Problems with Genesis Creation

That is unless water animals at that time were able to live in fresh and sea water. Salmon do that today: 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.Since the time of the Flood adaptation and natural selection have caused several animals to only be suitable for fresh water or salt water. Please note that it was not Darwinian Evolution that caused some fresh water fish to LOSE their ability to survive in salt water or vice versa.

So in the past, all fish could live in salt and fresh water. How convienent.Do you notice that in order for your "simple solution" to work, all sorts of crazy magical shit has to be going on?Water acted different in the past. Volcanos were different in the past. Fish were different. People lived longer. There was more water then than there is today. etc etc etc.Just come out and say it: "Creationism is Magic"

You said God knew what would happen. If I missed something, and you were speaking about God planning what would happen, I apologize.ABE; Just saw the OT warning, so if interested I refer you to some of the suggested threads in post 134 by AdminAsgara.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

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.

During the Flood plants and animals were transported and buried. Some would be transported further than others. This is what the evidence shows at the Morrison Formation for example. You don’t need a change in the density of water for this to happen.

Like a good Fundy, you've once again answered a question I didn't ask.You need variable density and highly organized water molecules so that only dinosaurs get deposited with dinosaurs and only megafauna get desposited with megafauna.Now, before you answer with another giant cut and paste - here's some facts.Small dinosaurs, including juvenile dinos, are buried with their contemperaries, not with animals of similiar size.Dinos and Megafauna appear in verticle strata. It's not like all dinos are in nevada and all megafauna are in New jersey. These aren't animals that lived in different areas.Now onto your ridiculous post:
You honestly believe that plants have the same fossilization rate as bones? You realize that plants are made out of different materials than bones, hopefully. If not, you may want to look it up.This is just another example of the evil people at AiG either deliberately lying or simply being stupid.

Not true. You only need the water that is present here on Earth to flood the entire Earth. As I’ve stated before if all of the land were leveled and the polar ice caps were melted, water would cover the entire Earth to a depth of about 1.7 miles. The highest mountains were only covered to a depth of 20 feet or more during the Flood, so it wouldn’t be necessary to level all of the mountains.Also the evidence supports many mountain ranges being formed during and shortly after the Flood. The water level would not have to rise to the top of Mount Everest. This article also mentions fossils of sea creatures found at the tops of the Himalayas, which is further evidence that the Himalayas were once covered by water.

Which "evidence" would that be?Produce some, how 'bout? You could be the first to do so!

But it seems to omit that those limestones up on Everest are metamorphosed partway to marble, meaning they've also been buried ten or so miles deep under other rock for a while, and since unroofed by tectonism and erosion. The same tectonic motion and uplift is measurable today. No Floode involved, or even useful in explaining what real geology already explains.

Are you suggesting that the Grand Canyon is the only canyon in the world? You’ve also forgotten about mountain ranges and other geological formations that were formed during and shortly after the Flood. The pre-Flood Earth was much warmer than our current climate. Also with all of the volcanoes erupting at the bottom of what is now the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere, the temperature of the water was much higher than it is today. The polar ice caps formed in the Ice Age following the Flood.

Okay stop.JJ you don't _actually_ believe this, do you?In order for your theory to work, all of the lands were flattened (which there's no record of, and is not mentioned in the Bible) then all the mountains reformed right after the flood.Come on.At some point you have to look at the pile of bullshit that you are stacking up and say, "What the hell am I saying?"Exactly how many magic events had to take place in a row in order for your theory to be correct? 20? 50?I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with a child about why the toothfairy doesn't exist.

stop stop stop, my sides hurt too much from laughing.So, let's see if we can sum up.In order for you to be right -
Volcanos erupted while simulateously being flattened along with the rest of the world so that it could fill in the trenches at the bottom of the ocean while the Earth's temperature went up to melt the ice caps. But while the temperature went up, there was less evaporation because we need all the water on the ground. Then, right after the flood, all the land which was not at the bottom of the ocean came back out of those deep trenches and formed the mountains. Of course, since all that land was sedimentary by definition, the mountains are all sedimentary except for the onces with aren't because they magically changed. Meanwhile, the mountains which were not flattened were magically still around for Noah to land his boat on, and as the waters drained in Arizona they cut the Grand Canyon, but in the rest of the world, they drained out without creating equal or larger canyons, meanwhile the animals spread out as the mountains were rising up around them and fed on the plants which didn't die in the salt water, except for those carnivores which didn't feed on anything apparently but were magically sustained. While this was happening, somehow all the kangaroos got to australia and all the turkeys got to North America, along with the megafaunal which survived this extremely warm period so that they could thrive in the Ice age which immediately followed the flood. And, while all this was going on, the various animals stratified themselves along with plants so that the most primative ones landed at places where C-14 dating was corrupted to make them appear older, while the later forms landed in places where the C-14 was corrupted to make them appear older, but not quite as old as the other ones.Yup, this all makes perfect sense. I'm surprised we don't teach it in school along side the "Magic of Math" and the "Magic of Spanish"

Genetic change over time is part of the Creation Model. It’s also part of observable scientific fact. You make an incorrect logical jump when you equate it with Darwinian Evolution. This is only a horizontal change at best. There are no mutations which cause an upward progression. For example sickle cell anemia is a mutation that gives a survival benefit to people living in areas affected by malaria, but this is not the kind of mutation needed to progress upward from molecules to man. It's a degeneration of the red blood cells.

quote:

---

During the Flood plants and animals were transported and buried. Some would be transported further than others. This is what the evidence shows at the Morrison Formation for example.

---

Like a good fundementalist you have no idea what you are talking about. The Morrison Formation shows the geological column exactly how evolution predicts it should be. Older species at the bottom, younger at the top. Species that did not live together are not the same strata. Fish fossils are found during the period when the area was a shallow inland sea. Notice how there aren't dinosaurs of pollen plants in the same strata. You are still ignoring the concept of fluid mechanics.

quote:

---

You don’t need a change in the density of water for this to happen.

---

Yes you do. Explain to me why the water density is higher in rainforests and swamps then deserts or plains.

quote:

---

Also the evidence supports many mountain ranges being formed during and shortly after the Flood. The water level would not have to rise to the top of Mount Everest.

---

WRONG, the only argument in favor of rapid tetonic movements has been admitted to require a miracle by its own author. The heat from 5 + feet a year would be tremendous, possibly enough to melt the crust of the Earth into a molten sea of lava.

quote:

---

This article also mentions fossils of sea creatures found at the tops of the Himalayas, which is further evidence that the Himalayas were once covered by water.

---

Wrong again. The fossils found on the tops of mountains are of very old species. While you are right that the Himalayas, or at least the part of the plate the occupy was underwater, they were underwater millions of years ago. If the Himalayas were underwater just a few thousand years ago, we should see fossils of modern marine organisms along with primitive species. That does not occur.I ask Creationists to find me a strata with two species seperated by eons. None can do it because it does not exist and it is simply EASIER to pretend that creationism is true then examine the facts.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that the Grand Canyon is the only canyon in the world? You’ve also forgotten about mountain ranges and other geological formations that were formed during and shortly after the Flood.

---

No. Merely that the effects of creating such a massive canyon in such tiny amounts of time with no comparable canyons anywhere else on Earth would require special corrosive water that was found nowhere else.

quote:

---

The pre-Flood Earth was much warmer than our current climate.

---

Evidence? Or will you just keep lying?

quote:

---

Also with all of the volcanoes erupting at the bottom of what is now the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere, the temperature of the water was much higher than it is today. The polar ice caps formed in the Ice Age following the Flood.

---

Now you're officially ignorant. If the Pre-flood earth was warmer then today with massive volcanic eruptions, where did this energy go? As you stated the water was of a higher temperature. Water is a heat sink. How could it be warmer then after absorbing all of the additional heat of the past? this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Futhermore, a ice age would require a drastic reduction in heat. How could a pre-flood earth that let loose massive amounts of heat lose it so rapidly? Your argument is science free

the ToE doesn't make any claims about "upward progression". In it's most simple, it is this:
[random mutation (variation) plus natural selection]/time = change in species.the one further postulate is that these species will either become better adapted to their environment or become extinct.your example of sickle-cell anemia fits the bill. Those people are better adapted to surviving in malaria-ridden areas. Plus, as you say, it was a mutation. so those who have it end up having more offspring, and more succesfull offsrping (than those who don't have the mutation). that's part of natural selection.congratulations. you just used a proof of ToE to disprove ToE.here's a hint. Learn what the ToE actually is.