. See references below for more information. 24,25,26,27,28

Observations at an Australian Beach:
At Greenmount Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred: "clear laminations, or layering, in the sand--formed by the separation of normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark in color.. The layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed." 29 Emphasis Added

"This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of sand from (a) sand bar (on) the Tweed River and carrying it by ship several kilometres north to the southern Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach." 29 See also Talking About Geology / Varves. 30 Emphasis Added

Spontaneous Sorting of Layers:
Laboratory experiments have shown that spontaneous sorting and layering occurs with a sand, mud and clay slurry. When the mixture slows down, the sand, mud and clay will spontaneously precipitate (settle out) and form individual layers. Dr. Guy Berthault has performed a number of experiments which demonstrate this. 31,32,33 Those who wish to see for themselves, may do so by simply ordering one of the following videos : Evolution: Fact or Belief? Or Experiments in Stratification.




so much more here......soooooooo much! www.earthage.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
I know what invalidates the Old Testament Flood story.


Physics...

Please oh please lets start debating the science of the flood story. I love that debate... mostly because SCIENCE WORKS!


ok...again what about those dino's?


even ya boy admtted....


Evolutionist Richard Carrington, in The Story of Our Earth, a secular publication, admitted,

"Of the many kinds of animals inhabiting the earth at the time vast numbers were swept completely away. Not only individuals, but whole races were destroyed. Extermination overtook the animals of the land, sea and air with equal indifference. When the holocaust was over the whole aspect of life on earth had changed."180/155

leading scholars such as Dr. James Trofle of George Mason University have admitted that the dinosaurs were struck by catastrophe. He wrote,

"That they present this kind of pattern: suddenly their fossils disappear from the rocks. And when I say ‘suddenly’ I mean a time that could be as long as 100,000 years or as short as a weekend—we can’t tell the difference. At the same time the dinosaurs disappeared, all the other species we talked about, from ocean plankton to some flowering plants, disappeared as well. Paleontologists term this sort of event in which many species disappear at the same time as ‘mass extinction.’"

There have been mass extinctions both in the flood (2252 B.C.) and in the time of Peleg (2151 B.C.).181 This is recognized by leading scholars to one degree or another even though the time frame and the terminology will very.

Dr. John R. Hornet in Digging for Dinosaurs stated,

"Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. . . That’s our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment."182/131

Other than the Biblical Record, are there other reportings of the world wide flood? Yes! Dr. Johannes Tiem stated that,

"Among all traditions there is none so general so wide spread on earth of the fact that the deluge is granted because of the basis of all myths in particular in nature myths having a real basis in fact."183

Listed by Dr. Richard Blick an abbreviation of the areas where flood legends have occurred: Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and the Pacific; the Armenians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, the Chaldians, the Hebrews, the Indo Arianes, the Japanese, the Kernels, the Mongols, the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Pythicans, the Tartans, and others who have this basic concept in their literature, there history and their legends.184/103 In Africa the Pergama, Carthagians, Egyptians, Hotontots, Subenys. In Europe the Druids, the Germans, the Greeks, the Gypsies, the Icelanders, the Lapplanders, the Lithuanians, the Nors, the Romans, the Slavs, the Bolgols, and the Welch all talk about a global flood. In North America the Algonquins, the Arapahos, the Aztecs, the Cherokees, the Crees, the Eskimos, the Galacous, the Kaulos, the Miens, the Mohicans, the Papagos, the Piwas, the Saggualives, the Texri, the Tlingits, the Toltecs. In South America the Curas, the Incas, the Miurs, the Tomas. In the Pacific the Batiks, the Fabians, the Hawaiians, the Melanesians, the Macanisians, the Moranisians, the New Hebrides and the South Polynesians Islands all refer to a global flood. The following are tangible, measurable, observable confirmations of a world wide flood:

surce: www.layevangelism.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
more on the big guys!!!!


Thousands of dinosaur bones can be found where they were washed together by violent flood waters and buried under mud, sand and rock. Many of the animals were torn apart and their bones broken and jumbled-up. The muds and sands hardened like concrete to form the great layers of fossil rocks we find today.


Quick flood burial would be the only way that so many dinosaurs and other things could have become fossilized in the way scientists have found them. Animals and plants will fossilize only if they are buried quickly and deeply - before predators, decay and weather destroy them.


Review: What are the main ingredients for making fossils?

Quick burial
Water, in the right amounts
Suitable mineral
Conclusion: Conditions during the Flood were ideal for “fossilizing” millions of animals, plants and even dinosaurs.

Author: Paul S. Taylor, Eden Communications. Copyright © 1995, 2002, Eden Communications, All Rights Reserved.




source: www.christiananswers.net...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Wow, this thread is a long one.

There is a simple answer to the question and one that has probably already been touched on.
But I'll say it. In matters of Science, it is best to teach what can be tested and validated. IE, Facts.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
if you are ready to learn.....

see: www.creationscience.com...

Here's a bit on the PhD!


Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Wow, this thread is a long one.

There is a simple answer to the question and one that has probably already been touched on.
But I'll say it. In matters of Science, it is best to teach what can be tested and validated. IE, Facts.


That is a great point!!!! Thank you...you mean like the EMPTY TOMB!!!!!!

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Noah’s Ark

Claim: The treasure ships from fifteenth century China were wooden ships as large as Noah's ark, showing that Noah's ark was not too big to be built.
Response:
The Chinese ships were not all wood. The keels were long pieces of wood bound with iron hoops, and iron was also used for nails. Ironworkers were included in the crew in case the ship needed repairs while at sea (Levathes 1996).
The length of a chi, or Chinese foot, varied considerably over the period of the Ming Dynasty, when the ships were made and described; it also varied by location and application, so it is uncertain how large they really were. Based on the length of chi determined from an excavated ship, it is estimated that the largest treasure ships were about 390 to 408 feet long and 160 to 166 feet wide (Levathes 1996). That still makes it the largest wooden ship, but significantly smaller than the 480-foot length attributed to Noah's ark.



Claim: Noah's ark could have carried pairs of all kinds of animals for a year.
Source:
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Santee, CA: ICR.
Response:
Woodmorappe (1996, 1-44) has done a detailed analysis of the possibility of fitting all animals aboard the Ark. He found that the animals, together with the food and water they require, would fit in about 90 percent of the available space. However, he made several invalid assumptions that, when corrected, fill the ark past overflowing (Isaak 1998).

The "kinds" used in Woodmorappe's calculations were genera. Taking individual species, which is a much more reasonable definition of kind in the context of the ark, increases the load three- or fourfold.

Woodmorappe did not account for the extra clean animals, considering their number negligible. However, he believed that the only clean animals would be thirteen domestic ruminants traditionally considered clean. But if the Bible is taken literally, all ruminants would be considered clean. Under Woodmorappe's assumption, the extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5 percent, or 3 percent if you include seven pairs of the animals. Taking all ruminants increases the load by 14 or 28 percent.

Woodmorappe included only juveniles of animals larger than about 10 kg. This assumption, however, is unbiblical and, for some animals, impractical. Taking adult animals would increase the total mass more than thirteenfold. Taking even some of these animals as adults or taking older juveniles could easily fill the ark beyond capacity.

According to the creation model, dinosaurs and other animals now extinct would have been alive at the time of the flood and therefore would be aboard the ark. The only extinct animals that Woodmorappe included in his calculations were the ones that were known at the time. Since then, many other dinosaur genera have been discovered, and no doubt there are many more as yet undiscovered.

Woodmorappe excluded land invertebrates from his calculations, despite the fact that they must have been aboard the ark. These animals are small enough that they alone would not have increased the load significantly, but they are numerous enough and have many special requirements, so the infrastructure needed to house and care for them would have been significant.

Woodmorappe made no allowance for food spoilage or water wasted from spilling, although the conditions he described aboard the ark guarantee that both of these problems would have been severe.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The eight-person crew aboard Noah's ark was sufficient to feed and care for all the animals.
Source:
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Santee, CA: ICR, pp. 71-81.
Response:
Three hundred and twenty full-time employees are needed to care for fewer than 3000 animals at the Washington National Zoo (Grimaldi and Barker 2003). Granted, many of these would be working on administration and visitor concerns that would not have existed on the ark. Still, assuming that only a quarter of them cared for animals, that is still eighty people to care for 3000 animals. On the ark, there were eight people to tend more than 15,000 animals (assuming Noah's crew were not needed to do maintenance and bail water). They would have had to work more than fifty times harder than professional zookeepers. Double shifts are not enough to make up the difference.

Accepting Woodmorappe's number of 15,754 animals aboard the ark, and assuming the crew attended to them sixteen hours per day (a very generous assumption), each animal would receive an average of about thirty seconds of attention per day for all its needs.

Labor-saving mechanisms proposed by Woodmorappe are unrealistic. For example:
Watering many animals at once via troughs would not work on a ship. Most of the water would slosh out as the ark rolled with the waves.
Automatic feeders would allow pests to infest the food. Animals with automatic feeders would probably eat more and waste more food, too, increasing the amount of food that must be stored. Woodmorappe did not account for the extra space required.
At least one third, and probably two thirds, of the manure could not be disposed of by simply pushing it overboard, since it would be below the water line. The manure would have to be carried up a deck or two.

Woodmorappe did not consider some time-consuming tasks:
The ark itself must be maintained. It would be a miracle if bailing alone were less than a full-time job.
All of the hoofed animals would need to have their hooves trimmed several times during the year (Batten 1976, 39-42).


Claim: The care and feeding of animals aboard the ark could be significantly lessened by animals hibernating or otherwise staying dormant for much of the voyage.
Source:
Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publish Co., p. 71.
Response:
Most animals do not hibernate, and most of the ones that do are small animals. The large animals are the ones that require the most food and care. Among them, hibernation would probably have been an insignificant factor. Woodmorappe (1996, 127-135) considered the issue of dormancy uncertain enough that he did not include it in his calculations.

The opposite problem of overstimulation or lack of privacy may have been a problem for some animals. In zoos, great care is necessary to provide not only food, but also the proper stimuli to keep animals healthy (Hsun and Menon 2003). In particular, large spaces are necessary for territorial animals to behave normally, and the sight or sound of predators will increase the stress of their prey.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I guess it is a good thing for the position of "evolutionists" that one man's opinions in these matters are not really a consensus of any sort and that the man you just appealed to is in the vast minority in these regards.

Sorry that you want creation taught in schools.

But quite simply put, it isn't going to happen.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Claim: The specialized dietary needs of many animals might have come about only after the Flood via microevolution. Microevolution could also account for climate preferences, lack of dormancy, wild temperament, and other traits, meaning that Noah never would have had to face many of the challenges that would be posed by animals in their present form.
Source:
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Santee, CA: ICR, pp. 61, 116-117, 125, 134.
Response:
It is ironic that someone opposed to evolution would invoke evolution as a magic wand to solve so many problems. The rates of evolution proposed by Woodmorappe are far greater than the evolution rates that biologists propose to account for common descent of all plants and animals from a common ancestor.
Woodmorappe (1996, 5-7) further proposed that all species evolved after the Flood from representative genera or families aboard the ark. Since the evolution Woodmorappe proposed involves speciation and has no barriers to change, it is unquestionably macroevolution, not microevolution.
Rapid evolution requires populations that include lots of variation already; the evolution then proceeds via selection of existing variation. If there is little or no variation in the population already, nonharmful mutations must first occur to provide some variation, and evolution is much slower. According to the Flood story, almost all populations would have begun from just two individuals, making variation virtually nil. (Few populations would have had the capacity even to survive normal environmental fluctuations; Simberloff 1988). The populations would not have had the genetic variation to allow microevolution of specialized traits to be common.

Claims: Present-day fish and other aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood. Many freshwater fish can survive in salt water, and many saltwater fish can tolerate fresh water. The floodwaters may have been layered by salinity, allowing others to find their preferred habitat.
Source:
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 140-152.
Response:
Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.

The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream.

Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following:
Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat.
Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b).
Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.
Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.

Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Claim: All existing kinds of plants could have survived Noah's Flood.
Source:
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 153-162.
Response:
Not all plants could survive the Flood for some of the following reasons:
Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed if soaked for several months in water, especially salt water.
Some plants do not produce seeds; they would have been killed when the Flood either uprooted or covered them.
Not all seeds could survive a year before germinating (Benzing 1990; Densmore and Zasada 1983; Garwood 1989).

The Flood was an ecological catastrophe. Creationists credit it with eroding and redepositing sediments miles thick, raising mountains, carving immense canyons, and even repositioning continents. This alone would doom many plants to extinction, even if they or their seeds survived the Flood, for some of the following reasons:
Most of the world's seeds would have been buried under many feet -- even miles -- of sediment. This would keep them from sprouting.
Many plants require particular soil conditions to grow. The Flood would have eroded away all the topsoil which provides the optimum conditions for most plants.
Some seeds will germinate only after being exposed to fire. After the Flood, there was nothing to burn.
Most flowering plants are pollinated by insects, but the only insects around after the Flood would have been those Noah carried aboard the ark. The surviving seeds would have had to find the proper conditions of soil type and burial depth in a small area around where the ark landed.
Plants live not as individuals, but as communities. If you cut down the redwoods, you kill not only the redwoods but also dozens of other plants that depend on the community structure. After the Flood, there would have been no ecological communities, only bare land. Any plant that depends on a mature community (for shade, shelter, humidity, or support, for example) could not survive until such a community matures, which usually takes years to decades.

Woodmorappe (throughout his book, not just regarding plants) made two fundamental errors:
He noted that "many" could survive the flood conditions, disregarding the significant number that could not, but that are alive anyway.
He assumed that plants and animals could live in isolation, ignoring that life lives in, and depends upon, ecologies. Simply preserving plants and animals would keep them alive for a very short time. Noah would have had to rebuild many entire ecologies to maintain the life we see today.

Evolution predicts the geographical distribution of plant kinds that we observe, with many species occurring on one continent and not others. Flood geology predicts that this pattern would not occur. Flood theory fails.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


What empty tomb are you talking about?

There are lots of them.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OldThinker
 


What empty tomb are you talking about?

There are lots of them.



you can see it...just over that ridge you are sitting on...to the left....

Man that was a great memory for you, huh? was it by accident?

NOPE, friend!

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm sorry, but I'm not following you.
What tomb do you speak of?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Triarchic
 



ooodles for ya....


Related Articles
Stunning New Evidence of a Higher Ancient Sea Level
Transcontinental Sedimentation and the Flood
Red Butte: Remnant of the Flood
Mantle Rotation and the Flood
The Hualapai and the Flood
Calibrating the Flood?
Geological Provincialism
Mudcracks and the Flood
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
Do Millions of Laminae in the Green River Shales Document Millions of Years?
Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?
Has Evidence For The Flood Been Found In The Black Sea?
The Polystrate Trees and Coal Seams of Joggins Fossil Cliffs

source of links/books/videos: www.icr.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm sorry, but I'm not following you.
What tomb do you speak of?




we'll give you some time to think on it...maybe open up and bit, ask her, maybe she can help?

Girlfriends always know...darn!


OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


What if a person was to grant the idea that at one point in time a flood miraculously occured that covered the Earth?

What does that actually gain your position that God created anything?

Nothing. All it does is show that ancient man recorded such an event.

Everything else becomes merely what people have written about afterwards.

And this is why it won't be taught as serious science. It is mythology.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by JayinAR]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join