Creationists

[Hollie]

Not all organisms survived the flood and we know for a fact many groups went extinct that is why we have a fossil record.

But, how could all those salt water fish be alive today if they went exitinct at the time of the global flood, which according to creationists, was just 4000 years ago.

Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.

God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.

That is obvious conjecture on your part. You place yourself in irresolvable contradictions when you make up nonsense as you go along.

 

[Hollie]

From talkorigins:


Claim CH541:

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

References:

1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

2. Morton, Glenn R., 1998a. Fish cause problems for the global flood. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm

3. Morton, Glenn R., 1998b. The global flood produces acidic flood waters. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will ask you a return question why are these diamonds dated back so far in time but were found to contain carbon,do you know how long carbon last's ?

Mostly no one was there to witness it millions of years to form so how do we know it took millions of years to form ?

The diamonds take millions of years to form. Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.

This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm

Here is how diamonds form:
geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

Sorry for all the links.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis

Diamonds: a creationist's best friend

Carbon-14 Dating

Microscopic Diamonds Confound Geologists - Answers in Genesis

Strata - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Young Earth Evidence:: RAPID FORMATION OF LAYERS AND STRATA

 

[ima]

How can a parable be full of doo-doo?

All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.

How do you know this?

Scientists have carbon dated the earliest fragment of the bible to around 135AD (there was a program on the NatGeo channel that was very interesting on that subject). Most of the other documents are older and some are dated something like 350 years after the fact. I know, creationists discount carbon dating, because otherwise you're screwed, but thems the facts.

 

[Hollie]

I will ask you a return question why are these diamonds dated back so far in time but were found to contain carbon,do you know how long carbon last's ?

Mostly no one was there to witness it millions of years to form so how do we know it took millions of years to form ?

The diamonds take millions of years to form. Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.

This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm

Here is how diamonds form:
geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

Sorry for all the links.

You should be sorry.

I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.

 

[Big_D2]

Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.

God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.

But how could a creature that can survive in only salt water be alive if the water at the time of the flood was fresh?

 

[Big_D2]

Sorry for all the links.

May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?

 

[PretentiousGuy]

Proof they were human.

How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?

Are you telling me two different breeds of dogs are not dogs ? If they were not genetically close enough to breed and reproduce offspring that carry on and continue reproducing then they would be a different species.

If neanderthals were not human they could not have been absorbed by other humans. Don't you know really how tough it is to define a new species ?

The ability for species, sub-species, etc.. Is far more complex than you let on. Generally speaking creatures of the same genus can produce an offspring. I am not going to go into great depths with this because I know you don't really care about the science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.

How do you know this?

Scientists have carbon dated the earliest fragment of the bible to around 135AD (there was a program on the NatGeo channel that was very interesting on that subject). Most of the other documents are older and some are dated something like 350 years after the fact. I know, creationists discount carbon dating, because otherwise you're screwed, but thems the facts.

Do you understand we have no origional writings they are just manuscripts of the origional writings.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The diamonds take millions of years to form. Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.

This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm

Here is how diamonds form:
geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

Sorry for all the links.

You should be sorry.

I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.

I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry for all the links.

You should be sorry.

I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.

I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.

Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.

If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.

God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.

But how could a creature that can survive in only salt water be alive if the water at the time of the flood was fresh?

I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.

Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.

 

[Hollie]

How do you know this?

Scientists have carbon dated the earliest fragment of the bible to around 135AD (there was a program on the NatGeo channel that was very interesting on that subject). Most of the other documents are older and some are dated something like 350 years after the fact. I know, creationists discount carbon dating, because otherwise you're screwed, but thems the facts.

Do you understand we have no origional writings they are just manuscripts of the origional writings.

It is all hearsay, conjecture and empty claims to magical intervention. Yes, we understand that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry for all the links.

May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?

I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.

 

[Hollie]

Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.

God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.

But how could a creature that can survive in only salt water be alive if the water at the time of the flood was fresh?

I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.

Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.

It's obvious you don't know. That's why you so frequently self-contradict as you make up excuses for why miracles are hopelessly inadequate as a rational explanation for anything.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry for all the links.

May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?

I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.

You are a man of science? How silly. And yes, science pales in comparison to magic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?

Are you telling me two different breeds of dogs are not dogs ? If they were not genetically close enough to breed and reproduce offspring that carry on and continue reproducing then they would be a different species.

If neanderthals were not human they could not have been absorbed by other humans. Don't you know really how tough it is to define a new species ?

The ability for species, sub-species, etc.. Is far more complex than you let on. Generally speaking creatures of the same genus can produce an offspring. I am not going to go into great depths with this because I know you don't really care about the science.

You know how I feel about science ? I don't think you can teach me anything I don't already know on this issue. If you have read this thread since it's start you would have seen where I gave a thourough post on this subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You should be sorry.

I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.

I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.

Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.

If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.

The secular atheist does not ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?

I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.

You are a man of science? How silly. And yes, science pales in comparison to magic.

I have been honest about my job and the degree I hold you have never once told us your resume.

 

[Hollie]

I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.

Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.

If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.

The secular atheist does not ?

Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.

That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.