Well, there are other religions that believe in creationism. Also, all it takes to believe in creationism is a belief in a god.

I am sorry, I made a brash promise. I said I could quote from God, The Evidence (is that how you underline?) with the confidence that I could find it. Unfortunately, it is lost somewhere in that disorganized mess I call a home. Still, I will try to answer questions about the book.

One thing about your discussion, Osteng: you give a very persuasive argument that the universe is young. However, I do not see why this is an integral belief to creationism. If God created the universe, he/she/it/they could have created it any length of time ago. The only connection I see is that some Biblical scholars have claimed the earth is only ten thousand years old, based on the geneological records of the Bible.

It all depends on how much of a mixture you believe in creationism/evolutionism. If you believe in creationism with no (macro)evolution occuring, then it's pretty much a given that you have to accept a young earth. If you believe in creation of the universe with macroevolution explaining different species arising, then you have to believe in an old earth.

For me, I do not believe macroevolution occurs (and also the earth is young).

The top claim of non-creationists, I believe, is that life originated by chance combinations of organic chemicals in the archaic sea, a vast "primordial soup." However, research indicates that all water in the ocean eventually cycles through hydrothermal vents which are too hot for the formation of the basic molecules for life, thus shortening the amount of time available for amino acid formation further (amino acids are the basic building blocks of life).

Also, people often cite Stanley Miller's breakthrough experiment, in which he simulated the primordial soup by combining hydrogen, methane, and ammonia in a flask and simulated lightning by running electricity through the mix. The result was amino acids. However, the experiment has a rarely mentioned flaw.

According to NASA, the actual primordial soup was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Ammonia, hydrogen, and methane amounts were negligible. Do you know what you get when you run electricity through water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen? Answer: water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.

To add to this, if you discovered that Darwinism was fictitious after researching, and wagering your professional reputation on it for years, how enthusiastic would you be to permit yourself to be ascertained as “ignorant” by acknowledging that you were inaccurate?

Does it really matter if we were created or if we evolved from some lonely fragment of organic substance that happened to plummet into our atmosphere some hundreds of millions, or even billions of years ago? Not really!
What it is all established upon is faith, that being the confidence in one God (whom fashioned everything in six days) or Evolution. It was not until the age of enlightenment that man determined that he no longer sought to be controlled, or beneath the assessment of any other being other than himself. By discrediting the ideology that a creator exists, man is then permitted to live life according to his or her wishes with no anxiety of ramifications or need to assume accountability for his or her actions. This can be unmistakably seen through the generations since “enlightenment.” When you dissect the argument of C vs. E, you will discover that it is simply nothing more than a political calamity. Austerely put; you either believe in a creator or you don’t! For those who believe in creation, I believe you will be rewarded. For those who do not believe in creation, it bears no relevance since you don’t believe that you have to answer to anyone when your time on this earth is concluded.
[B]

To a certain degree, I agree and disagree with this.

I agree because believing in Evolution will not ultimately affect your salvation.

But I disagree because believing in Evolution can undermine the authority of the Bible. What did God through Moses state in first chapters of Genesis? That He created everthing in 6 days (not 6 billion years). If you believe in Evolution then you have to deduce that Moses was writing figuratively and not literally. But if that is the case, then was there really an Adam, ... or Eve, or ... Ark??

What a load of crap this is, I thought this was supposed to be a scientific discussion of creationism (which, I'll agree with some of you out there, who believe that the two go together about as good as a scientific discussion of voodoo). Science has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with hypothesizes and experiments and intellectual discussion/debate. It doesn't have to do with threatening people's, who don't believe in creationism, eternal soul. This debate could have been going on 100's of years ago about how the church swore that the earth was at the center of the universe. . . .oops I guess they were wrong about that one. Now if we are God's chosen people, made in his image and put on this earth to control all other life that He made just for us. . .then why aren't we at the center. I know why, because we are just an lucky circumstance, brought on by a series of changes over billions of years. That is it, we are not special, the universe won't end when humans eventually kill each other off; the earth will just start again, just as it has done many times before. I think it is extremely egotistical to believe in creationism.



-Kisov

Evidence, please.

osteng won't let me discuss Evolution in this thread. . .sorry.

-Kisov

Oh, and clue, the story of the Noah and the Ark is a complete plagiarism from the Epic of Gilgamesh written as a fictional story about 6000 years ago. . .if you actually believe that people were around that long ago in that mythical civilization of Mesopotamia. But that is off the topic. . .sorry.

-Kisov

Evidence, please.
Pointing out that there is a superficial resemblance between the two stories will not cut it. Each could have been based on the same historical event. Besides which, so many cultures have stories of world wide floods that it would be "extremely egotistical" to say they are all works of fiction.

Oh really? I don't think I've ever said that.

All I've ever said is that you originally created this thread with what are the evidences for creationism and to not attack evolutionism. And I've stuck to your request by not attacking evolutionism here.

I have already created a C vs E free for all debate if you guys want to continue there, where there's no holds barred.

No one has posted in a while, so I might as well relate some more evidence. But first, the nature of life:

All self-sufficient organisms known are made up of cells. These cells have been likened to post-twenty first century factories; they have control centers for consumption, production, and distribution, as well as complex encoded information and troubleshooting mechanisms. The "machines" of this microscopic factory are proteins, which are the molecules composed of combinations of the twenty amino acids (similar to words formed by the twenty six letter alphabet). These molecules have a specific shapes which, when they interact with other molecules, cause some sort of reaction (although many proteins' purposes are purely structural). For a functional cell, there must be a tremendous number of proteins, plus the DNA and RNA to encode for, transcribe, and create new proteins.

Hey, did any of you guys happen to see the documentary last night on the scientific proof/or lack there of for the Noah and the flood story on The Learning Channel? You probably turned it off once you realized that the conclusion was not going to be in you guy's favor. It was extremely interesting. Especially the part where they discussed various flood stories. They were saying that the idea of a world wide flood for peoples in that day and age would be much different than our idea. Remember, the "world" to people in Mesopotamia, was Mesopotamia. These people had no conception of how big the world actually was, nor did the people who wrote the Bible. The geologist in this documentary said that their was evidence of the Mediterranean flooding way into the Black Sea area, around the time before the Epic of Gilgamesh was even written. So to people of the time, such a large flood would have seemed like the "world" had flooded. . .but that is very far from the actual truth. These geologist go on to say that their has been no proof in the geological record for such a cataclysmic flood. And even if there were, and God cleaned up all evidence of it and that is why the dinosaurs died out, how come we don't find more dinosaur fossils, after all, immersion in water and the subsequent layering of sediment upon a body is the ideal circumstance for bones to become fossilized. We should practically be tripping over dinosaurs left and right if that is how the entire bunch of them got extinct.

Now one could say, that the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired and that this is how they knew that a world far beyond their realms of comprehension existed. Well, according to the Noah and the Ark story he took to of all animals (somehow fit them all on a boat) and saved the world's species. . .evidently he didn't take any dinosaurs with him. So what did God have against dinosaurs, why would he create them and then subsequently drown the whole lot?

I also just want to say, that it is really unfortunate that you guys have annoyed all the evolutionists off this discussion. It now just comprises of a whole bunch of creationist patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other. . .frankly I'm not quite certain why I bother either. I guess you guys would all be much happier if I just conceded and said "Yes, of course, you guys are absolutely right. . .why didn't I see it before. . .silly me believing in that voodoo of genetics and carbon dating and common sense. . .it is so much more comforting to believe that there is some supernatural being out there that created me (in his image, no less), and that I'm somehow special in this universe as a result". Ok, I'm done, you guys can go on and tell me how wrong and mislead I am, now.

-Kisov

Hi Kisov. I've noticed that you can't stay away from these C vs E threads.

I will assume that your questions are serious and will try to answer them. I don't want to be accused of 'ignoring the facts.'



No, I didn't.


This is argumentative. I think otseng has posted evidence before for a worldwide cataclysmic flood.


You're assuming:
1. there were lots of dinosaurs before the flood.
2. we have found most/all the dinosaurs fossils there is to find.


Noah probably did take dinosaurs on the Ark with him. They were probably in baby form. But they didn't survive after the flood because it is postulated that the antediluvian atmosphere was quite different than the post diluvian (and present day) atmosphere.


This is speculation on your part. Do you have any proof of this? Maybe they were chased off because they really didn't have any kind of an argument other than "Because that's what we were taught in school and that seems to be the prevailing thought right now, but we don't know any specifics."

Wow, an ark that is big enought to hold two of every single animal that has ever existed in the world and food to feed them. . .that must have been something. . .

-Kisov

I still contend we would all be inbred if we all came from the ark.

Unfortunately, I didn't see the show either, Kisov - but I would add few follow up questions in support of your last post:

-How did Noah & Co. know how to handle the very specialized diets of millions of species?
-How did they know how to keep the natural enemies from preying upon each other?
-How did they recreate the specialized climates that certain species require for existance (ie- how did they make ice in the pre-refridgeration days for animals like polar bears and penguins)?
-How did they simulate the stong sunlight some plants would require if it were raining all the time?

And finally one thought:
- If the ark did exist, it must have stunk!

The story of Noah and his supposed ark is just that-- a story.

Otseng said that the Bible says 8 people lived through this flood. Jaime tells me this was Noah and his family.

So, I ask, is it a reasonable possibility that Noah was a black man with an Asian wife, a Hispanic daughter, and an Arabic son?

Are we to believe that he and 7 other people and two of every creature on the earth packed onto a boat and survived a flood?

And how exactly did Noah get these creatures? We currently have devices that can go to the bottom of the ocean. These devices regularly find new species. How are we to believe that one person, or 8 for that matter, could possibly do this?

Are we to believe that in a time before eye glasses and toilets we were technologically capable enough to go to the bottom of the ocean?

This mass collection of animals would require a technological level comparative to that of today. Are we to believe that this flood was able to destroy all of the evidence of a civilization similar to ours? Could a flood today destroy our civilization? I don't think so.

I'll post more responses as I get time a there is so much here with which I disagree.

Mike

Historicism - as a critical theory in literature - asserts that the truth of a text resides in its historical context. This approach is applied to The Bible in the Noah's Arc show.

Structuralism asserts that the value of literature resides solely in the text itself - that the text IS what we make of it today. Creationists favor this approach.

(Both approaches to literature are unreliable. Throughout time, historicism shifts focus from one fact to another; structuralism shifts focus from one theme to another. With historicism, court documents of The Salem Witch Trials are fact based; yet The Victorian Age grossly exaggerates the sexual innuendos. With structuralism - one hundred and fifty years ago the focus was on "inner piety". Today it is on "moral behavior".)

Biblical authors viewed "the world" in a much smaller way than we do today. If we are basing our interpretation upon historicism, we can apply this fact to an interpretation of The Bible.

However, creationists are structuralists; they have no need for this fact in their interpretation. They view a miracle as a miracle, no matter the size. They are more interested in discussing what a "miracle" means to us and how it relates to The Bible than they are in considering context.

It's apples and oranges.

jjirout

Even if you believe in evolution, there was one single set of parents that gave rise to the entire population of the world. So, in terms of genetic variability, there's no difference between Noah and his family populating the world and Mr and Mrs First Human from monkeys.


First off, there were much less kinds of animals in the past. Ms Clue gave an example of dogs earlier. There were only 1 set of male/female dogs on the ark that gave rise to all the dogs we have now.

As for specialized diets, I'm not sure. But microevolution can be a part of the answer. Animals developed specialized diets depending on the type of food that was available.


Perhaps some did prey off each other and didn't make it off the boat. Also, the boat most likely had compartments for each set of animals.


Actually, the climate of the earth was much more temperate before the flood. So refridgeration wouldn't be an issue.

As for animals now living in cold climates, again, microevolution could be an answer. Animals that are better adapted to cold climates survived in the arctic regions.


It actually only rained for 40 days. But, irregardless, practically all plant matter was destroyed in the global flood. Plants most likely only could have survived as seeds.

Bear in mind that the flood was not just the nice little flood story from Sunday school. It was a cataclysmic worldwide flood of proportions we can't even fathom. A huge crustal split from the north to the south pole. Water,mud,dirt unleashed and dumped on everything. The entire topography of the earth was changed (oceans and mountains created). The weather system changed. The entire biosphere was altered.


But much better than being OUTSIDE the boat.

I'm not sure if this question has been answered satisfactorily for you.

Noah didn't have to take 2 of every species that we now know of onto the Ark. He only had to take the parent species on board (which is a lot LESS animals than you would have estimated). Microevolution after the flood accounts for the vast number of species that we are familiar with now.

Genes were more variable back then. It accounts for the diverse races that we now see today.



Noah only had to worry about the land and air animals. The sea animals were on their own. They didn't need 'saving' anyway, because they could survive a flood.

And the Bible doesn't necessarily state that Noah and his family rounded up all the land and air animals. God could have brought the animals to the Ark for Noah. Here are the relevant verses:

Genesis 7: 8-9
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7: 15
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

Hmmm. That response didn't address my post at all, and seems to be adjusting science again to suit the Bible.



I thought we weren't discussing evolution? Well, I'm going to address this.

How do you get the assumption that only 1 man and 1 woman evolved from an entire species of monkeys? Two apes did not reproduce and have the product be a human. That is simply not possible, let alone the possibility of two ape couples within close proximity giving birth to a male human and a femal human. If this were the case, dogs would give birth to cats, and cats would give birth to whales.

It is simply illogical. More likely apes evolved into humans as a result of minor changes over an extended period of time. For example, one ape may have had a genetic defect that turned his thumb a bit and made him a better hunter and groomer. Other female apes liked this, so they bred. The next generation of offspring could then have a "better thumb". And then we are one step closer to a human.

Do you have any proof that we are all products of the same two people? How come we all don't share the same DNA? I know you'll say we do, but the fact is that we don't. We share building blocks, but there is no link between my DNA and yours.



We're supposed to believe that someone who doesn't believe in evolution believes in the rapid evolution of a species such as dogs from 1 type of dog to the hundreds we have today in a matter of a couple of thousand years? Sounds like evolution to me.



So where did the whales get their plankton? Where did squirrels get their nuts? Where did iguanas get their hibiscus? And where did single-cell submarine creatures get whatever they eat?

Are we expected to believe that every species of animal went from eating their diet of choice to eating whatever was on the ark and then back to what they originally ate, all within 40 days?

Are we to expect that Noah was able to monitor and modify the level of salinity in the tropical tank? And are we to expect that the two fruit flies he brought with him survived the 40 days, when their life span is actually a small fraction of that?



Again, technology did not allow Noah to build this boat in the time fram specified, especially if he had to build THOUSANDS of small compartments. Have you ever seen how long it takes to create a new exhibit at the zoo?



But you said in a different post that:



So this flood must have either made the sun brighter, or pulled the earth closer to it?



Seeds + excessive moisture=germination, so that theory holds no weight.

And, does the Bible state that Noah collected seeds from every single plant? And did it mention anything about his moisture-free storage compartment?

Maybe my valid points will be addressed.

Mike

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]More likely apes evolved into humans as a result of minor changes over an extended  period of time. For example, one ape may have had a genetic defect that turned his thumb a bit and made him a better hunter and groomer. Other female apes liked this, so they bred. The next generation of offspring could then have a "better thumb". And then we are one step closer to a human.[/quote]
The whole Creationist argument is:
We see changes WITHIN the same type of animal. We DON"T see changes INTO another type of animal.

You're example is okay because the ape is still an ape. The divisive factor is when you state 'And then we are one step closer to a human'. You have not proven this in your example, and neither has science.

Here is why:
There are half a million DNA ‘letters’ in the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. There are three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus. Where did all this information come from? Natural selection/microevolution? Mutation (sorting and loss of information)? While the side effect of natural selection and some (being generous here) mutations has been proven to be beneficial, it has NOT been proven to add ANY new information. NONE of the currently proposed mechanisms for Evolution add any new information.

Evolution suggesting that an animal can evolve through time into a highly more advanced animal by the process of natural selection and mutation is like stating that a shop owner can make a tremendous profit in the long run by losing some of his profit a little at a time.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]Do you have any proof that we are all products of the same two people? How come we all don't share the same DNA? I know you'll say we do, but the fact is that we don't. We share building blocks, but there is no link between my DNA and yours.[/quote]
I'm not sure what to say here. Creationism AND Evolution claim that we ARE the same.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]We're supposed to believe that someone who doesn't believe in evolution believes in the rapid evolution of a species such as dogs from 1 type of dog to the hundreds we have today in a matter of a couple of thousand years? Sounds like evolution to me.[/quote]
I believe Microevolution (ape is still an ape) occurs. I don't believe Macroevolution (ape turns into a human) occurs.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]So where did the whales get their plankton? Where did squirrels get their nuts? Where did iguanas get their hibiscus? And where did single-cell submarine creatures get whatever they eat?.

Are we expected to believe that every species of animal went from eating their diet of choice to eating whatever was on the ark and then back to what they originally ate, all within 40 days?

Are we to expect that Noah was able to monitor and modify the level of salinity in the tropical tank? And are we to expect that the two fruit flies he brought with him survived the 40 days, when their life span is actually a small fraction of that?[/quote]
I think I've already addressed the sea animals. There was enough room on board the Ark to house all the animals AND provide for their dietary needs.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]Again, technology did not allow Noah to build this boat in the time fram specified, especially if he had to build THOUSANDS of small compartments. Have you ever seen how long it takes to create a new exhibit at the zoo?[/quote]
If you are REALLY interested, I will post a link for you on a feasibility study of the Ark.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]
[quote]Actually, the climate of the earth was much more temperate before the flood. So refridgeration wouldn't be an issue.
[/quote]

But you said in a different post that:

[quote]3. Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.[/quote]

So this flood must have either made the sun brighter, or pulled the earth closer to it?[/quote]
I think otseng was referring to the atmosphere AFTER the flood when he wrote - 'Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun'.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]
[quote]It actually only rained for 40 days. But, irregardless, practically all plant matter was destroyed in the global flood. Plants most likely only could have survived as seeds.
[/quote]

Seeds + excessive moisture=germination, so that theory holds no weight.[/quote]
Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105–112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.

Charles Darwin himself performed experiments submerging seeds in salt water which convinced him that they could have survived long sea voyages on driftwood and the like.

[quote=Mike,Nov 7 2002, 11:29 AM]
And, does the Bible state that Noah collected seeds from every single plant? And did it mention anything about his moisture-free storage compartment?[/quote]
I think I've already addressed this. Noah only had to save the land and air animals.

I'd like to invite you all to the website of the American Atheists where you'll find an understandable and comprehensive explanation of the creationist point of view by an atheist and science writer, Mr. Frank Zindler. His credentials are in print as well. Go to www.atheists.org and then to the page labled The Wild World of creationism. Read and enjoy and for all of you religionists, this is something to ponder.

First off, why don't YOU read what he has to say, and debate what I have said line by line. After all, I didn't link to any overwhelming sites but tried to explain my point of view as understandably as possible.

Secondly, I admit that I have a bias (I believe in a God). But so does the site that you referenced (they don't believe in God). Before believing what either side has to say, an individual must first realize this bias.

Oh, well. I wanted to talk about biochemistry, but I will just "go with the flow."



Answers: Yes and we do. You see, in every human cell, there is a small energy-production organelle called a mitochondrian. Each mitochondrian posesses its own tiny strand of DNA which is independant from the nuclear DNA of the cell. Because of the nature of reproduction, mitochondria (and, therefore, mitochondrial DNA) are passed, unchanged, from mother to children. Daughters pass the same DNA to their children, and so on.

What scientists find is that, upon study of samples of mitochondrial DNA of people from all over the world, all humans descended from one single female human.

Besides which, the difference between different humans' nuclear DNA is extremely minute. The fact that one human can reproduce with another shows they are very closely related. The link between your DNA and mine, Mike, is that we have exactly the same body plan and are composed of exactly the same organ systems, tissues, etcetera. All this is specifically encoded in our DNA.

Say, I did at least get to talk about cellular biology.

My point is, no matter if you believe in creation or evolution, there's got to be a common set of parents for everyone. Shild pointed out studies in mitochondrial DNA showing this. Here's an evolutionist study showing this.


Sure, micro-evolution is a fact (variations without significant addition of information, like dog breeding).

Where creationists differ from evolutionists is that creationists believe macro-evolution is not a fact. Examples of macro-evolution are: going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, wingless to having wings, no legs to having legs, monkeys to humans, etc.



Clue already pointed out that the ark did not carry marine life.


Technology did not allow it? It was simply a huge boat. Nothing too technical about that.



Neither. I talked a bit about the canopy earlier in this thread...
"Prior to the flood, the environment of the earth was much different than now. A water canopy surrounded the entire earth. Sorta like the canopy surrounding Venus. This water canopy caused a tropical climate throughout most of the earth. The atmospheric pressure was also much greater. The canopy also protected the earth from cosmic radiation. These three factors contributed to why plants and animals grew so big in the past."



The seeds were not collected by Noah nor carried on the ark.

Now osteng contends


I'm by no means an expert on the bible, but no where does it say that the flood was caused by a huge seismic disturbance from under the earth's crust. I believe it says it was just from a 40 day rain. So are you actually saying that (heaven forbid) the bible didn't give us the whole story of how this flood happened.
And lets say that for simplicities sake the bible left that part out, so simple people could get the general gist of what happened without going into vast detail. . .how many other stories of the bible had been simplified for the sake of understanding the more important message that the story is trying to get across?

-Kisov

Yeah, well scientists also say the world evolved. Which are we to believe here? It sure seems like selective application of science to prove a very unlikely scenario.



There certainly does not. It would be impossible for an entire species of creatures to evolve into 2 select samples of an entirely different creature within one generation.




Then please explain polydactial cats to me.



Because it doesn't fit in with your story?

And you didn't address squirrels or iguanas. There is no way any species could radically adjust its diet and then 40 days later radically adjust it again. And breed on top of that.

This is where your theory starts to fall apart.



A huge boat that duplicated the environment of every single species on the planet, except marine life, which somehow your story doesn't cover? And one man built this in a reasonable period of time?



A water canopy would actually block out the sun. The earth would not be a tropical environment. Less sun = less heat. Less heat = no shot at a tropical environment. Do you realize that light is solar radiation? If the water canopy blocked solar radiation, it would also block the sunlight.



Precisely.

If the seeds were not in the boat, they must have been in the water. If the seeds were in the water, and you already admitted there was no light, they could not have survived.

Seeds germinate better in the dark, and, obviously, they need moisture.

I have never heard of a seed that has a germination period longer than 40 days.

As a result, all seeds on earth would have germinated and died prior to the end of the flood. There would be no plant life at all.

Unless, you want to change your story again.

No marine life, no seeds, what next?

Go ahead and adjust the facts again and post your response.

Mike

Genesis 7: 11-12
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

I stand corrected.

-Kisov

How am I to believe a story that has someone living to 600 years old?

It seems that the Bible may be reflecting some actual occurances here on earth. What I'm seeing, however, is a lot of "fish stories."

Everyone knows of the fisherman who caught the "big one" but it got away. The "big one" is a stereotypical example of a human tendency to exaggerate. I think the Bible is full of these types of exaggerations.

It is doubtful the entire world flooded in Noah's time, but perhaps a VERY LARGE flood occurred. It is doubtful that Noah lived to 600, but most likely lived well past the normal life expectancy. It is doubtful Noah took two of every animal onto the ark with him, but he may have had a large farm or plantation and was self-sufficient enough to afford many luxuries (in those days exotic livestock would have been QUITE a luxury).

It is further doubtful that god created the earth in six days. This is more exaggeration, a means by which to display the greatness of god, not to make commentary on geologic activity.

I don't think the Bible is wrong about geologic and evolutionary activity. I think the stories are exaggerated for effect, though.

Well, since you asked about what the Bible says...

Gen 7:11 - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

But, the main support of the crustal split is not the Bible, but an ocean map. If you look at a topo map of the ocean, the mid-atlantic ridge runs practically from the north to the south pole.

Raining for 40 days is insufficient water to cover the entire world. Even if it's a monsoon. Water escaping from under the crust explains the source of water sufficient to cover the entire earth.



Correct, the Bible didn't give us the whole story of how the flood happened. If it did, the Bible would be at least 10 times bigger than it actually is just to explain the flood.

A lot less species back then equates to a lot less dietary needs.

You are ignoring some main counterarguments being brought up Mike. Either counter the counterarguments or admit you have none.


Think Green House effect.


Once again, you are ignoring points already brought up. I wrote about experiments on seeds earlier.

Okay, I am seeing a huge lack of context on this forum, so I will attempt to provide some.

1) Atmosphere: have you ever noticed that, when you leave your car out in the sun for hours, it is very hot inside? This is due to the nature of the glass in relation to light, the light can enter the car through the glass and be reflected from surfaces in the car, but this reflection lowers the energy of the light, thus preventing it from exiting through the glass. A water vaporous layer around the earth would have the same effect, thus keeping the temperature up. If thicker atmosphere blocked out sunlight then "global cooling" would be a modern problem instead of "global warming." This world wide tropical climate would allow great proliferation of flora.

Now, by studying bubles in amber, scientists have determined that the air was at one time composed of 30% oxygen, as opposed to today's 21%, and air pressure was 27 pounds per square inch, instead of the 14.1 pounds per square inch of modern day. These conditions would facilitate extra growth in plants and animals, as well as more rapid healing of wounds. A continuous worldwide climate also eliminates the need to replicate specific environments.

2) Human biology. According neurosurgeon Jacob D. Liedman, "The human body is capable of living about one thousand years if certain glands were to continue functioning..." and continues to list several glands which, if they remained active, would lengthen the lifespan.

Now, the copious food supply, because of the world wide tropical climate, plus the fast healing of wounds, plus the glandular ability of humans to live extended periods of time, plus the vegetarian diet which the Bible describes antediluvian humans had, makes the lifespans much more believable.

3) Technology. If humans lived for so long, then they could acquire vast amounts of basic skills in their lifetimes, resulting in advanced technological abilities, compared with later dates. As for physical evidence, an iron pot (bespeaking smelting technique) was found in a block of coal in 1912. More such anomalies have been found, but I will not go into them into this post.

As for the assertions that evolutionists believe in a single human ancestor, let me explain: all members of any single species have the same mitochondrial DNA. The idea that multiple, interfertile versions of the same species can evolve coincidently is extremely improbable.

With all due respect, Clue, I am certainly not ignoring any arguments.

I am in utter disbelief that science in favor of creationism is considered valid while at the same time science against creationism is discounted.



A lot less species. SO FROM WHERE DID THE NEW SPECIES COME?



Even if the greenhouse effect does exist on a global scale, your logic is still tragically flawed. The current so-called greenhouse effect is supposedly caused by the depletion of the ozone layer and the increased atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

I'm not sure what you guys think a "water canopy" would be, but wouldn't it likely resemble clouds? Water can only exist in three forms: solid (ice), liquid (water) and gas (vapor). Any way you look at it, water canopy = dense clouds.

Dense clouds REFLECT sunlight, therefore relatively cooling anything below.

After volcanic eruptions, cloud cover causes an area's average temperature to drop. Why exactly then would extreme cloud coverage cause us to be warm?

On to Shild's post...



I thought dating methods were inaccurate? Maybe those bubbles are only 200 years old. How do we know? Oh wait, this supports your argument, so it must be uncontestable.



Hmmm. How does more oxygen help plants? I understand they do need oxygen for the roots, but it is minimal.



I couldn't find reliable research differentiating plants growing under high pressure and low pressure. Still looking if you have any...



So given that macro-evolution exists as everyone here seems to admit, am I expected to believe that post-ark we evolve past our longevity into a shorter life span? That is against the laws of nature.



We currently have a copious food supply. We have technology to greatly increase the healing of wounds. Some even have a vegetarian diet, even though we have teeth specifically designed for tearing flesh. The only catch is now the glands? Then we live for a 1000 years? I still don't understand why we would have evolved past that...



So if humans lived for so long and acquired vast amounts of basic skill, how come all evidence points to a primitive life for people thousands of years ago? How come they didn't build boats? How come we are yet to find any plastic, glass, or synthetic material of any sort dating back any significant period of time? But I guess one iron pot is enough to prove it all.




No offense, but so is one man building a boat and loading two of every specie on it in an effort to save the world.

And so is the rapid evolution of EVERY specie on the planet from two of each to a seemingly unlimited array of variations.

Mike

Ha ha. I can make the same charge against Evolution.


Natural Selection or microevolution.


Are you stating that VAPOR is DENSE??

So if all of these species of animals can evolve in a few thousand years, how come there is no record of it? There is record of Noah and his boat, but not of the repopulation of the world? None on the fact that species were being created at breakneck speed?

You'd think that Noah, being a wise 600 year old, would have spent the last 400 years of his life clearly documenting his experiences.



vapor = not dense
clouds = dense

If there was this "vapor canopy", by default it would have to be dense. You cannot form a "loose canopy". Water vapor, when made dense but not condensed, forms clouds, no doubt about that. Or is there now a fifth state of matter of which I have never heard?

Still waiting for answers to these questions, by the way:



And I'll add in the fact that the mtDNA of which you speak is not accurate. We currently have over 4100 unique sequences of mtDNA, as evidented by this article.

Mike

Mike--It's been my experience that the religionist is generally interested in being right before being interested. The subject has been thoroughly researched by several scholars with American Atheists and many schools in American universities. Their debates and declarations regarding the philosophy of creationism is utterly ludicrous and falls apart when confronted with evidence. Even without confrontation when presenting their evidence to general audiences they seem to lose control of continuity.

Go to www.atheists.org/bone.pit/wild.html You won't believe just how well funded this nonsense is.

I think you may misunderstand, mDNA DOES change. The change is relatively slight because it is only due to mutations in copying the DNA (as opposed to regular DNA which changes radically during reproduction). This does not change the fact that through similarities in mDNA we can trace the human race back to Africa and indeed to a single female ancestor. There was a very nice Discovery Channel Special which explains more thorougly, I'll try to find it on their website later.

Jomailman: It is much more constuctive to discuss the facts rather than those who hold a certain position, don't you think?

As far as the proclamations that the body is capable of living a 1000 years is concerned. I have also heard studies that have said that the human brain is only capable of surviving and functioning about 200, and that is in ideal circumstances. Does anybody out their have aging grandparents out there. . .not too many marbles left rolling around up there anymore, are there? It is a natural thing to start losing memory as one ages. Once woman reach menopause, their bodies start to disintegrate, literally in the case of osteoporosis. . .why?. . .because they have exhausted their reproductive purpose and biologically they are no use to anyone any more. It is cruel, but it is true, as well. Their would be no reason to live this long, and how come we don't find fossils of other animals living to such an old age, we can pretty easily determine the age from the bone fossils left behind. . .but somehow only humans achieved this old age. . .why?

And one more thing, that is this crap about there being not as many animals back in Noah's time. Even if there were only 1/2 as many species back then, his boat would have to be about the size of Rhode Island to carry them all and the food to support them. It is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard of.

-Kisov

turnea--Facts require verification. The creationist interpretation of reality cannot be verified. Sorry but it isn't possible to discuss and refute all the so-called "facts" presented by the wild world of creationism. It's unfortunate that there are some who would discuss details of such a book as the bible.

Dense clouds do reflect sunlight, but they do not reflect all radiation. You see, visible light is a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is not what heats the earth. One high energy section of the spectrum is ultra violet light, which can penetrate dense clouds. However, the reflection of ultra violet radiation from surfaces on earth releases heat and lowers the energy level of the radiation to infrared. Infrared radiation cannot penetrate a dense cloud, so it is reflected back down. As a matter of fact, Discover magazine reports that cumulous clouds -the densest variety- contributes to high temperature. Furthermore, volcanic eruptions reduce temperature because they release ash, which is to say, billions of tiny opaque objects in the atmosphere, reflecting radiation away. Clouds are composed of ice crystals, which is to say, billions of tiny translucent particles, which can allow some light and radiation through, but in restricted spectrum sections. I'm sure you have seen thin stratus cloud covers, which allow light through, but do scatter it.


Forgive me, but I do not believe I ever said dating methods are inaccurate. I actually questioned the neccessity of a young earth to creationism.


I earlier referred to mitochondria. Specifically, mitochondria use oxygen in chemical reactions with nutrients to get energy with which to run the cell, and the body in which the cell resides. This is called cellular respiration, and all animal and plant cells do it. Plants rely both on cellular respiration and photosynthesis to survive, although they rely only on respiration during the night. More oxygen is better for all species which use cellular respiration, including plants. Plants' use of oxygen is not as great as animals', but it is certainly not minimal, and it goes on in the same cells in which photosynthesis occurs.

Higher air pressure means more air in the same space, so it is also beneficial to respiring organisms.


There is no law of nature stating that, in a given population in which evolution is occurring, all mutations will be beneficial. Mutations occur by chance and, therefore, can be and often are deleterious.

Also, while shorter life span seems negative, it does provide a competitive advantage. Let me explain: suppose you have two sets of organisms, A which live ten years and B which live 1 year. A seems to have an advantage, but there are ten B generations in one A generation. This means that the population of B will quickly overtake the population of A and, if they are in competition, B will have a definite advantage, and could route A.


When I said "technologically advanced," I did not mean as advanced as the present. I meant they had the abilities an iron pot entails: knowledge of the nature of minerals and metals, structural skill to make a high temperature furnace, knowledge of combustible materials and the nature of fire to have such high temperatures contain them, and the ability to make and use precision tools with which to manipulate the molten metal. Besides which, as I said, this is not the only such anomalie.


The studies to which you allude are based on studies of modern humans, so ideal conditions does not include an optimally functioning glandular system, which does not happen in modern humans.

In essense, Noah and his family had all the genes in order to produce all the different races we see today.

Physical characteristics we see of different races is simply due to recombination and degeneration of genetic information from one generation to the next (micro-evolution).

Disscusion is the whole point of this site. Whether or not assertions are true, they can be discussed without generalizing about a group which belives the assertion is true. No discussion is unfortunate...

I would like to address the state discussion about all the races of the world coming from Noah and his family. Races are a direct result of the regions in which the people live. Negroid are black because it is beneficial to be black in the sunny location in which they lived, Caucasoid are white because, in the European area where they originally show up, the climate was so foggy and cloud covered long ago (and to a certain extent today) that fairer skin was beneficial to retain more vitamin D so as not to get debilitating diseases like rickets, Mongoloid have distinctive eyelids to protect their eyes from the bright sun against the snow covered mountains for Mongolia where their race originates. But the fact of the matter is that these races where around before Noah. . .and after. Now, did Noah's family scatter and breed proliferate in all the corners of the world once they got off the boat and then their decedents just so happened to look just like the poor schmucks that got drowned by a world wide flood?

Also, no one has addressed my question about people of that time's idea of a world wide flood is very different from ours, so why couldn't the flood have just been around the area that they concidered was the "world". Before the invention of the car the adverage person never traveled more than about 30 miles from their home. . .do you actually think that they knew how big the actual world was back then. . .doubt it.

-Kisov

I have a question about creationism.

If God created the universe, who created God?