Problems with Genesis Creation

Isn't the great flood story found within the chapter of Genesis?

As I understand it, the flood is a second 'creation,' the restart of mankind after years of sin and evil and God making the Noahic covenant with mankind. So I do suppose you are sort of correct. Genesis doesn't need the flood, but Christanity does.

Maybe not in your interpretation of it. But Christanity is open to various types of interpretation, granted some of these interpretations were brutally murdered by the Catholics, but that's not really the point is it? Without the Noahic covenant, Christian interpretation of God is very different, a God willing to destroy its creations at will.

quote:

---

Once again your “millions of years” is an assumption. By pre-dinosaur fossils I assume you are referring to fossils found in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils. With the Bible as my axiom, “pre-dinosaur” and dinosaur fossils were buried during the Noachian Flood. Animals and plants that lived together were rapidly buried together during this violent deluge. In fact much of the fossil record can be interpreted as being buried during the Noachian Flood.

---

No they cannot. Your argument is completely ignorant of fluid mechanics. Objects of the same mass and size will sink at the same rates. Therefore we should see in according with Dinosaurs laid down during the flood similarily massed and sized animals. Find me a strata with a medium sized saurpod and a mammoth. If the flood did happen, we should see this. Furthermore if animals and plants lived together and were rapidly buried together, we should see complex and simple versions of the same animal in the same strata. This again exists no where on the planet. However, along the British coast line there are cliffs which have complex versions of a animal at the top and simple at the bottom with complexity going up as the cliff rises. This itself refutes the idea of the flood.

quote:

---

One assumption that is in that date of “FAR older than 6000 years” is that because of the steady radioactive decay we observe today we assume it has been a steady decay in the past.

---

So you're arguing that the Universe had a vastly different set of natural (chemistry & physics) laws a couple thousand years ago and that everything suddenly changed without actually changing? This is insane.

quote:

---

Another assumption is that when the rocks formed there was 100% parent isotope and 0% daughter isotope.

---

You assume that actually matters. And of course it does not. Answers in Genesis again misrepresents what actually happens. Some advice: don't use that website.CD002: Geochronology and initial conditions

quote:

---

Because they are assumptions that result in a conflict with Genesis Creation I will reject them.

---

So you reject electricity? After all geology which is the primary driver in oil, gas and coal exploration argues that the Earth is several billion years old. Since you reject all assumptions that conflict with genesis, you therefore must reject electricity as it is part of the set of assumptions that contradict Genesis Creation.

quote:

---

Another problem with relying wholly on radioactive decay rates is their disagreement. For the Cardenas Basalt lavas several different samples produced vastly different ages using different aging techniques.

---

One word for you to look up: cogenetic

quote:

---

11 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. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

---

You just eliminated life from the Planet.

quote:

---

* How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
* If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
* If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
* A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
* Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

---

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Which brings a question, how much magma and how large would these magma chambers need to be to allow such massive eruptions? Not to mention there should be constant tremors coming from these chambers. You'd think that God would have warned Noah about the ground going to shaking for several decades as the Magma chambers across the globe grew to epic proportions.

And you're also ignoring Post #40 which explains how your argument is completely full of crap.

Clearly jjsemsch has no idea what he has got himself into.

And all of the large mammals managed to deliberately drown all of the dinosaurs without losing a single one of their own. And the dinosaurs did the same to the earlier species. Every eon's set of species was in cahoots to knock off the previous era's before being murdered by the next eon's group. hahahaha.Literal Creationism: The next gymnastic sport - Mental Backflips.

You seem to be ignorant of what the Razor actually states.It is not the simplest solution is the correct one, is it the least necessarily complicated answer is the correct one, and the supernatural is one of the most complicated answers ever.

quote:

---

I also accept on faith that the Bible is the word of God, namely because it says it’s the word of God and because I have yet to find an error in it.

---

No, you do not WISH to find a error in it. Btw, your belief in a young Earth requires God to be a liar. And you have a long, long, long list of rebuttals to address

quote:

---

To paraphrase: no. The mutations in the RNA are causing it to devolve. These changes make it unrecognizable to the host cell.

---

This shows a ignorance of evolution on a scale rarely seen. Devolution would require a species to change into a form detrimental to itself in accordance with the environmental pressures. As the flu is clearly NOT doing that it is not devolving. Environmental pressures can force a species to evolve into a simpler organism that is better suited to its environment. Just because you do not understand evolution does not mean you speak with alleged authority.

quote:

---

Viruses have since mutated and degenerated to what we see today.

---

That makes even less sense. Your last claim said that because of little genetic data, that a reduction is devolving, degenerating. Yet mutations, specifically into more dangerous kinds of viruses and bacteria would require additional genetic data. Your web of lies is not carefully maintained, or maintained at all.

quote:

---

It was after the fall that these viruses and bacteria began to cause diseases.

---

Again ignorance. Animals committed no sin yet there are diseases that only affect certain animals. Anyone who uses AiG explicitly admits their ignorance.

quote:

---

So how many Tyrannosaurus rexes and other theropods have you studied to know their eating patterns? (Obviously that’s a rhetorical question, so please don’t respond) The answer is zero.

---

From their bones, one can deduce their size. From their size we can deduce within a range their daily caloric needs. From that we can deduce the necessary food requirements. This isn't hard, you're just ignorant.

quote:

---

From fossil remains we know that most dinosaurs were the size of chickens and the average dinosaur size was that of a dog.

---

You hear this where?Dinosaur - WikipediaGuess what? You're wrong.

quote:

---

There were very few that got to the size seen in Jurassic Park.

---

True but on average the dinosaurs were significantly larger then mammals.

quote:

---

Another point you are overlooking is Noah would have taken young adolescent animals which would have been the perfect age for breeding after departing from the ark.

---

Except that a adolescent dinosaur was often the size of a large cow and put weight on very quickly. Not to mention that adolescent T-rexs and Allosaurus and other medium to large carnivores were large, powerful and not going to be cooped up for a year.

quote:

---

It’s also likely that Noah took eggs of large dinosaurs, which would require no food until after it hatched.

---

And who tended to these eggs in addition to every other animal?

quote:

---

From this we can conclude that only one pair of dogs exited Noah’s Ark.

---

So all crabs came from one set of crabs? All large cats came from one pair? Let's just ignore how genetic bottlenecks make this impossible and let's again ignore how a single pair of of each animal would need to rapidly produce and mature to provide prey for the carnivores.

quote:

---

It was not necessary for Noah to take plants, bugs or sea creatures.

---

If Noah did not, life would not exist. Please tell me what kind of land plant can survive being submerged in brine for a year. How about you do a experiment? Take some grass and submerge it in salt water. See how long it lives. Furthermore virtually all bugs breathe through their exoskeletons. Submerging them results in their death. As for marine species, very few can survive in brine. Not to mention pressure changes from salinity changes. And you can kiss the food pyramid goodbye as plankton hasn't got a shot in such conditions.I do love how you refuse to address the various rebuttals

Genetic deformities have seen various vertebrates with two heads, two head snakes have been found in addition to cows, dogs, and cats.Polycephaly - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Water vapor is typically the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.

---

And guess what the temperature of this water vapour is?Hint: Not good for your belief system.

quote:

---

That is unless water animals at that time were able to live in fresh and sea water. Salmon do that today

---

Not quite. Salmon undergo Smolting, which effectively changes their capacity to survive different salinity levels. Relatively few fish can do this, and virtually none of them can switch it on and off. A smolted fish cannot survive for long in freshwater. Only organisms like Bullsharks can tolerate brine water for extended periods of time. And those are few.

quote:

---

Your statement is based on the assumption that all marine life is either potamodromous or oceanodromous and living in the opposite environment would have been fatal several thousand years ago.

---

You assume contrary to historical data that they do not. What is your evidence for this? We have the fossil record in addition to geological evidence for salinity levels.