Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

"While science expands, religion contracts. There ain't room for the two of us."
--Who said religion is included? You obviously have simply no clue whatsoever what the debate is even focused on. Set your proiorities and base your priorities on something that is actually relevant to the converstion. As I already have shown people the hierarchy of Creationism/Faith/Creation Science, please don't try to bring the argument all the way down to such a level as you seem to be arguing.-----------------

"PROVING THE BIBLE CORRECT. READ THROUGH IT ALL. OR COME BACK LATER. TRUST ME. ITLL END ALL DEBATE."
--What would you like to presume is not historically or scientifically accurate, make it conceivable.------------------

"Oh and Christian1. Please enlighten me- how should I interpret millions of animals being taken from all over the world in a time when the world was not mapped"
--Millions of animals were not taken on the ark, there were many, but nothing in the millions. All kinds of animals could have lived in this one particular spot, variation shows it can, they were not as specialized."and put on a made boat by a few men during the bronze age over 100 yrs. This boat then managed to feed and maintain millions of animals for many, many days on a rough sea"
--Actually, many people could have helped him build his boat, atleast with the factor of supplies. And again, they did not have to feet nor maintain millions of animals."including insects that would live for a maximum of three days, and required the fruit of fig trees to reproduce [figs were not aboard the ark])."
--By looking through the fossil record you would realize that insects grew to significantly larger sizes, most likely by longer life spans, insects arent a problem. Insects do not need to produce in fig trees, most all need water or moist environments to reproduce in the first place."The unicorn, which we have found no fossil records of, stayed on land and was washed away with the brackish water that would have wiped out all plants and fish that cannot tolerate both fresh and salt water."
--the unicorn? I hope your not looking for a unicorn as it is portrayed to day as being a horse with a horn on its forehead. As the biblical discription makes it as alot more of a monster than a horse. Many fish can go through changes such as high and low salinity, showing variation has taken place along with other reasons. Fish could have tolerated fresh and salt water. If you realy wanted to, depending on the fish, you could change it from salt water to fresh water or vice versa either through time, or generations."When the storm ceased, god actually made a rainbow IN A CLOUD (no rainbow has ever been seen IN A CLOUD)"
--So how are Rainbows created? And what are clouds made of?"promised that he would never create another flood that had been intended to punish humans"
--Actually he would never have a global flood peroid, by today's topography, the odds of it happening even through chance are one in a billion."and had in the process wiped out all creatures on the planet"
--Actually he didn't wipe out all the creatures on the planet, only creatures who breath through nostrils and live on land."(why didn't god just click his fingers and make all but a few humans disappear?)"
--I don't wan't to get into this argument again, we already wen't over this, its by many factors that made the Flood a plausable conclusion towards God."Then a few people who had apparently lived for 100 yrs in order to make a boat to save all the animal species on the planet"
--Actually they lived to about 900 years, Noah was 600 when the event took place. And 'animal species' is inaccurate, I'm sure the most inexperienced debater in the creation and evolution topic would know this."(excluding the dinosaurs, who didn't esist during this day)"
--Dinosaurs sure did live in his day."somehow reproduced in Turkey and restored all cultures on the planet in their original forms"
--original forms wouldn't be right, but otherwize this is correct."including the Egyptians and Chinese, who made no note of the great flood."
--Yes, Egypt and China both have flood legends, much of the Egyptian flood has been taken the factor of age and the like, China on the other hand has many variations of Flood legends."Of course they restored all the cultures and the cities, including the pyramids."
--Restored?"They then began farming a few years later in the salt soaked soil."
--Farming probably was something taking place after the flood."At the same time, the two representatives of species in South America managed to head throught the deserts of the Mideast, the tundras of Siberia, the rockies of north america, and the blaring humidity of s. america back to their homes, which were stripped of all habitats."
--there is a major problem with your argument...do you know what the Flood theory is, even parts of it?"They managed to do this without eating any food, as all vegetation was killed"
--On the contrary, vegetation would have been massivly abundant."and did so without having one animal dying on the trail, as of course there have been no remains of koalas been found, in lets say asia."
--Many probably died on the trail, the problem is, as I am sure you know, fossilization requires specific conditions. so even if koala's had produced the variation of actually being koala's at the time, you would most likely not find one."the fossils of only very primitive looking animals were fossilized, while other modern animals were not fossilized."
--No, they were all fossilized in the same time period, what is your argument asserting?"Hmmm... on second thought, it all seems to make sense now..."
--Don't I wish."If you really ignore all common logic, it actuaally starts to seem possible. If only I wasa little more ignorant..."
--If the way you propose the biblical flood were true, it would be in big trouble, luckly, its nothing in its likeness.------------------

"I used to be christian. I no longer believe in a god. I know some of the bible."
--Thats unfortunate, tell me why exactly?"you can head to truecreation's site if this person has one. if not, go to this one."
--Care an attempt at defending any of the implications that this site gives? I would be very happy to enter debate on the subject. "Oh and please defend the tower of babble. I'd be interested to hear how satan erased the evidence of it."
--I already gave evidence (actually we can go and see the tower today) of the Tower of Babel, the bible is completelly accurate on this point: From another forum, posted by myself in response to another asserting the same:

quote:

---

--Why would you assert something so untrue? The tower of bable has been found.

​

http://artiom.home.mindspring.com/gumilev/ch4.htm

​

quote:

---

The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood.

---

​

--And this is a link with the discussion of the Tower of Babel and Ziggurats.
-- http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

---

------------------

"True Creation. You need to do your homework. It is completely false that the chinese made any references of floods. That is a proven fact."
--Ehem, do my homework? Talk.origins archive's even are completely aware of this, there are 7 of them that Talk.origins lists, one seeming to be the main:-China
-Bahnar (Cochin China)
-Zhuang (China)
-Lisu (northwest Yunnan, China)
-Lolo (southwestern China)
-Siu (southern Guizhou, China)
-Jino (southern Yunnan, China)--On the contrary your assertion 'has been proven' false."It is also completely untrue that vegetation would be abundant. Salt water ruins soil. This is also a fact. Farming is impossible in salty soil. this is also a fact."
--You are aware of the water cycle? And you are also I am sure aware of the mechenism by which salt is removed from the continents I am sure? Also, regarding me saying vegetation would be abundant, this was refering to during the flood, vegetation would have been abundant above water, floating around."There would have been hundreds of thousands of species on board that ship."
--Nope, I don't think you are at all aware of Creaitonist theories are you? If you were, I am sure you would not be asking such a question."It is COMPLETELY UNTRUE THAT ALL INSECTS CAN REPRODUCE WITH WETNESS. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE."
--I never said all insects do."I'm a surprised that someone of your intelligence could really assume that koalas could survive a passage through a desert."
--Desert, what desert?"Did you know that koalas will only eat eucolyptus (damn spelling!) trees? These, last time I checked, are not found in the deserts of Arabia."
--Who said they had to be eating eucolyptus trees? Grizzly bears have a significantly different diet than do polar bears. (also a note, Panda 'bears' are not really bears)."In addition, more than ten creation scientists have claimed to find the ark, all in different locations."
--Yup, I guess so, I dont' think I would agree with either of them, It would most likely had been destroyed by tectonic or magmatic activity, or some other natural disaster."The male fig wasp is born, and mates with a female while the female is in the larvae stages. the male then dies. the female is born pregneant and lives for 3 days. During this time it moves through fig fruits, which actually grow right from the trunks of trees. Inside these fruits are flowers (they are truly bizarre). Some flowers are male, and some female. The female wasp moves through a fig (it enters through an opening) where it finds a flower that has a long enough stemen to deposit the eggs. Once she has laid the eggs, she dies. The fig tree is dependent of the wasp for pollenation (look it upa dn spare me the time) and the wasp is ABSOLUTELY dependent on the fig fruit."
--Thats right, but the Fig Wasp, most likely wasn't a 'fig wasp' 4,500 years ago. The Fig wasp is part of the Chalcidoidea family which all have many many variational abilities even closer relationships in the family towards the Fig wasp."DO NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS!"
--No problem."You have made one of your biggest mistakes by admitting that dinosaurs existed in that time. If this were true, why weren't they on the ark... the bible distinctly said that each specie of animal was put on the ark."
--They were on the ark, also the bible distinctly says ever 'kind' of animal was on the ark, the bible makes no reference as to 'species'. Everything reproduces after its 'kind' not species, if this were not so, the bible would not be correct."How did Noah survive 600 yrs? that ones a little odd."
--I went over this one with ludvanB, this is completely plausably correct:

quote:

---

Who do you know,anywhere on this earth that can live to be 600 years old? Aside from the bible itself(which is not a science or medical manual in any way shape or form),can you point out to me a single begining of a shred of evidence that a human being can live to be 600 years old under any conditions?"
--I would be happy, it is a simple concept really. I believe I have already gone over this in a nother forum anyways, but I will emphesize again. It is very possible that a human could have lived to 600 and even 950 years old as the bible portrays. Do you know why we die of old age? Because our parts wear out, and cells stop reproducing themselves.

​

AiG - Countdown to Death - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp

​

"The ‘capping’ at the end of each chromosome (called a telomere) is, like the capped tips of shoelaces, necessary to prevent the ends fraying. The telomere shortens with each cell division once the limit is reached, the cells can no longer divide. This is probably only one way in which our limited lifespans are ‘programmed’ into us. There is no biological reason at all why people could not live much longer than they do at present, if they had the appropriate genetic makeup.

​

It has long been known that there are human cells that can keep on dividing forever cancer cells. These appear not to have the built-in ‘switch’ which tells cells to stop dividing, so they keep on making copies of themselves. This is why medical labs, which need to use human cell lines in their work, can be continually supplied with cells which are all the ‘offspring’ of one unfortunate person’s cancer. (Called HeLa cells, after Henrietta Lacks, the lady whose cancer it was). The HeLa cell line is effectively ‘immortal’ (unless existing HeLa cells were to all be physically destroyed).

​

Recently, laboratory results based on an enzyme3 that is involved with the replication of the telomere, have caused much excitement. Modified human cell lines have divided many times past their limit. Some speculate that such manipulations could cause people to live to much longer ages, providing they do not succumb to disease or accident in the meantime. Aging is certain to be much more complex than these simplified discussions, based on preliminary findings, might lead us to think. However, the evidence so far strongly suggests that genetics plays a major part."

---

--I also have given more links and the like towards information on the role of the telomere in other threads. If you wan't some, type 'telomere' in the search box and you will find where I discuss it."Oh, and on the flood records thing again- how in the world can you possibly believe rubbish about the Egyptians "mentioning a flood". I'd like proof of this from a non-creationist scientist. I'd like at least 3 records of this."
--I can give you the non creationist approach, but I can't give you 3 flood stories, Talk.origins breifly explains why here:-Flood Stories from Around the World"Find it funny how there aren't actually that many fossils on this planet? Don't you think there would be millions of fossils of horses and cows and sloths and even humans."
--lol, goodness gratious, there are literally billions, possibly trillions of fossils on the planet."After all, most creationists claim that the smae flood that carved out the grand canyon"
--Why, is there a problem with it?"Oh... and here is something straight from the bible. you see i did a little research:"
--I'm glad you did some."Wow! A lot animals in a pretty small wooden boat."
--Yeah, they all even possibly could have only taken up 2 of the floors. "Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems."
--Ok lets see then:"Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties."
--Yeah they would have, assuming that they had to travel from around the world of course."Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all."
--Ok. (Who said they had to travel any significant distance)"Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?"
--Their diets wouldn't have been as specialized, for instance, koalas would not have had to just eat eucolyptise."Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity."
--I'd need specifics to give a reasonable argument."Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals."
--Probably one of the reasons, along with humans, that they died out (if they did). Also, they would not have been 'prey', as it along with its today 'predator' would have been vegetarian."When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood."
--What are they in competition for?"And before I continue, to believe that all fossils are younger than 6 thousand yrs old."
--(continues for quicksink) -isn't at all a problem."because of if you do, and you believe that the fossils were deposited during the great flood (meaning these creatures [now extinct] would have been alive just before the flood), than you arrive at roughly 4 billion creatures to be placed aboard a 450 ft ship."
--And how was it you came to that conclusion now quicksink?------------------

"And let's please admit that the "large number" (50,000 animals, 1,000,000 insects) of animals taken aboard would be from every continent- antarctica-asia-australia-n. s. america- africa -europe -and isolated areas such as the snow leopard in the Himalayas, and the siberian tiger."
--Why? Whats wrong with the other leopards and tigers, you are familiar with speciation and variation, are you not?"There are dozens of species of penguin, which would all have to be collected in antarctica."
--Don't you know that there are penguins that thrive on the golopogose islands, right next to the equator."You'd also have to launch a search party to save all buttterflies"
--Insects would not have been needed to be accounted for in Noah's ark, spiders."...snakes..."
--There are abundant 'species' of almost everything, so what is the problem?"DINOSAURS, and etc etc etc in the amazin"
--Not all dinosaurs lived in the amazon... Also, what is the problem with dinosaurs on the Ark, as they were air breathing through nostrils and living on land."From there you could trun north and get the polar bears in the arctic."
--Why run somewhere were there are no bears when you can just walk a couple miles and get a 'bear', that didn't have the mutational effects along with natural selection as the polar bear has."And while your at it, I'd like to say that it is a scientifically proven fact that most species of fish cannot survive in brackish water."
--And?"All coral reefs would have been destroyed"
--Yup."(it is scientifically proven that coral could not survive in brackish water without light for six months. it takes millions of yrs to regrow huge coral reefs like that in asutralia)"
--It doesn't take millions of years to grow coral reefs, including the great barrier reef of australia."But I'm sure you knew that."
--Darn, I wasn't aware?"You're just plain old smarter than Stephen Hawking."
--Believe me, I don't have to be nearly that smart to refute these arguments."Well there you have it."
--Which segment would you like me to comment on?"By the way, go to my evidence page. there's a message waiting for you."
--Wheres that one at?------------------

"To answer "restored?" erosion would have occured during the great flood. the pyramids would have collapsed."
--For one, I don't think those massive structures would have collapsed even if they were pre-flood. Why do you assume that they were pre-flood?------------------

"Finally, I believe that when fish adapt to fresh water to salt water and vice-versa, the word for that is EVOLUTION."
--Well then if your definition by means of this wording is correct, then I have no problem with evolution! I'm sure you have heard of speciation by means of mutation and natural selection.------------------

"LUD:That always puzzles the hell out of me...whats your imperical evicence that animals were not as specialised back 4500 years ago as they are today? What evidence do you possess that say Lions,Tigers,Albino Tigers,Pumas,Cougars,Jaguars,Cheetas,Panthers,Lynxs,mountain lions and so so did not ALL exist 4500 years ago and so did not have all needed to send a pair of representatives of each sub species to still exists to this day? What evidence is there that large cat ancestry converges 4500 years ago? Patiently waiting your data so i can review it."
--You can find out a rudimentary evidence, as I don't think you can look in the fossil record for this evidence, (as all it is is bones in most cases) for instance, tigers and lions can breed, showing variation has taken place to this large extent, the various bear kinds can breed, also the killer whale and dolphin."LUD:Yeah,the amusing Noah contracting company story from the article you linked me to the other day. Of course,there isen't the slightest shred of evidence of it...not even scriptural evidence."
--Really, what else would you attempt to be even able to look for besides the scriptural depiction:Genesis 5:29 - He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."youngs literal translation:Genesis 5:29 - and calleth his name Noah, saying, `This [one] doth comfort us concerning our work, and concerning the labour of our hands, because of the ground which Jehovah hath cursed.'"The autors of that article took a few lines in the book of genesis and extrapolated well beyond what common sense would allow,given such limited actual information. They did so with the clear intention of fooling casual readers into believing that they knew more about the alledged time of Noah than they actually did."
--I don't see what your trying to say?"LUD:Moist environement yes...completely flooded environement,no way. Besides,the large size of insects in the fossil records would have played against them,greatly limiting their choices of refuge during the flood."
--I asked you earlier why this would have been a dissadvantage, I don't believe I got a response. Also, who said they were all the big ones that lived through the flood?"Some insects were almost as large as some birds...yet birds did not survive the flood."
--Birds would have had to stay in flight, they can't stay in flight for that lenght of time."Furthermore,your swimming pool model fails to account for three important factor...time(6-9 months+),the sheer unstable environement of an ocean(which is rarely calm water like a pool) and the many predators under the waves who eat insects found at the surface."
--Well Sorry, I can't put a vegetation mat as big as the amazon in my pool, the ocean environment would have been drastic in many places, though with the sheer size of the mats many though some wouldn't have been swampt."Some biologists in my cousin's departement told me to ask you a question...to the best of your knowledge,how many formerly land dwelling insects live on the ocean today?"
--Well probably next to zero, but ofcourse they don't have those mats of vegetation like the flood would have had."LUD:yes,fishes do adapt...over time. but history has taught us that an abrupt change in environement often spell the end for most of the species living in that environement."
--Right."LUD:as i am fond of asking in this post,what evidence do you possess that the today's topography and 4500 years ago's topography are so extraordinarely different that a flood was well conceivable back then but not today?"
--Plate tectonics and folded layers, showing that tectonic activity occured during and after the Flood (or whatever layed down the layers). for instance, the himilayas did not exist as they are almost completely formed with folded sediment terrain."Did you know that if all the glaciers melted,much of the world today,save higher grounds,would be underwater?"
--Much of it would, yes, so how are you going to melt all those glaciers anywhere in the next couple hundred or thousand years (unless ofcourse humanity made melting the ice caps a goal and priority)."? Its conceivable that this very thing happened in the distant past,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES and its possible it may happen again,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES."
--Well atleast we are getting 'somewhere', though why do you presume that it would have taken centuries?"LUD:Yes and land dwelling insects survived the flood by floating on unstable vegetation matts and fresh water fishes survived because they could dwell in bubble of fresh water in the oceans."
--The vegetation mats were not exactly 'unstable' it would have been a bit of a ride, but werent unstable. And fresh water fish would not have had to dwell in bubbles of fresh water in the oceans, though this is possible."Its all been said before,yet no one has ever presented any credible evidence to back this up. Just a few small exemples here and there which are then extrapolated to huge proportions with no considerations for the obvious problems that this entails"
--So what is it that I would have to show you to make it plausable, if what I have told you so far is not?"but if the bible say it,it must be true,right?"
--If you wan't to believe that sure, I am showing you it is alot more plausable than anyone would begin to think."after all,the earth has four corners,rests on pillars and Jesus did come back to bring his Father's kingdom in his appostles lifetime,didn't he?
--I've already shown that it doesn't say that it has four corners, what is the resting on pillars thing?, and I have shown that there is no contredictino in the prophesy."LUD:yes because God,in his all knowing power couldn't just kill everyone he didn't like and then inscribe in our genome the knowledge of what he did so we would know all of this instinctively and be abilitated to make our choices with INSTINCTIVE knowledge of right and wrong...I'm telling you TC,if we are to believe the Bible's accounts of God,he seems to reflect like a very stupid and superstitious man...kinda like the Bible autors...interesting..."
--you don't have to be sarcastic, give me a reason why it was 'a stupid' thing to do."LUD:This is the most amusing part about creationists...they accuse evolutionists of inventing billion year long periods of time to make the evolution theory work yet they themselves invent 900 year old people to make THEIR beliefs work."
--I already shown you the evidence, and you have repeatedly failed to continue the discussion, because you asserted that therer is no medical evidence to back it up, yet I gave you 'direct' medical evidence."No one has ever observed the lifetime of someone lasting 900 years save perhaps in cancer cells...and not even that,since no one has seen a cancer strand replicate for 900 years."
--This is the same thing as me saying 'No one has observed an amoeba produce a human, so I'm not going to believe it untill it does, and I'm not going to believe that the world is billions of years old, untill I can see it live for another billion years', it doesn't get you too far ludvanB."The longevity of the Biblical patriarch is pure mythology and will remain mythology until your side can provide actual evidence of people living so damn long...it doesn't have to be 900."
--I already gave it to you and it wasn't just 'cancer cells', are you going to continue asserting this, or will you accept it in full possibility?"People who lived so long would have had a much slower life cycle,so their bodies would have been that of a child,a teen or a young adult for MUCH LONGUER than ours...show me a 30 year old human being that still has the body of a toddler and i'll buy into the patriarch belief no question asked."
--They wouldn't have had a slower life cycle, as I already showed you their 'cycle' can continue for these emense periods of time. (see above)"LUD:Funny how the fossil record just dont say that."
--Assuming that the fossil record accounts for geologic periods of time, again you can't use the evolutionary framework to work with the biblical event, likewize you can't use the biblical framework to work with the evolutionary events. So then, what evidence is there that they didn't live then?"LUD:evidence,evidence,evidence..."
--(See top) tigers-lions, dolphins-killer whales, etc."LUD:someday,someone will have to teach you the difference between LOCAL flood,which occur all the time,and GLOBAL flood,which may have happened long ago over the course of many centuries. Most flood legends are LOCAL flood legends."
--And this proves.... You wanted flood legends, I gave you hundreds of them, now you want them to all be the same, next thing you know, you'll wan't the guy to be Noah, have the guy have 3 sons and wives, etc. It is obviously typical, I already shown this."LUD:yes,restaured...the great pyramyd of Gise and the sphynx are said to be over 5000 years old...yet they show no sign of ever having been underwater."
--The erosion sure shows alot, though It could have been weathering by wind factors but by a linear dating by current erosion it would be dated at 7000-5000 BC. There is even debate on when the sphinx and the pyramids were made, and it doesn't seem to be based on anything conclusive. I found that the sphinx is dated at about 2520-2500 BC."LUD:according to the Bible,Cain was a farmer so even the Bible claims that farming began well before the flood...and since we know it today to be the primary source of food for the human race,there's no reason to believe that it wasn't so 4500 years ago...hell,the Bible even says that vegetation is what people were supposed to eat. Heavily salinated soils would not have been able to produce plants for decades,if not more. and they couldn't eat the animals they had just saved from the flood either,since all clean beasts were sacrificed (sacrifice means no part of them were consumed by man) and the unclean beasts had to reproduce."
--1.)Yes the bible says cain was a farmer and thus farmed the land. 2.)Soil that was heavily salinated would not have been a factor for very long, given the water cycle, also magma makes excelent for nutrient soil, in some places this would have been present. 3.)Sacrifices would have taken place after they could have reproduced, also because it would have taken him some time to create the alter.Genesis 8:17 - and they have teemed in the earth, and been fruitful, and have multiplied on the earth.'"LUD:He raises a god point...how did the animals of south america or australia reached the ME? Oh i forget...the world was completely different back then,even though we have no evidence to show that..."
--Yes, the world was always the same, the continents don't move, speciation doesn't take place, etc. (sarcastic). The animals in south america, didn't need to be in south america."LUDk i'm stumped...HOW?"
--Vegetation floats on water when it is condensed into piles, especially if vegetation were on top of trees."LUD:i think what he means is you are asking us to believe that none of the ark couples lost any members on their swim back home...oh thats right...they walked because the oceans has all dried out. silly me..."
--Ok good then."LUD:they were not all fossilized that the same time and the geologic columns are ample proof of this...just because creationists CHOOSE to disreguard this evicence because it doesn't compute with THEIR beliefs does not make it untrue."
--I think I know what you 'mean', that they were not all burried at the same time, which is what I said, I said same time 'period'. What is the evidence against it if it is so abundant."LUD: But he does make a valid point..."
--He makes valid points yes, but they are basics in Flood theory that have already been addressed."our observation of what occured 4500 years ago HAS to start with the observable present which is then extrapolated slowly and piece by piece with testing all allong until it can give us an idea of what things were like back then..."
--Basically right."But your begin with a pre-determined completely different past and then make up all sort of improbable assertions to explain how that pre-determined past turned into the observable present...he's right...the only way we can follow you is if we abandon all logical thinking along the way."
--I have addressed many of these questions, tell me in some detail exactly what is it that is the problem, and what it would take for it to be probable if I have not already shown it as such.------------------

"So wait. You believe that evolution is possible in a matter of 6 months so that those fish can survive and make the flood make sense, but when it comes to evolution (ape-man) over 100s of 1000s of yrs, well that's just ridiculous."
--Like I said earlier, you are aware of speciation are you not?"It seems that you're actually using an element of scientific theory that you disagree with to make the Bible make more sense."
--No it is a scientific observation to agree with the bible."By the way: does it say in the bible that the fish adapted. Or are you making this up to save the fish? Just wondering."
--The bible is not a science textbook, if you want to know this, the next thing you'll want to know is why the Sun is producing solar neutrino's and where it is found in the bible."PS: The fish would almost immediately die. Evolution of this sort would have to occur where a certain specie of fish gradually moves into brackish water. a new specie branches out that can tolerate fresh water. I highly doubt that if you took a fresh water fish and put it in a salt water aquarium, and vice-versa, you'd see much adaptation (evolution). Evolution takes time."
--For one, there would have been an expanse above the salt water of fresh water, so if I seriously needed it that is what they could have used.

quote:

---

There are migratory species of fish which travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn in freshwater and mature in saltwater. Eels reproduce in saltwater and grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. The Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon lives only in freshwater. Some of the fish orders with both fresh and saltwater species are the toadfish order, garpike order, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish orders. Indeed, most of the extant orders have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate wide changes in salinity could have been present in most fish at the time of the Flood. Specialisation may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.

​

Many marine creatures would have been killed in the Flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life with 95% of the fossil record accounted for by marine creatures. This is consistent with the Bible's account of the Flood beginning with the breaking up of the 'fountains of the great deep' (i.e. beginning in the sea?).

​

There is a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the earth. Freshwater can sit on top of saltwater for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.

---

AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp------------------

"LUD:Here we go again..(those are getting to be some very long threads)...I've never questionned the obvious fact that big cats have a common ancestry"
--Great, thats my point, and this is speciation, they have common ancestry."just your assertion that this ancestry converged to 4500 years ago,which is substanciated by no facts whatsoever."
--Why, do you think that it takes vast periods of time for this to be applied?"Same with dolphins and killer whale (which btw are not even needed in the expemple,since they weren't on the alledged ark."
--Yes it isn't involved in that argument, I was merely stating it to show in the argument of speciation."LUD:what i would expect is for people not to make broad extrapolation based on so little evidence just to try and sound convincing."
--Ok thats nice, but my question was, what would you expect the bible to say for my argument to be true?"LUD:What i'm trying to say is that scientists practicaly never describe the past in such details because so many things about it remain a mistery."
--This is back to the creationism model, like I say, we can only say that hey, a flood happend and it could have happend like this, and we say hey the earth is young, but we can't give it a date like 6000 years in this. What we do is we take the scientific research, and then we say hey, this can cooperate with what the bible says, so those are our details. It is a mystery technically."And because people have a tendency to listen more people who dont make them think too much,the autors of the article are painting a picture that is unrealisticaly clear and precise about the days of Noah in the hope that people will believe them over the realisticaly vague descriptions of scientists. This is very dishonest in my opinion."
--I don't see any dishonesty, I see an idea on how things may have been, its like watching a movie that is based on a true story."LUD:Both big and small insects could have survived a world wide flood,period."
--Ok."The only expert on insects i could talk too is a friend of my cousin and work at the montreal insectarium."
--You seem to have alot of connections, at least it is helpful."At my cuz's behest,i gave him a call and when i suggested that ridiculous notion,he could barely contain his laughter. He explained to me that while many insects actually live by water and lay their eggs in it,its always FRESH water because high salination is extremely lethal to them."
--I found this interesting on encarta:

quote:

---

Salinity is important in determining the density and movement of seawater. Seawater is about 2.5 percent denser than fresh water due to the salts dissolved in it. Denser water sinks, and less dense water floats on top of it. In an estuary, lower-salinity, lower-density water originating from rivers forms a surface layer that flows seaward on top of higher-salinity, higher-density water entering the estuary from the oceans. The halocline is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.

​

"Salinity." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

Also on Encarta:

quote:

---

As a group, insects have only one important limitation: although many species live in fresh water-particularly when they are young-only a few can survive in the salty water of the oceans.

​

"Insect." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

--With 40 days of rain that would have been going on, fresh water would have condensed towards to top of the ocean."He also agree with me that vegetation matts would have constantly been washed by waves during the nearly one year long cruise and no insects could have survived this ordeal for very long."
--How Did you come to that agreement, what did you take into account?"His opinion(which i assume is based on his 21 years of experience on the subject) is that if there was a biblical flood,Noah ABSOLUTELY HAD to take the insects with him...find me an insect expert who says otherwise and we'll talk some more then."
--Sorry, I don't have those kinds of insect connections, though I can't find anything that comments on something of this nature in places such as encarta and the like. Also this is not valid on the basis of argument from athority. See above."LUD:large insects would have faced the exact same problem. And if large anthropods like tarentulas could have survived the flood,why not small birds and rodents?"
--Insects and most anthropods are much much lighter than birds, also, birds even if they attempted to land, would have been overcome by insects."LUD:So you are assuming that there were vegetation mats as large as the amazon that could form in the churning water of the biblical flood? hum..."
--I didn't mean it in that context, what I meant was, the amount of vegetation that the amazon (actually much more) posesses would have been drifting in the ocean, much of it being swampt, most only the areas where they would not have been constantly bombarded by waves would have been a place of abundant insect life."LUD:and why exactly would there be large vegetation mats formed by the flood?"
--Vegetation, particularely tree's will float in water, they don't just sink to the bottom for a bit of time."LUD: So you agree that the massive change in salination of the water for different species of fish would have spelled their doom."
--For many who would have already diversified enough to be unable to cooperate with this change, yes they would have died, and would have in some cases gone extinct, though many would not have suffered this fate."LUD:yes,i understand all that...why did it happen 4500 years ago...what evidence in today's geology points to 4500 years ago?"
--By the mechenisms for the Flood, this can be accomplished. Also I believe that there is evidence that magnetic variation went wild at some point in time, showing tectonic activity was going at fantastic rates."LUD: a big change in the temperature of the atmosphere might to it. Geologists are adament there there were not one but several ice ages over the course of the earth's history..."
--I've tried to discuss this before, what is the evidence that they base this on?"and then there's humanitie's growing emmission of carbon dioxide causing global warming."
--The more carbon dioxide you have, the happier plants will be, so it will take a bit of time, also, to melt all the glaciers, I think you would have to raise temperatures quite significantly, as antarctica at its pole has averages well below zero."LUD:well i dont see anything that would melt the glaciers inside anything less than a few decades and if it had happened slowly,people and animals could have survived it without the need for an ark."
--Glaciers would not have had to melt significantly, glaciers would have melted from the oceans heating up a bit, but in this same effect, a global warming process would have set in by blocking sunlight, so the water would have been sucked right back up into the glaicers about mid-flood and thereafter. And with the topography in the time (slightly higher ocean basins and no mountain ranges) this water would have created significant effects."LUD:have you ever thrown a fresh water truit in ocean water? it dies within minutes from salt poisoning."
--LoL, well of course the thing is going to die, your not going to have changes like that."And the large waves of the oceans would constantly disrupt large vegetation matts,not to mention washing them in salt water daily."
--I showed above how water salinity towards the first possibly hundred feet or so depth would have been very low if it was at all. And I am wondering how are your waves going to act when you have no continents for it to build up its splash peak wave characteristic."I've been on a cruise in the St-laurent Gulf a couple of years back...on a good day,the water is uniformly calm...on a bad day,the waves sometime rose as high as the ship,which was very big..."
--What kind of waves were they? What were the characteristics of the wave."and this was nothing compared to the conditions on the high seas. The sailors told me that some waves on seas have the potential to overturn a cruise ship if they hit from the side...imagine a vegetation matt...or even Noah's boat,which had no steering."
--What is it that causes such waves, this is probably a good discussion, on the ocean characteristics during the flood."LUD:well,lets take the insect exemple. I've described to you the condition that would make for a good experiment about vegetation matts and insects."
--I was hoping it would be considerable, I don't have millions of dollars. "Whilke i realize that your means may be limited(and even if i make a lot of doe myself,i dont want to spend it on something i'm allready convinced is futile),contact one of your creationists institute and ask them if they would fund such an experiment."
--Thats a good idea, i'll probably contact some of them and see what their solution would be."once you get the result,we'll look over them and if they are convincing,i'll fund your creationist venture,whatever it may be...what do you say?"
--That would be a good idea for a factual conclusion, untill then we can only see in theory."LUD:its not that i DONT WANT to believe the Bible...its that i cant believe those parts of it while keeping common sense and logic,both of whom are important to my identity as a human being."
--Likewize, but I have been unable to locate a passage in the bible that seems that it violates this."But as i said,show me a plausible representation of one of those occurences and i'll reconsider."
--I think were well under way, these debates arent just an in and out kind of thing all the time ya know."Since i dont lead a sinfull life to begin with(at least,i dont think i do),it wont be much of a hassle to re-convert to christianity."
--Well we all do of course as I am sure you probably get sick of hearing, lead a sinful life, and I'm sure you know the rest. But that would be great to see you reconsider."LUD:yes it does speak of the four corners of the earth and the pillars of the earth."
--If you seriously wan't me to restate the four corners argument, give me your argument and I will respond, but where is the pillars thing, I remember this one but I cannot find it."As for the prophecy,.HUH? som,e of the 12 original apostles of Jesus are still alive today? Where...i so want to meet them..."
--These prophesies were not speaking of the apostles but speaking of us, humanity, mabye the literal translation would give some more insite, what was the 'contredition'?"LUD:well,wouldn't it be simpler(and well within the abilities of an all powerfull God) to just kill the sinfull people and program knowledge of right and wrong at an instinctive level in all humanity?"
--Sure it would be 'simpler', hey why did God have to create the world and adam and eve when it would have just been simpler to create them in the supernatural realm like the angels so they would love him forever? There are many factors that support why God would have done this, the one I stated earlier I think is a strong one, that it would have been a reminder that God is the judge of sin, and he sure doesn't like sin. Also it is a very high point concerning todays world, as it becomes more and more, and even surpasses the wickedness that was in the world before the Flood. And the bible also prophesies that in the last days people would be ignorant of the Flood, (and the creation) which I think makes a very strong point. As for the programing knowledge thing, he didn't create us to be robots so that we would do what we say because he wants us to, he wants us to want to."LUD:you gave me ONE piece of evidence that you extrapolated well beyond its possible context(cancerous cells alledgedly multiplying ad infinitum translated into 900 year old people)."
--And I gave you the reason that cancerous cells can repllicate in this way, and also gave examples of test subjects showing it plays a major part in an organism's life-span."Its the same as with your lion...one lion does not make a rule,just as one piece of medical evidence(however interesting it may be) does not make a 900 year old man. Science drawn conclusions on each of its fields of study based on TONS of evidence...not just on or two."
--In the context of this argument, I could say that mutation isn't enough to say that evolution could have occured, because that is only one example of how it happend. The Telomere activity is direct evidence toward organism life-span, and is even a big interesting topic in science."LUD:indeed it doesn't,i'll concede the point."
--Ok."LUD:and i've all ready told you that i dont reject the POSSIBILITY of it(hell,living 900 year would be very neet) but based on the evidence we have so far,it very improbable that we A:even did and B:ever will."
--The evidence we have so far is extreamly conclusive, we can extend an organisms life-span significantly, unfortunatelly they definantly won't allow testing on humans."LUD:actually,you havent shown me that their life cycle would or wouldn't be slower...care to elaborate? Why wouldn't their life cycle be slower?"
--Because bodily functions and all would have gone at the same regular human rate. The thing that makes their life-span so significantly longer, is because their bodies instead of wearing out after 40 (or whatever age) the bodily tissue at the celluar level doesn't stop replicating, so you simply continue in this way."LUD:i certainly can use geologic evidence to COUNTER biblical assertions because they are based on science,not doctrinal dogma."
--Ok then this is a different argument than you asserted previously, what is the evidence that it does contredict the biblical flood?"LUD: ok...evidence that it occused 4500 years ago...sorry if that wawesn't clear."
--Speciation is quite rapid, how does speciation require lengthly time periods."LUD:Hundreds? try 2 dozen at most,all of whom are local floods,making no mention of the whole world being swallowed by waters. try again..."
--Flood Stories from Around the World"LUD:that actually doesn't work all that well,because it means that 8 people would have had to build it..."
--Huh? There were alot more people before the flood than 8. And world repopulation would have been quite rapid."and its not far from what i said....5000 years old means 3000 BC. And why would these particular construction,assuming there are pre flood,would have survived and no other did?"
--Because of the sheer size of the structures, each of the massive boulders weigh many tons, the force of water would have done very little damage in its whole. So what is it that makes it evident that it was built before or after, (whenever it was built) the Flood."LUD:unsubstanciated biblical quotes non wistanding,why did you claim that farming appeared AFTER the flood."
--Well we have farming now don't we? Thats after the flood. (I don't think I understand the assertion)"Also,the Bible says that Noah sacrificed ALL the clean beasts they had"
--No it doesnt' say he sacrificed all, it says some:Genesis 8:20 - Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it."and salinated soils stay salinated for quite some time,despite water cycles...far longuer than needed for everyone being sustained by this to starve to death."
--For one, the last many feet (around 100 or so ft.) of flood water to drain off the continents would have been fresh water, and also, why do you say it would take so long for the water cycle to remove much of the salinity?"LUD:they didn't...there were NO animals on south america in Noah's time?"
--No they sure were, I am saying that animals could live in a larger veriety of environments (even though veriety would not have been much of a veriety in that time most likely), so they would not 'have' to have been located in south america as they could have lived fine within the vicinity."LUD:rotting vegetation soaked in salt water...thats what they ate comming out of the ark?"
--Fresh water would have been suspended during the flood."LUD:in case you dind't notice,that was a sarcasm,which i thought was self evident."
--I knew it was sarcasm, though I didn't see the point exactly at what you are addressing, so I was waiting for this post."I dont buy your ocean drying model for one damn minute and neither do most serious geologists for obvious reasons. the sheer heat needed to boils off the oceans in such a short time would have poached everyone,Noah included."
--You are aware that there is 400 Degree Celcius waters in places on the bottom of the ocean coming out of fountian like springs. Though at mixture with the near freezing waters virtually neutralizes it. Tell me, why would they have been poached? You've made the assertion that 'the sheer heat needed to boils off the oceans in such a short time would have poached everyone,Noah included', now what is the supporting evidence?"LUD:the geologic column...what evidence SUPPORTING your model is there aside the Bible?"
--Evidence supporting the Flood in the geologic column, the Geologic column is made up of layers which is what you would expect, the geologic column has fossils sorted by many factors, which is also expected by the Flood. The Geologic column contains many mineral deposits, for example, some minerals are formed when greatly heated water makes contact with cooler water, with this being a great factor during the Flood, these deposits would be expected, etc."LUDbviously not to his or my satisfactiuon,since we dont seem to buy it."
--Hehe, of course you don't buy it, otherwize you wouldn't be an OEC and feel the way you do about the flood now would you? "LUD:you know,its so rare that we agree on something that a feel the need to mark this moment in the annals...there,its done."
--Annals? "LUD:i have explained to you on several occasions that while you do present POSSIBLE arguments,you dont present a reason why they should be considered LIKELY or PROBABLE arguments."
--I see them as very probable, many of them even improbable not to occur. Tell me some of my arguments and tell me what you would need to make them probable to your own satisfaction."fiou...that was long..."
--Sure was, took me about an hour and some. ------------------