Christian answering questions.

[drfuzzy]

[pocaracas]

oh, come now drfuzzy!
Mixing science and magic?

Certainly, if magic can make rain fall for 40 days straight, magic can keep fresh water and salt water habitats intact... honestly, people... you have no imagination faith.

[drfuzzy]

oh, come now drfuzzy!
Mixing science and magic?

Certainly, if magic can make rain fall for 40 days straight, magic can keep fresh water and salt water habitats intact... honestly, people... you have no imagination faith.

LOL poca!  There was one member here . . . theist, hasn't been here in a while . . . I think I remember that after being given some reasons that the flood could not have happened, just responded something like "if God wanted the ark to float, he would make it float".   Magic.  Goddidit.  
No.  I have no faith.  My karma ran over my dogma.  (No, I don't believe in karma either but I love the saying.)

[Godscreated]

[Godscreated]

 
 I've read all that before and no real proof against the flood is produced as the Bible describes the flood. As for the fish many, many fish have no problem living in fresh and salt water, and we know that salt water and fresh water do not always have to mix when brought together, the Amazon is just one example. The amount of fresh water mixing in with the salt water would have formed many very large areas of brackish water where even more kinds of fish could live with no problems, as they do today. 

Yes I read some of the article until I saw that it's a repeat of what I've read before, don't think I haven't studied these things. The whole deal is no one today was there at the time and can't know what all happened or was possible. The flood can't be reproduced and so what scientist try to prove by paper work doesn't always result in reality, many papers that have been published have later been found to be untrue. Why would I take the writer of the article seriously when he shows no respect for Christians and the same goes for you.
 
GC

Yes, I understand that sites such as the "Institute for Creation Research" post pseudoscience and lies to try to prove that all of the scientific data is wrong.  But the data is not wrong.  This is not proven "by paper" it has been proven by hard math, geology, archaeology.  The flood didn't happen, and I can't fathom anyone WANTING it to have happened - a god so incompetent and evil that he decided he had screwed up and drowns his creation.  And your assertion about the fish is unbelievably absurd.  
===
The mixing of salt and fresh water would have killed many fish, tremendous oceanic turbulence would have killed others, and still others thrown out of their normal habitat would die of starvation.

Aquatic species such as the various stingrays, which spend most of their time in close proximity to the ocean floor, would be repeatedly bashed against the bottom of the ocean, a collision they would be unable to survive even once. All coral reef fish, and the reefs themselves, would meet a similar fate, and yet the fossil record oddly contains perfectly preserved coral reefs in strata that creationists claim were deposited by the flood.

The global flooding and the extreme turbulence caused in the Noah's Ark myth would have stripped the earth of topsoil. This would have caused extreme problems for aquatic species that require clear water, and they would choke on particulate concentrations nearing 30%.

 All of that is speculation and the math being done doesn't mean the math is correct, especially when the math is based on assumptions that could very well be wrong. Let me say this, there are rivers in this world that stay muddy and I mean extremely muddy for months and fish survive them every year. There are rivers that rage so hard they would completely destroy heavy metal boats, yet fish survive in them all the time, they even manage to feed in these rivers with little difficulty. The scientist that wrote the paper needs to get out into the world and experience nature at it's finest, sitting behind desks and speculating things to try and disprove what they truly don't want to be true. It's beyond me why people with such good minds wouldn't want to find out how God did these things.

GC

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sanitary compared to outdoor environment, nature is a cruel place at times. Tell me how was she able to produces 63 million years of nature doing it's thing in a lab.

You know you're talking to a former field biologist for an environmental agency, right? Please, tell me all about nature!

Her job wasn't to produce millions of years. She was showing that there was a mechanism to prevent bacteria from dissolving tissue immediately, as is the normal case. All that had to happen was for the marrow to be preserved against bacterial action long enough, inside the bone, for fossilization to encase it in stone, where it was further preserved. After that, the only thing breaking it down would be radiation, and that's not very fast due to the distance between molecules.

I need not drop a ball 10,000 meters to prove it can happen, if I show that the same mechanism would work over a 1m scale.

Yes a picture, lets say with texture. The bone is gone and the stone is an image of the bones and feathers.

Um, in that case it's just semantics. The stone is a replacement of, bit by bit, the bones and other hard bits with minerals. So yes, they form a "rock-picture", but it's still an exact replica of what was there.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not going to get into what I believe about theistic evolutionist other than they takes away God's sovereignty.   

Funny, she says that you guys take away from the glory of God by making the creation story nothing better than what people 3-4000 years ago thought. In her view (we've talked about this pretty extensively), Creation is an ongoing process, and the Almighty set up the rules of the universe so that life would arise without need for divine intervention beyond the beginning, and would develop according to God's Plan™ via that method. Quoting Francis Collins, "Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates."

Or to use an analogy... Which is greater? A watchmaker who hand-makes the most perfect and complex watch that ever existed, or a watchmaker who builds a factory that self-assembles from basic materials and then goes on to produce an endless variety of watches, including the current model, identical to the handcrafted one?

You may prefer your magical explanations. I am in agreement with my Beloved that, if there is a God, then whatever we find in the structure of the universe is a "fingerprint" of the Creator. Making up fairytale versions that have been handily disproved not only fails to serve such a creator, it impugns the name of that Creator by making it seem inferior to what we actually find when we look for those fingerprints. When you deny science's many discoveries about nature in favor of a Book, any book, written by men who lived in the Bronze/Iron Age, you are worshiping the book, not the Creator.

I read some of it, it's the same things I've read before, I'm not coming into this blind. The fish surviving has been answered in my post to Dr. Fuzzy. The rest assumes that the world was the same then as it is now, like I said a flood of that magnitude would change the appearance of the world, such as the waters below the surface of the earth coming forth. They would have destroyed much of the surrounding land. When those empty caverns collapsed there would have been a place for the waters to recede. As for the writer of the article making fun of the waters that surrounded the earth from above, well it's one reason the ancients lived so long, don't think so. NASA has said the best protection for those traveling long distances through space would be to surround them with water, in other words make a water shield in the walls of the spaceship.  

 

Ad-hoc explanations! It's not a question of where the water went... it's pointing out that both your (well, the ICR/DI's) "ice/water canopy" idea and the amount of condensation it would take to make that much rainfall, separately, would make enough heat to parboil the planet. The atmospheric pressure from that much of a change can be measured by straightforward equations, and it would have smashed and suffocated them. The energy releases from the volcanoes that would open up when all the plates and land shifted, as you allege, would have nearly boiled the oceans. And so on it goes.

 My point exactly the destruction would have be enormous, beyond anything we could imagine, changing the whole face of the planet. Tsunamis waves in mid-ocean are relatively small so they would not necessarily effect the ark, but if some were enormous don't you think God would have protected the ark, within it was the new start. God created an entire universe surely He could protect on boat.

Um, I'm not talking about a single tsunami wave in mid-ocean. I'm talking about the interaction between the waves, called nodes, where the amplitude of the wave is magnified by the interaction. With the entire earth's plates sliding around as you say, the number of interacting tsunami waves would be in the thousands, from each individual epicenter/fault.

Finally, if you're going to claim "Goddidit magically", to protect the boat, then what's the point of the boat? Just transport Noah and his family forward in time by one year, along with all the animals God wanted to save.

Look, dude, you need to seriously face the fact that the Flood is a myth borrowed from the Sumerians, who preceded the Hebrew people (and from whose country Abraham supposedly originated), and modified to fit the Hebrew Patriarchs. It's really not that complicated. It goes against well-known physics, today, forcing you to either plug your ears and hum or else wave reason away with "it was magic!" ad-hoc explanations. Why is that? Because neither the Sumerians nor the Hebrews knew what we know now about the planet, let alone physics.

[snowtracks]

I don't see how a lack of proof for evolution - if we'd take that as a given for the sake of the argument - would lead you to a young earth.

It didn't. I became a Christian first and then learned about the Bible, God, young earth, etc and have confirmed it all since. My testimony makes it a little more clear how that is possible.

Young Earth all started when a certain group decided that to support science dating would be tantamount to endorsing evolution which would require epochs of time.  The book of scripture and the book of nature will agree since this is the means of how God reveals Himself.  The theories of science and the interruption of scripture may not agree, so in those cases,  the issue needs to be reexamined to resolve the differences. 
It took 3.5 billion years for the biomass in the crust of the earth to accumulate to be used by mankind; God gave the Genesis account of animal and plant preceding Man's arrival; this would be an example of scripture and science aligning. Why Man? Two main reasons for God creating the universe revolve around human beings (different then the animals, since they have been made in God's image, a spirit, therefore have eternal value): God's conquest of evil, and man's redemption.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Do I even want to get into this?


Sure, why not?


GC, there's a major problem with your line of reasoning and your understanding of science.


You seem to be insisting that because we've found soft tissue inside a meager fistful of fossils (if that), that the fossils can't be that old because millions of years would have certainly destroyed the soft tissue no matter what. Do I have that about right?


Here's the problem with that: the process that preserves soft tissue inside fossils is extremely rare, even rarer than the process that makes the fossils themselves. Out of the literal billions of fossils we've managed to dig out of the ground, very few of them exhibit this phenomenon. The vast majority of them are dry as dust (which is exactly what we'd expect), and the exceptions to this rule are super rare because time nearly always destroys the tissues we're talking about.


If, on the other hand, the world were only 6,000 years old and they all died in the flood or something, then we would expect to find many more fossils like this because they would all be much, much younger. We don't, though. The vast majority of the ones we find have no soft tissue in tact, which is exactly what we'd expect if they were millions of years old.

[TubbyTubby]

All of that is speculation and the math being done doesn't mean the math is correct, especially when the math is based on assumptions that could very well be wrong. Let me say this, there are rivers in this world that stay muddy and I mean extremely muddy for months and fish survive them every year. There are rivers that rage so hard they would completely destroy heavy metal boats, yet fish survive in them all the time, they even manage to feed in these rivers with little difficulty. The scientist that wrote the paper needs to get out into the world and experience nature at it's finest, sitting behind desks and speculating things to try and disprove what they truly don't want to be true. It's beyond me why people with such good minds wouldn't want to find out how God did these things.

GC

Stop it GC it's actually fucking embarrassing to think an adult can write such tripe.

[abaris]

It took 3.5 billion years for the biomass in the crust of the earth to accumulate to be used by mankind; God gave the Genesis account of animal and plant preceding Man's arrival; this would be an example of scripture and science aligning. Why Man? Two main reasons for God creating the universe revolve around human beings (different then the animals, since they have been made in God's image, a spirit, therefore have eternal value): God's conquest of evil, and man's redemption.

I'm quoting this mainly because I'm seriously interested in how old earth christinatiy works. How do you make ends meet with the christian god, mainly concerned over humans, in lights of what we know about the world, it's history and it's development?

I for one never could.