good thinking Zoo! 

I can easily answer all these questions Zoo.  Do you really want to know?  Otherwise I'm just wasting my time.  Do you remember the Tusnami in Indonesia a couple years ago?  Did you remember the reports on the animals and how they went to higher ground?  Did you also hear the reports that not many animal carcases were floating around....some but mostly pets and such. 

Yes and this is where the Scientific methods of dating get skewed.  Carbon dating is ok and quite reliablie when everything stays constant, but when you have a catastrophe of this magnatude it really messes things up.  That's why the flood would add many many many years to the process but instead of a continuing drip drip drip of water we had millions and millions of gallons all at once instead and the reason why Creationists believe in the young earth theory. 

Right.  This is a problem even acknowledged by Darwin himself.  The fossil record is quite consistent with biblical teaching of like staying like. 

Well only the deists would say he walked away.  Lula and I don't have that belief.  We believe God is ever watching over his creation even now. 

Ummmmm maybe Zoo you had a little bit much of something yerself.....

Oh, so the entire earth flooded but some animals found higher ground? The moon, perhaps?



I would love to have some evidence where water messes with radiometric dating.



Not that God walked away...but the researchers. To say God did everything is to keep oneself in the dark about how things work or might have worked. It shuts down your investigation of...well, anything. God did it, no need to investigate, just a waste of time because we already know the answer.

That's probably my biggest pet peeve when it comes to all this.

~Zoo

no, there's plenty of investigating to do without trying to find an explanation sans God.  There is so many interesting things in the animal kingdom for instance that could keep one quite busy investigating. 

I'm not saying water but catastrophe.  For instance if you have a continual dripping of water it would take years and years and years to wear away rock to any huge degree but if you had a great force of water all at once, what would have taken thousands of years could be caused by one main event.  That's what they found at Mt. St Helens.  Have you ever really really looked into that from a Scientific POV?  Better yet, have you ever visited there?  Fascinating stuff that went on there. 

no silly.  Unless you want to say that the Ark was higher ground which is what I was referring to. 

When I saw what happened in Indonesia, I thought that must have been how God moved those animals.  They had a sense and usually do to these sorts of happenings.  The humans don't but the animals do.  Imagine that. 

 

This catastrophe was a flood though. Erosion of hard rock is made by constant movement of water. Loose earth is easier to move. One huge flood would not wear away hard rock very much...especially considering that it was only caused by rain...once the initial water levels rose it would have minimal effect on the rock unless it tumbled down a stream or was tossed violently in a current. Even then it takes quite sometime. Erosion is very slow and not sped up into super mega erosion by floods. Floods take loose debris easily...solid rock, not so much. Even sitting underwater doesn't propel erosion to such an extent.

Soft rock may be affected greatly...like sandstone, but stuff like granite? Hardly.



Do you know how many animals are really in the world that would have to get on that ark for everything we see today to live? There are about 4,600 species of mammals, 9,800 species of birds, 8,200 reptiles, and God only knows how many arthropods. Not to mention the poor freshwater fish which were all screwed. Take two of each? Yeah, right. From all over the world, even? That's a massive feat and a huge, huge, huge boat. You also have all those plants to worry about...salt water is not good for most plants, being underwater is not good for most plants either. Also lack of sunlight would be a factor as well. All plants at that point are completely and utterly dead. No base for the food chain.

But let's say through some weird convention that all happened. Only two of each animal would severely screw up their genetics. Talk about your inbreeding...

~Zoo

See Zoo, this is where your lack of knowledge on the other side shows.  That's why I keep saying you're only working with one side.  It's sort of like making a decision and only seeing half the instructions.  I understand tho, because the school only teaches one side...that's why the ID people are trying to be able to teach both in school and put both out on the table, but the Evolutionists are adamant about this and one reason "Expelled" is coming out with this movie asking "if they're so right, why do they fear?" 

Some of the animals went in by sevens.  Not all went in two by two like you're asserting.  

Yes it was about the size of 152 railroad cars.  Approximately 450 long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.  It had a deck total of 97,700 square feet or equivalent to more than an area of 20 baskeball courts.  Its total volume was around 1,500,000 cubic feet and the gross tonnage exceeded some 14,000 tons.  (Gen 6:14-16)

 Make more sense now?  That's why it took him 120 years to get this accomplished.  So yes, it was a very big boat and with only four working on it, it took some time.  Also, this amount of time gave more than enough chance for people to come to God.  God is very patient. 

Actually I've got the numbers.  Way back a leading systematic taxonomist listed what he thought would have been the numbers.  He estimated there were 3,500 mammals, 8,600 birds, 5,500 reptiles and amphibians and 25,500 worms.   There's also the thought they could have been baby animals, not full sized ones. I've also heard that maybe hibernation was used for managability, but admittedly that is just speculation or belief. 

Are you serious?  You don't understand the capabilities of great masses of water as it forces its way to where it wants to go?  Again, go back and look at what one catastrophe did to Mt St. Helens involving Spirit Lake.  The whole lake emptied out and went rushing up the sides completely draining the huge lake.  Within a short amount of time the water came cascading down the hillside taking down every tree within miles. All of them.   This would have been small compared to the flood.  I visited there 15 years later in 1995 and couldn't belive my eyes to the damage as far as I could see for miles and miles.  One catastrophe, one body of water. 

There was more than just a little rain going on.  It says that fountains of the deep exploded.  Many believe an earthquake most likely triggered this flood.  If you look at Gen 7:11 you'd see it says that "the fountains of the great deep broke up AND the windows of heaven were opened."  This has to do with subterranean waters as well as rain which contributed to the flood.  I've read alot on this in the past. 

This ark was built like a coffin.  It had no helm or bow to it.  I think it's also noteworthy that it had pitch within and without. Pitch drenching this gopher wood.   This pitch was called "Kaphar."  Most people don't know this but it also means "atonement."  This has alot of meaning and is considered a picture of Christ considering Noah was protected or atoned just like we are when we come to the wooden cross for atonement.   We can't help but get some "pitch" on us. 

 

KFC POSTS:

Zoo posts:

At first glance, it might not be so easy to understand similiarities between the geologic work that was accomplished by the Mt. St. Helens eruption and that by Noah's Flood. The former was a volcanic event; the latter a hydraulic one. Evidence reveals that volcanic activity was the common catalyst at both. When Mt. St. Helens volcano erupted in 1980, it exploded with a force of 400 million tons of TNT in one day. In the aftermath, 600 feet of strata sequences formed in just a matter of months. Later, on March 19, 1982, a giant mudflow broke through a blocked canyon on the north fork of the Toutle River and in one afternoon formed a new canyon system over 1oo feet deep with features similiar to those of the Grand Canyon, but about 1/40th scale size. Now, just reflect upon the great damage that can be caused by tidal waves to see that a flood of world-wide proportions could result in formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Zoo posts:

Several evidences in the sedimentary rock strata indicate that it was laid down rapidly all at once. It seems the deep ones even down to the Cambrian have not been pressed together into solid rock. (Yet if they've been there under millions of tons for billions of years they should be!!)

The fossils found in that rock strata over thousands of cubic miles indicate rapid deposition rather than being slowly laid over a period of long eons of ages.

Geologists know well that rivers only cut through hard materials when they rush quickly straight down surfaces and slow moving rivers can only cut through softer materials. Interestingly enough, evidences shows that the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, and the San Juan River cut through thick rock. It wasn't over millions of years, but instead were quickly cut through while they were still soft and there strata had only recently been laid down.


What do you know of the Flood?

Scripture teaches a flood, a world-wide actual event...and we certainly have renditions or legends of a Flood from ancient cultures all over the world...which is expected if the Flood was an actual event.

The Babylonian tradition tells of a great flood in Utrapishtim. Storytellers from the Mesopotamian civilations tell of a flood epic of Gilgamesh, the Assyrian culture as well...Anthropologists have collected 59 Flood legends from the aborigines of N. AMerica, 46 from S. America, 31 from Europe, 17 from the Middle East, 23 from Asia, and 33 from the south Sea and Australia. All accounts hold 3 features in common...world wide flood destroyed both people and animals, a vessel of safety, and only a small number of people survived....there are many of the features of the Flood found in other forms of literature from other ancient and much older periods.

Genesis 7:11-12 "....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for 40 days and for 40 nights." "All the fountains of the great deep broken up" indicates that the process God used to bring about the flood was predominantly volcanic and tectonic. What do they think happened in reference to this? The fountains of the deep are probably sub-oceanic or subterranean sources of water which involved a series of volcanic reactions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. We know that 70% or more of what comes out of volcanoes is water, in the form of steam. Anyway, one theoretic model of the plate tectonics is at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet due to increase in temperature of the as hoirizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.

According to Scripture from beginning to end, the Flood with its vast and unique consequences, lasted for 371 days, it's waters deep enough to cover every mountain then on the planet...But keep in mind before the Flood it's believed not any really high mountains existed...they were formed as a result of the flood and volcanic action and breaking up of the tectonic plates. All the continents bear evidence of having been submerged by sea water. Evidently, scientists have determined that Mt. Ararat's lava was deposited under water.

Geologists explain continental indunation as due to the depression of the land, and there is good reason to couple this with the bottom of the sea elevating as it heaved to great volcanic eruption and earthquakes. Along with the volcanic action, terrible storms raged from the skies and immense quantities of water engulfed the land flowing, grinding away at every surface. Massive wave action took its toll too. All this resulted in an astounding rate of erosion which produced sediments which resulted in the 1,000's of feet of sedimentary rock strata which we see today and upon which we've found fossils galore.

Still...only 7? That leaves 3 mating pairs...and one...extra. I do recall a few were 7 from the history channel or something. Something about clean and unclean animals.



But you see, this is religion. Religion cannot be taught in schools unless it is a religion class. That's the problem. I see you have your own rationalizations and speculations...but they arise out of having your own answer to it.

Science looks for answers without being told what to expect. Therein lies why intelligent design cannot be taught in school.

There are a lot of religions out there with a lot of different creation stories...you'd have to teach every single one of them to be fair, not just your version. Teaching an objective science is what we're doing. If the kids want an alternative explanantion...then their parents can do that or they can seek it out themselves. I don't see why that's so hard, you seem to have managed to do that, why not others?

~Zoo

Zoo posts:

Zoo posts:

Evidently we arrive at these measurments based on 17.5 inches for a cubit. The Ark was built like and enormous barge and almost uncapizeable. You mention it was the size of 152 rr cars....ya, on only one of its decks! Are you forgetting it had 3 decks? That means all included, it had a carrying capacity equal to 522 standard RR cars.

It's thought that the Ark could have carried the animals on one deck (about 152 RR cars worth) leaving one for the humans and one for storage, foods, etc.

Also, the Genesis "kinds" would not have included all species and certainly not all varieties of animals found today..The animals on the Ark would have been restricted to types or kinds.

Zoo, it's thought that since the earth was probably surrounded by a transparent vapor canopy high in the stratosphere (what Genesis calls the "waters above the firmament", and that canopy caused a greenhouse effect on all of earth and gave a uniform warm climate, that there probably were no specialized creatures adapted to extreme cold; eg no existing species of polar bears becasue there was no frigid zones for them then.

About the plants...at the onset of the Flood, the powerful action of the 46,000 mile long "fountains of the deep", at almost all latitudes, could have easily sent seeds and spores into the atmosphere and many could have survived, also plants could have survived as planned food stores on the Ark, Seeds attach themselves to animals and some could have survived this way, and others could have survived in the stomachs of dead animals as well. Seeds and spores could have survived by floating on mats of tangled vegatation.
Again, a good lesson on this can be taken from Mt. Saint Helens.

As far as the the fresh and saltwater fish, there are also plausible explanations for their survival of the Great Flood. Today, we know that many, many fish species have the capacity to adapt to to both fresh and salt water and we know that many marine organisms are able to survive changes in salinity.

Wow. These posts are long, and I don't have the patience for any of them. Pity.

Whenever anyone discusses evolution, I just crank up the CD 'Precambrian' by The Ocean Collective and rock out to one of the greatest concept albums ever created . . . all about the evolution of the Precambrian period.

I don't have to agree with the premise of the album, all I know is that the head bangs, man.

It bangs.

ouch!  I need to take some Asprin. 

You're right on the RR cars Lula....I know the animals could have easily fit into about 150 cars and that's what I meant.  I think the estimate I remember is that the Ark was big enough to haul 520 stock cars.  In other words, there was more than enough room in the Ark. 

HAHAHAHAHA!

Wow...just wow. That has got to be the most creative explanation I have ever heard.

While it's true that some fish can surive salinity changes it is by no means all or even most. Seeds cannot be contained in the atmosphere either. Some can survive for long periods in unfavorable conditions...but definitely not all. As for sticking to animals or staying inside animals...well, only a few do that and not for 40 days at any rate.

I have to give you points for creativity...but as for practicality? No way. Makes for a good story, though.

~Zoo

OK I read the first page of the comments and I thought, "I should make a post and say congratulations on how civil you guys are."  And then I go to the end at page 7 and you are still being civil and logical and not just shouting talking points at each other.  Unbelievable.  You guys should really give yourselves credit for being open-minded.

I think it's a little too late for me to get involved in the discussion, but some other time I'll post something and you can have the fun of arguing the same things all over again with me instead.

Thanks for stopping by then.

I'll look forward to that discussion.

I take it this subject interests you? Good. Me too....although I admit I don't go that deep into the scientific side. Just deep enough to get myself in trouble.....  

The problem with stating what creationists believe and what they do not believe is that the group of creationists consists of a diverse array. Some creationists come from agricultural or "small town" backgrounds and have little idea of what a "vestifial" organ or of what "megaevolution" is. Some, like Francis Collins, are at the top of the scientific pecking order and have, liberal, but still creationist beliefs.

The same applies to scientists. Some "scientists" have depressingly little scientific knowledge.

Just like scientists would surely call these people "pseudoscientists", creationists would deem their ignorants "extremists".

Ultimately, through education, both parties reach, on average, a common ground. These views might be stated, but unfortunately, ignorant nuts on either side cannot easily be separated from students of knowledge. So, organization of educated thought on either side cannot be properly reached, and the ideas held by either party cannot be freed from the contamination of ignorant masses.

I just thought I would point out that the OP has the definition of creationism a bit skewed toward one view. There are many forms of creationism but the two largest might be Old Earth and Young Earth. YEC creationism is pushed heavily by sites like AIG or ICR while OEC is pushed by Reasons to Believe iirc. Leaving aside the various ID beliefs or the exact age of the earth (6k, 10k, 100k) among YEC creationsts. Sometimes the OEC and YEC can be quite nasty toward each other.

The only thing I would suggest is that rather than assume that the overwhelming majority of scientists in just about every field are lying to you or just complete idiots you might consider learning more about evolution from both sidea. I know some christians are comforted by the first account they read that reinforces the bible and don't feel the need to investigate further.

It's an interesting subject. If you are a creationist you should at least take a look at the OEC-YEC arguments, even if you don't trust non-creationist scientists to tell you the time of day.

You might also consider looking up some interviews with Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project. He is a born-again, evangelical christian geneticist who believes in Jesus but does not believe in the claims of creationism or ID and finds them harmful to christianity.