ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[Phaycops]

You and Nick both are raising questions that don't really belong in this debate.

Let's talk about science versus YEC!

I think these questions do belong here. If the NT declares null and void the OT, how can you then turn around and use the OT as your inerrant, word-of-God account of history?

Nick,
I've been as nice as humanly possible, and you STILL continue to ignore and evade the very politely posed questions that I and other posters have asked you. I even tried to keep the debate on topic by suggesting that we stick to one question. If you somehow think the debate on the question Where did the water come from? Where did it go? has been settled, you are mistaken. Please stop ignoring us and engage in an actual debate. And don't use the excuse that you have no time. I specifically suggested the above "stick to one topic" rule because we all have other things to be doing besides posting here. If we can take the time to read and think about your posts, you at least owe us the same courtesy. In other words, respond to our questions, and also please please please learn to use the quote function.

Here's a basic tutorial. When you want to pull out a specific section as a quote, you use the quote tag, which is the word "quote" in square brackets. When you want the quote to end, you use the end quote tag, which is this slash here "/" followed by the word "quote," all in square brackets. Dig? Thanks.

 

[Synapse Fire]

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

Or if there was extinction then God makes mistakes.

 

[Nick Harman]

Nick,


Where did the water come from?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I have answered this before. Per the bible, Gen. 7:11, the water came from inside the earth and from above. Why do I believe this? #1 cuz the bible told me so as the song says. #2 I believe the evidence does support this idea. Billions of dead things buried. Polystrate fossils (trees upside down), Fossils in general, it seems unlikely to me to have as many as we do if it wasn't a ww flood. For more information go to q & a flood on AiG. I do not believe it can be proven as I have already mentioned since this was a one and only event so we can make predictions but can not no for sure the effects and all the events of the fountains of deep breaking up and windows of heaven opening.

Where did it go?

It is still here. If the surface of the earth was flattened out, there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. The mountains were formed as the flood waters rushed off at the end of the flood. Psalm 104 gives the idea of the valleys sinking and the mountains raising up.
5You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.
That is my answer to those 2 questions. Didn't ever say that settled anything, but that is my answer. More detail can be found on AiG q & a.

I will probably not be back in here until Monday. Have a good weekend.

In Christ,
Nick Harman

 

[Correa Neto]

I don´t think anything was answered in the above, again.

Same ammount of usual gibberish. YEC "scholars" are uniformed, ignorant and quite probably at least malicious and/or flawed when it comes to treat data.

You´ve been told here, by people who actually work with such issues that none of the presented ideas are viable. Neither your line "I do not believe it can be proven as I have already mentioned since this was a one and only event so we can make predictions but can not no for sure the effects and all the events of the fountains of deep breaking up and windows of heaven opening." works.

We can be sure of the effects. We can search for them. They were searched for. None were found.

Therefore, the fountains of deep never broke up and the windows of heaven never opened.

Please get some information that is not from the ultra-biased YEC sites and think about it.

edited for spelling

 

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
#2 I believe the evidence does support this idea. Billions of dead things buried.

Is this in fact what we see after a flood? Also, 90% of fossils are marine life. Did they all drown?

Polystrate fossils (trees upside down)

You do not explain how fossil evidence for mudslides is evidence for the Flood.

Fossils in general, it seems unlikely to me to have as many as we do if it wasn't a ww flood.

Really? It seems unlikely to you? You interest me.

Nick, without looking it up, how many fossils are there?

I bet you don't know. I don't know, either.

So why do you find the number of fossils "unlikely" if you don't know how many there are?

If we did know the number of fossils, do you have any geological expertise that would lead you to think that this number, whatever it is, either proves a global flood or is impossible given billions of years of geological activity?

No.

So what are you basing this pronouncement on. You've wandered off from Made-Up Facts, and gotten into Unsubstantiated Arguments. It's not an improvement.

How many times do I have to say this? You're not getting your geology from people who study rocks. You're getting it from fundie tracts. You refer us to AiG, for pity's sake. You have seen how ignorant and wrong these people can be. Yet you still parrot their arguments without any thought on your part. If you do this again, I shall have to think you personally dishonest. You know now that they cannot be relied on. Let me make myself plain. If you wish to say, "I read in some fundie tract (insert stupid pseudoscience here)", that's fine, we'lll knock the nonsense down. If you just go about saying "This (insert stupid pseudoscience here) is true" --- when you know perfectly well by now that the people you're parroting are fools at best and liars at worst --- then you are dishonest: you know by now that the odds are that you are repeating a falsehood.

It is still here. If the surface of the earth was flattened out, there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. The mountains were formed as the flood waters rushed off at the end of the flood.

A couple of things here. Mountains are great huge rocks miles high. How can they be formed by "flood waters rushing off"? Does this usually happen after floods?

The other thing is, Genesis says that the floodwaters covered the highest mountains. So if Genesis is right, there were mountains before the Flood.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Psalm 104 : 5 You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever...

You yourself agreed that this bit of the Bible should not be taken literally, on account of this line.

By the way, you never came back to us on this --- if this can be taken as a metaphor, why not the first few books of Genesis?

 

[H3LL]

</p>


</p>


</p>









</p>


</p>

 

[Correa Neto]

If the surface of the earth was flattened out, there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. The mountains were formed as the flood waters rushed off at the end of the flood.

Bah, I must be transparent. Uh, well, maybe its the sig...

Back on track, that is an utterly stupid argument. Have your wise creationist experts who came with such a bright idea ever considered the average depth of the oceans? 3500 m. And the average elevation of the continents? 800 m.

Now, try to "flatten out" this surface. Try to consider what you are proposing: As the deluge was going on, Earth´s crust was levelled!!!! Later, as the waters receeded, mountains were carved. But if the crust was levelled, where the waters were receeding to????? Or at a certain point of the deluge the oceanic basins were formed?

And even if the receeding waters carved the mountains, why can´t I see mountains undergoing major and fast changes in their shape now? Streams flow from them, and during storms, they carry a lot of water. Proporcional changes would be seen. Why receeding waters of the asian tsunami carved no mountains?

You do not explain how fossil evidence for mudslides is evidence for the Flood.

To be fair, one would expect widespread mudslides deposits as evidence for the flood. Intense rains would soak the soil and create conditions for mudflows. After the waters covered the continents, loose or poorly consolidated materials would collapse again here and there, creating turbidity flows (sort of subaquatic landslide that runs through long distances). Later, when the waters receeded, more subaerial mudslides would happen.

That´s just a part of the sedimentary record the flood would have left all around the world. If someone is interested, I offer myself again to post a more complete description on what it would be (contributions from fellow evil-atheist-geologists will be more than welcome).

But the question is: Is the geological record compatible?

No.

The above shows a couple of things:

(1) We CAN predict what sort of deposits the universal flood would have created, contrary to what you are saying Nick.
(2) There are no sedimentary records of global flood deposits. Preserved mudflow deposits are quite confined and compose a small volume. Whenever you find them, there´s no need to look hard to find a non-flood explanation- they are adjacent to faults, for example. Besides, their vertical distribution along the geological record also do not match.
(3) THERE WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD

 

[Dr Adequate]

To be fair, one would expect widespread mudslides deposits as evidence for the flood. Intense rains would soak the soil and create conditions for mudflows. After the waters covered the continents, loose or poorly consolidated materials would collapse again here and there, creating turbidity flows (sort of subaquatic landslide that runs through long distances). Later, when the waters receeded, more subaerial mudslides would happen.

True --- but we would also find evidence for mudslides if there had been no global flood, but there had been mudslides. We know there have been mudslides. They don't point particularly to a global flood, any more than deposits of burnt material prove that the Earth was once consumed by fire. You'd need more evidence --- as set out further in your own post.

And, indeed, lots of other people's posts.

 

[Ossai]

Nick Harman

I have answered this before.

Nope, you’ve posted the same thing again and again but have yet to answer the question. Where did the water come from?

Per the bible, Gen. 7:11, the water came from inside the earth and from above.

I’ve already told you numerous times to work the math. If you’ve had basic algebra you should be able to work it. Even splitting the source to ½ from the earth and ½ from above (ie the water canopy) you still end up with an uninhabitable mess. “It’s not life as we know it.” – Bones Where did the water come from?

Why do I believe this? #1 cuz the bible told me so as the song says.

The bible also says the world is flat and that Pi=3. Do you believe those as well?

#2 I believe the evidence does support this idea. Billions of dead things buried. Polystrate fossils (trees upside down), Fossils in general, it seems unlikely to me to have as many as we do if it wasn't a ww flood.

Argument from ignorance again.
I don’t understand it.
Therefore god exists.

Sorry your idiocy has already been pointed out by others for those.

For more information go to q & a flood on AiG. I do not believe it can be proven as I have already mentioned since this was a one and only event so we can make predictions but can not no for sure the effects and all the events of the fountains of deep breaking up and windows of heaven opening.

So you do believe the earth is flat and that stars are nothing more than bright lights hung from the canopy over the earth.

Where did it go? Sorry but the mountains were referenced before the flood.

Ossai

 

[Darat]

Nick - Could you tell which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Darat --- this has been done by theologians. You could look it up. We get to refer him to textbooks on geology. He, equally, can refer us to fundie books on creationism.

I just thought of an awful pun.

Source for the goose is source for the gander.

Excuse me.

Ossai --- this is much too combative, and what is this? "So you do believe the earth is flat and that stars are nothing more than bright lights hung from the canopy over the earth." Round here, we call that a straw man. Does Nick think that? He doesn't. The same could be said of the stuff about pi. How many decimal places does it take to be inerrant? (Think about it.)

For one reason or another, Nick is willing to discuss YEC with us, which is more than millions of other people will do. By the way, Nick, do feel free to bring your friends.

 

[Ossai]

Dr Adequate

Ossai --- this is much too combative, and what is this? "So you do believe the earth is flat and that stars are nothing more than bright lights hung from the canopy over the earth." Round here, we call that a straw man.

Let me explain my train of though.

Nick wrote

Why do I believe this? #1 cuz the bible told me so as the song says.

Well the bible, especially the OT supports a Babylonian cosmology. A flat earth covered by a dome which is surrounded by water. God hung the stars from the canopy and set the sun to orbiting the earth. So by Nick saying that he believes the flood story because it’s in the bible and that the bible also tells where the water came from what he is actually saying is that he believes the Babylonian cosmology.

Does Nick think that? He doesn't. The same could be said of the stuff about pi. How many decimal places does it take to be inerrant?

The real question here is “Why doesn’t Nick think that?” He obviously trusts science on those things so why not the rest.

As for being combative, Friday wasn’t good, the place where I work had a small electric fire and they had to evacuate the building. No one was hurt but it pretty much screwed up the rest of the day. So I was probably taking it out a bit much on Nick. But he’s still spouting the same thing even after all the references given to him – think of the fossils example where he apparently read a bit but ‘doesn’t believe in it.’

Ossai

 

[Correa Neto]

True --- but we would also find evidence for mudslides if there had been no global flood, but there had been mudslides. We know there have been mudslides. They don't point particularly to a global flood, any more than deposits of burnt material prove that the Earth was once consumed by fire. You'd need more evidence --- as set out further in your own post.

And, indeed, lots of other people's posts.

This is just to avoid any confusion from the part of an eventual newcomer to this thread.

My intent was just to point that sedimentary deposits created by mudflows and similar phenomena could be produced by a global flood. I was not stating they were.

Actually their distribution (in terms of area, vertical stacking, etc.) does not fit with such an origin by a global flood.

The bottomline is- there are no avaliable evidence for a global flood.

Another OT digress:
Actually the bottomline is- Fundies say the Bible is the truth, but actually they pick up the parts and interpretations they like and forget everything what does not fit. And they also happen to ignore that the Bible they hold as the word of god is actually a collage of texts selected a long time ago by priests among a variety of texts. And the selection proccess was heavilly influentiated by political, theological and ideological conflicts within the church - the Catholic one. How this fits with their religious ideologies?

 

[Nick Harman]

You yourself agreed that this bit of the Bible should not be taken literally, on account of this line.

Not literally the way you implied it to be if that was you that asked the question. God literally laid the foundation of the earth. You imply the bible is conveying the message that the earth is standing still or not moving. The word used in the kjv is removed. This comes from the hebrew word mote meaning to waver, by implication to slip, shake, fall, to be off course. Per Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. So I have no problem with the bibles message here and no problem using it as support for the water being able to cover the mountains.

By the way, you never came back to us on this --- if this can be taken as a metaphor, why not the first few books of Genesis?

What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

 

[Nick Harman]

Nick - Could you tell which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

The genealogies. I know from scripture that God made them male and female at the beginning. You can graph out the years with these. Adam lived 130 and begat Seth. In the days after Seth were 800 years, and so on and so on.

 

[Mojo]

Hi Nick, perhaps you can find time to answer my question.

If, as you seem to have stated, one species cannot give rise to another, and as you have also stated, not every currently existing species was taken on the ark (you say that "kinds" were taken but dont explain what this term means), how did all the currently existing species arise?

 

[Mojo]

I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.

So you think God is saying, like Groucho Marx, "Who're you going to trust, me or the evidence of your own eyes."

 

[Darat]

Nick - Could you tell which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

The genealogies. I know from scripture that God made them male and female at the beginning. You can graph out the years with these. Adam lived 130 and begat Seth. In the days after Seth were 800 years, and so on and so on.

I am not asking for what fallible people may have calculated, I mean some people have calculated the earth to be billions of years old and you don’t accept those calculations!

So again, Nick, could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

 

[delphi_ote]

I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Who are you to say what contradicts God? Do you speak for him? Are you a prophet? A messiah?

All this YEC that you spout is man's opinion and contradicts the bible in many places. If you trusted God, you wouldn't need scientific evidence to prove his existence. You trust in the eternal word of your pastor and the websites from which you grabbed this drivel.