they built their own walls and retreated inside. when the flood receded, it took away the walls by dissolving them. see, at this time, the top layer had the acid nessecary to destroy these protective structures. that way, while the flood was well above them, they could survive, and they wouldn't entirely die out because the shells were destroyed. also, upon the dissolving, the acid was destroyed, so these corals could survive in the water.
"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
And they turned on their recessive infrared genes that allow them to convert infared into food as the waters above them were so murky normal light couldn't filter through? Or they magically turned on their genes which allowed them to function like deep sea coral feeding off decaying organic material?
Which lends evidence to the idea that Creationism, literal that is, cannot be argued on its ow merits and derives its validity from the alleged problems of Evolution.
I think this is quite so and I am replying to you here in the hope that the topic I raised here might get some further exposure to critique by members of the creationist side to hear their arguements.
" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"
has anyone noticed that creatiowiki has stopped the registration of new members? Literal creationism is based on lies. Furthermore, it would seem that its community KNOWS this. A organization or set of organizations trying to hide something engages in behavior that limits or stops discussion with outside sources. We've seen this with gov'ts, with corporations with small groups of people. If they were open to discussion, they wouldn't try to cut off discussion with people in the areas of the subject.
Fat chance. I have yet to meet a creationist that can argue their beliefs on their own merits. I've run into a few who admit they cannot.
While I am not a young-earth creationist, I am a creationist. I suspect that I am capable of arguing quite effectively for my beliefs and against reductionism. Want to go a round? I don't know where to do it on this fora.
But that aside a power that could make the universe in one day and all living things in it should not have a problem with sustaining the animal life on board the ark.
Indeed, so what was the point of having Noah build the ark and of flooding the earth in the first place? God could just as easily have wiped the slate clean without violence or he could have changed mens hearts in the blink of an eye as well.
When I use creationist, I mean literal. Theistic creation however, seems to be all the rage these days.
Well, I have what I believe is a literal interp. It just isn't the literal interp of AiG or ICR. I think I literally see in the Bible, God ordering the earth to evolve (bring forth) life. So, I would argue that I do fall onto more literal side of the coin.