BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:15 AM

Sorry but when Iona said she says what she means and means what she says... A little voice in my head carried on the sentence to say "and I don't let facts get in my way."

Now, that is cheap and nasty of me, twisting what people say to satisfy your own warped view. Wonder if anybody else on this thread has ever done that?

Oh...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:05 AM

"In order to answer the question, we have to look at the pre-flood atmospheric conditions. First of all, we know that there was no rain until the flood occurred. Instead of rain, the earth had a heavy mist encircling the globe, which kept everything lush and green (which is why we always picture dinosaurs in a jungle-like, lush environment--the world was much more beautiful back then because it was fresh from creation!)."

We know nothing of the sort. There is no evidence for this. there is not even evidence in the Bible.

There is, however, evidence for earlier atmospheres which were not nice at all. Materials found in rocks identified as most ancient are indicative of a reducing atmosphere - that is one without oxygen. The change into an oxidising atmosphere can be traced in succeeding formations.

"¬Second, the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today (since modern mountains and mountain ranges were formed by volcanic activity and sedimentary rocks. This is a vital point, because if the mountains back then weren't as high as they are now, then it wouldn't have taken an impossible amount of water to cover them! As it is, if we took all the water in the oceans today we could cover the whole earth (were it smooth) quite a ways (I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least seven thousand feet)."

Again, you have stated as fact something for which there is no evidence. Where is the evidence for the lack of mountains? Ranges are actually formed by the motions of plates pushing up the sedimentary rocks, and others, and there is evidence for ranges which have existed in the past but have since been eroded, such as the Variscan or Hercynian range across the south of Britain. This evidence is the folded rocks, the metamorphism from deep burial and heating with intruded igneous rocks, changes which could not have happened at the surface. The conditions required to form such rocks can be reproduced in laboratories. The time taken to erode these ranges has to be greater than that allowed for in YEC.

I would ask you for you evidence for a smooth Earth surface. I don't recall it being described as such in the Bible.

I acknowledge that there is enough water to flood a totally smooth Earth, but there is no evidence for this condition having existed in the past.

"Since there was no rain before the flood (and yet there *were* rivers), it makes plain sense that there were underground reservoirs of water which fed springs. When these underwater lakes were broken, there would have been a lot of water geysering out of the ground."

Still assertions without evidence. Current aquifers, by the way, are not reservoirs in the sense of lakes, but porous rocks which hold water between the rock particles. These rocks are usually sedimentary, but there are volcanic aquifers. You maintain that neither of these rock tyoes existed before the flood. (Incidentally, while fact checking, I discovered a paper which suggests that the conditions in volcanic aquifers could have contributed to the formation of organic compounds and possibly even RNA, the building blocks of life. This probably means that the state of the water would not have been good for supporting any life which drank it.) So where is the evidence for these lakes which you adduce through conjecture? What is the actual location?

There is evidence for rainfall in the PreCambrian (e.g. Long Mynd, Shropshire, England,) where raindrops have left impressions in rocks identified by other means as very old. (565 my in the Long Mynd case.)

"The oceans were likely much warmer back in the pre-flood days, which would have created ideal conditions for gigantic hypercanes and other disasters. Couple with that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, overflowing rivers and geysers, huge torrents of water sheeting from the skies, giant tsunamis destroying the civilized world --havoc reigned."

During which havoc, there were large areas of such calm clean water that huge depths of almost pure limestone was laid down as chalk, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. You haven't anwered my earlier points about this rock type.

As for the oceans being likely to have been much warmer, where is your evidence, and how does this counter that from glacial dropstones being found in low latitude sediments in the Early Cambrian?

"Again, what is given as evidence against the flood, when we take all factors into account, actually support the Flood of the Bible."

You haven't taken all the factors into account. There is, for example, the neat way in which rocks dated by radioactive decay of various elements as very old tend to lie under rocks dated as younger, and where they don't, clear mechanisms in the form, for example, of large thrust faults can be identified. There is the way in which fossils clearly of earlier forms tend to be found in rocks older and lower in the geological column than later forms, and that no-one has ever found chronologically confused assemblages of fossils such as a dinosaur, a placental mammal, and a Burgess shale creature lying together in a group clearly emplaced together as corpses, or even better, living together and suddenly buried in a catastrophy. If you do actually look, clear eyed and open minded, at ALL the evidence, there is absolutely no way it can be made to support that Flood.

And that even includes the evidence in the Bible itself, which simply does not go into the detail which you are citing.

I do think you have a problem with scale. If your description of the turmoil of the Noachian flood is correct, and it is probably rather mild when you argue that all the sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic rocks were formed during it, and all the plate tectonic moveents which can be traced depend on it, the disruption would have been unsurvicable by anyone. The Ark may have been larger than most people imagine, but it would not have been able to survive what you are postulating. And BTW, there is no Biblical support for the hibernation supposition. You either use the Bible as a source and stick to it, or you are doing what you accuse others of, and making special arguments.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 03:56 AM

That's the question that you posed, yes. But other posters were asking about where did all the water come from.
Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes, but again, that was not the only source for the water. We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood.

And yes. I say what I believe. I don't just parrot different sources because it 'sounds good'. If I was doing that, I wouldn't find it worth it to discuss this! :) "I say what I mean, and I mean what I say"...

Iona

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 03:22 AM

... but I can't resist pointing out that you've gone wrong from the start! You said 'The question that seems to be keeping all of you awake at night these days seems to be: The Bible says that the entire earth was covered with water. If that is true, then where did all the water come from, and where did it go after the flood'.

It isn't.

The question that I want to explore is whether when you claim via a link that the water came from underground reservoirs it is what you believe. The question is really about when you make any assertion, are you doing so because it is what you actually believe, or are you linking to sites, etc, that you haven't really thought about. It's a question about how you behave, not really a question about the flood.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 03:08 AM

Rather than respond off the cuff, as I usually do, I will take the time to consider your answer, Iona, but I am at work at the moment, so I expect it to be around 12 hours before I get the chance

Pete said: <>I>however evidence produced against an ancient earth i would have thought is evidence for a younger earth

That's an easy mistake to make, but it isn't the case. Evidence against against anything is not evidence for something else. Otherwise all the police would have to do to demonstrate a person is guilty is to demonstrate a hundred other people couldn't have done it. A more serious example. Suppose I present something and claim it shows the earth is 14.odd billion years old. You demolish the evidence. All that shows is the evidence is no good. The earth could still be 14.odd billion years despite my ineptitude. Even if you were to to be able to prove it is not 14.odd billion, it could be 7 billion unless you actual prove some date. So if you want to claim the earth is of some age, you need to produce evidence that it is, not lots of evidence that it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 02:34 AM

The question that seems to be keeping all of you awake at night these days seems to be:

The Bible says that the entire earth was covered with water. If that is true, then where did all the water come from, and where did it go after the flood?

In order to answer the question, we have to look at the pre-flood atmospheric conditions. First of all, we know that there was no rain until the flood occurred. Instead of rain, the earth had a heavy mist encircling the globe, which kept everything lush and green (which is why we always picture dinosaurs in a jungle-like, lush environment--the world was much more beautiful back then because it was fresh from creation!).

Second, the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today (since modern mountains and mountain ranges were formed by volcanic activity and sedimentary rocks. This is a vital point, because if the mountains back then weren't as high as they are now, then it wouldn't have taken an impossible amount of water to cover them! As it is, if we took all the water in the oceans today we could cover the whole earth (were it smooth) quite a ways (I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least seven thousand feet).
Since there was no rain before the flood (and yet there *were* rivers), it makes plain sense that there were underground reservoirs of water which fed springs. When these underwater lakes were broken, there would have been a lot of water geysering out of the ground.

Then, the rain would have been supplied by the large moisture density which covered the earth: The catastrophic hypercanes and other weather factors would have caused all that moisture to form water droplets which would have torrented to the earth.

The oceans were likely much warmer back in the pre-flood days, which would have created ideal conditions for gigantic hypercanes and other disasters. Couple with that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, overflowing rivers and geysers, huge torrents of water sheeting from the skies, giant tsunamis destroying the civilized world --havoc reigned.

People have gotten into their heads that the flood was just a calm little pond that washed over the earth, with Noah and all the animals sticking their heads out of a little houseboat. But this is not what really happened. For one, a houseboat would not have fit all the animals. ;) We can see the measurements for the Ark in Genesis 6:15-16, and it was no pleasure yacht. The Since God commanded two/seven of every kind of animal, (kind meaning species, as in Genesis 1:25), then there wouldn't have been that many. There is a hypotheses that the Lord put the animals into a sort of hibernation so that they wouldn't require much food or water or anything.*shrug*

Again, what is given as evidence against the flood, when we take all factors into account, actually support the Flood of the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 08:02 PM

i dont actually object to evolutionism being taught either as long as it is not pushed as a proven fact.

Right, so you want teachers to tell kids lies. I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 07:02 PM

dcmg-i think you read me pretty accurately.however evidence produced against an ancient earth i would have thought is evidence for a younger earth ,though of course not proving the actual age deduced from biblical data .

i dont actually object to evolutionism being taught either as long as it is not pushed as a proven fact.history is eye witness accounts ;geography is verifiable ;operational science is subject to repeat experiment etc etc.origins science is not repeatable and the data is interpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 04:04 PM

"Raising another aspect - hope not thread drift - is the question of special uniforms & religious attire to perhaps enhance authority?"

Just an aside here. In the church I attend, there is no fancy costumery of the kind found in many churches. During the services, the pastor, assistant pastor, and the acolyte wear a plain, white alb (CLICKY #1>) — (and no, women pastors are not at all rare in the Lutheran Church, at least around here). The presiding pastor also usually wears a stole (CLICKY #2). I walked with a pair of aluminum forearm crutches, and now I use a wheelchair, and the looseness of the alb could make things a bit complicated, so when I act as assisting minister, I just wear a dark suit and tie. The choir director, the choir members, and the organist wear lightweight black robes with white stoles.

This makes for easy eyeball identification of who's who for anyone attending for the first time.

The vestments my church uses are fairly simple compared to those worn during services by many churches CLICKY #3).

Some years ago, when we had a male pastor, I was chatting with him one Sunday morning after the adult forum but before service. He interrupted the conversation, glanced at his watch, and said, "Excuse me, it's almost time for the service. I've gotta go put on my monkey suit."

A few years later, we had a woman pastor. At the coffee hour after the service, she appeared wearing—instead of her casual clothes or "civvies"—clerical garb. Black skirt, black stockings or pantyhose (other than eyeballing her, I didn't investigate further), a black suit jacket, and a black blouse with the identifying white collar. She was attending a synod meeting that afternoon, and all the attendees at such meetings went in formal clerical dress.

As she and I were chatting, I looked her up and down appraisingly (she was an attractive woman in her mid-thirties, after all) and said, "You look great! I love a woman in uniform!"

She blushed.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 03:38 PM

Too defensive Kyrie Eutychismenos. We KNOW what your hats are like.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM

Ian Mather

'So why do blokes in pointy hats insist we take them seriously too? '

Raising another aspect - hope not thread drift - is the question of special uniforms & religious attire to perhaps enhance authority?

I'm taking that you mean 'pointy hats' popes, priests, kkk, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 09:34 AM

If you shouldn't teach evolution, as Starry Pete reckons, what is the argument for teaching history, maths, science, geography? I can't prove Paris is the capital of France any more than I can prove we evolved over a period that makes the stories that formed the bible look like yesterday.

Children should be taught facts. Young children can be taught fairy stories too. It doesn't harm them to know about Hansel & Gretel or the BFG. Just so long as they aren't scarred into believing them in later life. They might get a complex you see. Some fairy stories can do that.

Sorry, too obvious. The bible is a lovely old book of fables, some loving, some gruesome, and with the moral compass of ignorance as fits earlier in human history. The problem is believing them in later life. If a bloke in his 60s came up to me and swore Santa Claus existed, such a trait would prejudice my take on whatever else he had to say. So why do blokes in pointy hats insist we take them seriously too?   Just because they prey on weak minds and brainwash people into feeling guilty and grateful? The worst ones being, of course, those who (staying on topic at last) reckon supernatural events can and did happen, on the absurd basis that where we don't understand yet, they can fill the gap with bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 07:57 AM

I don't object to anyone being taught about creationism in whatever subject, but I do object to children being taught creationism whether in science, religious instruction or anywhere else.

An important distinction, Steve, which I'd agree with

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM

'So the water didn't all originate on Earth (according to Iona)'


From Iona's sphere, perhaps?



{swiftly donning anorak!]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 06:20 AM

Modified pond scum? Rubbish! We're failed bacteria. They didn't have to do much to stay alive for four billion years. We've had to twist and tuen, add structures to our cells, cooperate with other bacteria (now called mitochondria- but which bacterium is "me", the nuclear one or the mitochondrial one?- make our cells cling together after fission, specialise in different functions, chase after other organisms for nutrition, keep the sea inside us when it's dry outside, repel attacks from invaders (none too successfully- most of the cells in our bodies are not human!), keep our temperatures just right, compete for mates, learn to ferment wine and to sing songs.

And the bacteria are still just bacteria, bacteria-ing sweetly along like they did four billion years ago. We are failures- but rather glorious ones sometimes, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 06:15 AM

Equally, you will find there are not very many scientists who object to people being taught about creationism in religious education or social awareness classes. The main and ongoing objection is the insistence that creationism is not science, and so should not be taught in science classes.

I don't object to anyone being taught about creationism in whatever subject, but I do object to children being taught creationism whether in science, religious instruction or anywhere else. Children must be taught only what is true or how to find and use evidence to investigate whether something is true or not. Even in Sunday School. Anything else is not education.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 06:08 AM

teaching kids that they are nothing more than modified pond scum IMO is more damaging than teaching them they are the creation of a loving God.

Two things here. First, there is nothing more damaging than teaching kids that myth is true. The crucial thing is to teach kids what is true, and to teach them how to separate truth from myth. In other words, to teach them how to find evidence and how to assess it using reason. If the truth ends up being a little uncomfortable, well so be it. Incidentally, if you scrape out some of that pond scum and dress your vegetable beds with it, you will get superb and abundant produce, showing that pond scum can indeed bring forth new life and bring it forth abundantly! Second, I thought the whole drift of Christian teaching is that we are in any case all hopeless, miserable pond scum who can only be saved by the blood of Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 05:00 AM

Pete, last time I looked before today, the Flat Earth lot were led by an American who was a YEC as well. The founder wasn't, and lived in Dover, where he would insert pieces in the local paper based on the view of France from the seafront, which were manifestly untrue, and anyone could verify their falsity by taking a brief walk on a clear day. I see that the society is now back with his son, whose other beliefs I am not aware of, but from all the material previously put out by the American, it isn't surprising that the two ideas are associated in the minds of outsiders.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM

Whichever way I look at it I am very comfortable with the fact that I am descended from (something like) "pond scum". Why is that a problem? How can children be harmed by knowing that fact?

If you teach children their proper place in Nature they have a better chance of growing up to respect it. If you (erroneously) teach them that they were 'created' separately from the rest of Nature, and were born to have 'dominion over it', then they are more likely to participate in its destruction when they grow up. I strongly suspect that the various environmental and ecological catastrophes that we presently face actually have their roots in ancient, outmoded and dangerous Judaeo-Christian traditions; I utterly reject them as a source of 'truth' about Nature and man's place in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 04:23 AM

What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC

I think there's a mistake in thinking that is the core question, and its one I made myself earlier in the thread but no-one picked up on it, so I didn't highlight it.   Here's the definition of YEC from Wiki, but something similar could be found elsewhere:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago


Ok? So that's actually three statements combined

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is
i) the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God
ii) This took place during a relatively short period

iii) This was sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago


So, without spelling it out too much, I asked pete and Iona what the evidence for (iii) was for non-believers, i.e. for those who did not accept (i).

Pete was, as before, quite honest and said he did not know of any. His approach was that (i) was true because it was revealed in the bible, and that lead him to (ii) and (iii). Any evidence to the contrary must therefore be misunderstood or flawed. Pete, feel free to contradict if I have misunderstood.


Iona, not surprisingly, missed the question and tried to give evidence for creationism, not for a young earth.


All of which leads back to why I don't think you are asking quite the right question. Which is, imo, "What is your measurable evidence that the earth is young?" You can find as many objections as you like against>/u> the evidence for an old earth, but that is not evidence for a young one.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM

teaching kids that they are nothing more than modified pond scum IMO is more damaging than teaching them they are the creation of a loving God.

Your are perfectly entitled to your opinion, pete. I have said several times that, while I disagree with many of your conclusions, I admire your honesty about what and why you believe it. I ask you to recognise that there are plenty of Christians who do not see those two viewpoints as contradictory and that the fact God chose to create people through that route is a source of wonder, not something offensive.

Equally, you will find there are not very many scientists who object to people being taught about creationism in religious education or social awareness classes. The main and ongoing objection is the insistance that creationism is not science, and so should not be taught in science classes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 12:46 AM

pete and Iona,
To retain any credibility RE science, I must insist again...
What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC?
Please provide this for us.
If you do not, you highlight the chasm between science and religion.
This is not a trick question.
It is THE question.
If you cannot answer this question, we know that we are speaking different languages.
You are arguing religion, and some of us are arguing science.
Without your specific answer, we cannot continue to try to meld these conversations.
So, answer the question, or admit that you are not talking science.
Sorry, but those are the only options.
And I totally respect either answer you might give (if you give an answer).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:33 PM

More ignorantism.

It's under a mile and three quarters of ice (3700 metres). It's in a cavity. When you drill into it, the static pressure is huge. Ice is just a little less dense than water, that's why icebergs float. Pressure increases as you go down under water, about 1 atmosphere for each 10 metres. So the pressure is 370 times atnospheric.

That doesn't matter much if the container is rigid, punch a hole in it and about a wineglassful of water comes out, and the pressure drops to atmospheric. Water is almost incompresible.

But Lake Vosok's roof is the ice bearing down on it. It's more like the piston of a pump. If you don't seal it off, it could squirt the whole lake, and it's precious content of three-million-year-old lifeforms (if they're there?) up into the Antarctic air and fall down as snow and ice.

And as the water comes out, the land surface should go down, like mining subsidence... but because water is resistant to compression, the difference in land level between water being liquid in the underground lake, and the new level with it frozen on top would be surprising- the level would rise because ice is less dense than water.

S they sealed it, responsibly, to keep it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:26 PM

long time no hear stringsinger-hope you are well.
how does the multiplicity of gods on offer mean that there is no God.
just claiming that creationism is nonsence does not make a very intelligent argument;you can do better than that surely.
which sacred text are you referring to that narrates the tooth fairy creating the universe?
i hear that the president of the flat earth society is an evolutionist!from one unproven theory to another!
teaching kids that they are nothing more than modified pond scum IMO is more damaging than teaching them they are the creation of a loving God.
i dont see why evolutionism should have such a priveleged position in education as though it was a proven fact.pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:13 PM

dmcg-agreeing with shimrods unsubstantiated assertion that the factors involved in the flood could not produce geologic change; even though demonstrating no rationale for that denial.
certainly the flood was no tranquil cruise but it has been demonstrated that the dimensions of the ark would make it seaworthy and stable in the most adverse conditions.this is in contrast to the alternative accounts which i believe distantly recall the flood but contain unrealistic details.

I asserted that the flood could not cause geological change on anything like the scale you require. You can check that very easily at any library, but you don't have to, because of course the bible claims the geological changes gave rise the flood, not the other way around.

You say the ark would be seaworthy and stable in the most adverse conditions. Really? You know what the recent tsunami was like for those nearby? That is negligable compared to the ones that would occur if the entire surface of the earth was being reshaped in a matter of days. And did I even claim the ark would be sunk? No, I claimed that sitting next to elephant turning a funny shade of green would be unpleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM

"distantly recall the flood but contain unrealistic details."

As opposed to "realistic details" like covering the entire globe to a height of more than 7 miles? (Everest)

Or lions on the same vessel with antelope and sheep eating pancakes (or whatever was offered them) instead.

Or Noah walking to Australia and picking up all those marsupials which were all created on one day, fully formed, before the flood AND THEM ALL WALKING BACK to Australia without settling in somewhere else?

It is pretty obvious that this event happened in a supernatural way. Natural laws as our science knows them do not apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM

Iona, judging from the repetition of your objections to my citing plate tectonics and continental drift in your post of 18 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM, I answered those objections in my post at 16 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM, which, apparently, you didn't bother to read.

The figures cited by geologist and earth-scientists are an AVERAGE of both gradual drift and the catastrophic events that have occurred over the past multi-millions of years. The driving force of plate tectonics is that the earth's core is a boiling ball of nickel-iron, and the various plates are riding on, and being moved by, convection currents. This is established geology and is readily observable by anyone who is willing to examine the data with an open mind.

And to sell your ideas about Noah's flood and the source of the water that would account for it, and where it all went, it would help you a great deal to posit the belief that the earth is flat. But I think that's going to be a hard sell.

I've noted that most evangelicals and Creationists are completely oblivious to known cosmology. In fact, I have been "evangelized" by people who are convinced that Heaven and Hell are actual geographic locations, like Alabama or Tierra del Fuego. I've even had the Wonders of Heaven described to me in great detail, but all that gold and those glittering jewels! THAT'S Heaven!? Endless Bliss? I don't see the point. And the torments of Hell, in lurid detail, an obvious ploy to try to frighten me into accepting what the evangelist was trying to sell me.

BECAUSE of my scientific view of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and my rejection of the Creationist view of the universe (the whole shebang created in 4004 BC with the wave of a magic wand by an Entity with long hair, a full beard, and big muscles—Gandalf on steroids) as being Far Too Simple.

Augustine (354-430 AD) warned against what he called "the Lust of the Eyes." By this, he meant questing for knowledge beyond what was taught by the Church. The fear was that if someone looked for himself—as Galileo did—he might find something that raised questions and doubts about the Church's teachings.

Thus learning too much was not to be allowed.

What it boils down to, Iona, is that by following the teachings of Jesus (as best as they can be understood, filtered through many editings, translations, and interpretations), especially His admonitions as recorded in Matthew 25:35-40, which I have cited before, one can be a Christian without having to be a Creationist. A far better one, in fact, than a Creationist who does NOT.

What do YOU do for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, and the troubled?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM

I don't think that we have to agree that a god exists. The argument is whose god?
There are so many of them and each worshipper doesn't think the other god is good.
Suppose that none of them are good?

Creationism is nonsense. There is no intelligent argument here.

Anyone can believe in god, mickey mouse, santa claus, the tooth fairy or that the world is flat if they want to but:

When they indoctrinate children with their nonsense, this is a form of child abuse.

Get creationism the hell out of public education. It doesn't belong there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:47 PM

dont think i would do that don.he must have been feeling washed out after that!impressive closer filming of the falls.

jeri-when they drilled down to lake vostok the bore hole was sealed to prevent upthrust of underground water if i recall correctly.the upthrust from the underground waters in noahs time would likely be very forceful .this may then have returned again as additional rain.

dmcg-agreeing with shimrods unsubstantiated assertion that the factors involved in the flood could not produce geologic change; even though demonstrating no rationale for that denial.
certainly the flood was no tranquil cruise but it has been demonstrated that the dimensions of the ark would make it seaworthy and stable in the most adverse conditions.this is in contrast to the alternative accounts which i believe distantly recall the flood but contain unrealistic details.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:27 PM

By the way, when I say 'where' they are, a geographical location or two would be nice. A vague 'under the ocean' for example, wouldn't really do - which ocean? which part? you get the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:08 PM

Subjecting Noah's flood to modern scientific analysis is always fun.

It rained 40 days and nights straight, a constant torrent, all over the planet. With constant cloud cover so that the sun could not add to the water in the atmosphere through evaporation.

Obviously the water vapor was coming from an external source. Lets call it "Jehovah's cosmic humidifier". Then there were many weeks in the aftermath that the water slowly receded until the doves found Mt Ararat. Due to the slowness and lack of drain vortexes this was almost certainly done with a process of evaporation where the excess water was used. "Jehovah's cosmic humidifier" is a logical extension of the first gadget.

But then there is the problem of salt. wouldn't the salinity have mixed evenly everywhere as the water rose? Our grand designer must
have staged mini floods at a later time to flush the salt from low lying basins such as Lakes Superior and Baikal perhaps "Jehovah's desalinating sump pump" was used.

Then there was the scale of the water. of the amount of the water compared to the sphere of the Earth today is the size of a ping pong ball it would take at least a soft ball to cover it to the depth of a puny mountain like Ararat and when we are talking about the mountains not known in the Mid East when the story was first heard, The Andes, Everest, we are talking about at least a couple of basketballs.

But "Jehovah's cosmic humidifier" easily solves that problem of scale if you believe God in infinite, with abilities beyond our comprehension. Of course believing in such things is not science. It is faith. It is not just blind faith. It is willfully blind faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:07 PM

That's fine, but please be sure you are prepared to defend what you say from your own knowledge. Make the case and if you want to have references that's fine, but remember the academic standard is that the argument presented should be complete and understandable without following any of the references at all. References are to back up the case, not make it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 03:58 PM

Are we to take it that you want to avoid talking about where those underground reservoirs for the Flood are, then?

In the words of Thompson (from the Tintin series): "Time, gentlemen, please,"

I shall get to it, hopefully today. But I'm rather busy, so please be patient!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 03:31 PM

""I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't have a PhD.""

A very good point. Iona does rather specialise in making unwarranted assumptions about people, based on a profound absence of knowledge.

Of one thing I am absolutely certain. Not one of her "Creation Scientists" (so-called) ever achieved a PhD based on a thesis on the subject of Creationism.

Some theologians, however, more than likely have qualified as DD on that basis, which is how it should be.

Keep religion in its proper place.

The majority of Christians would agree.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 03:20 PM

Everybody knows water flows DOWN, so if some underground valve were opened up, it would e more likely the ocean would drain into them, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM

Are we to take it that you want to avoid talking about where those underground reservoirs for the Flood are, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM

There was a link to an evolutionary article posted here a while back. I read it. Evidence for evolution? Because human kidneys while developing resemble the kidneys of hagfish?? *stifles giggle* I'm sorry, if that's evidence for evolution, then my name's Bianca Castafiore.(If any of you grew up on Tintin.....) Here's a few quotes direclty from the article;

why would a creator bestow the embryo with three kidneys, trashing the first two (one of which doesn't do anything) before making the final one?

The author here is insinuating that the 'third kidney' doesn't do anything. A.K.A a vestigial structure. Funny thing about vestigial structures is this: there used to be a number of them in the body. For instance the appendix. Not too long ago, (no wait, I guess they still do it today) medical 'experts' would just rip out the appendix at the first sign of trouble, because after all, it's just a useless little post-evolution piece of junk. Now we know that it's not, and it's thought to be important to the immune system. Same with the thyroid and other organs! But over the years, the many 'vestigial organs' that were thought to exist in the human body have been whittled down to zero. And I think the same thing could be said about this "third kidney".... we still don't know everything about the human body. I shan't be surprised if they discover that these two 'trash kidneys' don't serve a purpose. God doesn't create useless things.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM

Sorry i missed it, then. Though a joke that is based on mocking learning could be seen as a tactical error. It's a matter of opinion, but you might have been better off had it been a straight insult *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM

(Ps. I've heard that PhD is short for Permanent Head Damage, but I can't be sure of the truth of it)

PPS. If that's supposed to be a sly 'ad hominem' attack, by the way, I'm afraid you've got the wrong hominem - I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't have a PhD.

It was a joke!!

Iona

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 01:45 PM

"Creation scientist" is an oxymoron.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 01:23 PM

For a creationist to claim being a "creation scientist", the creation must state what precisely is the evidence they might observe that would cause them to abandon their creation theory.

If the creationist cannot state specifically what these observations would be, they cannot begin to claim they are doing science.

So, reference all the creationists you wish, but please do not claim they are creation science references.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

"Sh#t dad, that's bad (from my daughter)"

999, your daughter is a wise young woman.

"If that is the case, who are you to argue with the FACT that God WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, from his own created works, and has provided all this evidence in support of it? "

Good point, Bruce, essentially what I said in the first post put more forcefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 10:38 AM

"Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc."

No it wouldn't! That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet, Iona!

Not too mention the forces on and presumably rather dramatic movements of the ark itself. That's clearly what stopped the cheetah eating the gazelle: they were all very seasick indeed. Can't have been too pleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 08:38 AM

I have a theory!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 06:10 AM

Ok, after all that, I have grasped the underlying issue here.

I quote from Iona;

"This type of argument has been addressed before between Evolutionists and Creationists."

I take it there are people about who call themselves evolutionists and therefore evolution is a belief stance. Iona is, either naively or knowingly, assuming anybody who disagrees with her falls into such a category.

Whereas, without putting words into the mouths (typing fingers) of others, mot of the people posting here aren't evolutionists any more than they are "radiators tend to be white ists"

Evolution is an observed explainable natural fact, not a belief. I don't believe in evolution, but that's because I don't "believe" what I experience or notice. Although if we had this discussion at the quantum level, faith in observable physics does tend to be tested......

Although the hilarious nugget Shimrod has nicely picked out does make any debate a bit silly. best stick to pointing and laughing, it makes more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM

"Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc."

No it wouldn't! That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet, Iona!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 03:59 AM

(Ps. I've heard that PhD is short for Permanent Head Damage, but I can't be sure of the truth of it)

PPS. If that's supposed to be a sly 'ad hominem' attack, by the way, I'm afraid you've got the wrong hominem - I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't have a PhD.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 03:41 AM

And, contrary to what was said earlier, I can reference Creationist scientists and still have my own beliefs. It just happens that I agree with them, just as you would agree and reference many evolutionary scientists. I don't have to have a PhD in order to debate, and it's perfectly acceptable for you or I to reference articles, quotes or whatnot that we agree with.


And yes it is, providing, in your own words, that it is '
that we agree with' That's so important, I think I'll repeat the key constraint in capitals: IT MUST BE SOMETHING YOU AGREE WITH IF YOU WANT IT TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE.

So I repeat my question, which you haven't addressed:

Do you think the link is correct in claiming the waters came from these chambers? If so, it behoves you to answer Penny and Don about where they are. If, on the other hand you don't the link is correct on that matter, perhaps you will explain why you used the link in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 01:55 AM

you have to realize that it sounds a little outrageous to say that your faith is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Sounds rather relativistic to me. How many truths can there be? If you say that there is more than one truth, then what if my truth says that your truth is false? Obviously your truth says that my truth is false, so it must work both ways. So whose truth is the true truth?

Perhaps you're saying "There are no absolutes and no truth. That's why it's outrageous for you to say you've got truth".
Is that true that there are no truths? Is it absolutely true that there are no absolutes?

Is nobody right? If you're right about nobody being right, well, then you're wrong about nobody being right!

__________________________
I'm sorry. That just doesn't work. In order for there to be truth, it has to be universal, absolute and exclusive. Ther can be only one truth. And God's word is true. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 7:17)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM

Arguments from the supposed erosion rates of Niagara and carbon dating do not apply to plate tectonics, which does not require quotes, as continental drift does not.

Then I'll directly apply it.
Don Firth said:

Rate of continental drift – 1 to 10 centimeters per year.

If one looks at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't take much imagination to see that, allowing for some variation in outline over the eons, you could fit the west coast of Europe and Africa together with the east coast of North and South America, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. These four continents used to be in contact with each other. Essentially, one continent. And over time, due to the action of plate tectonics driven by the monumental forces at work in the earth's interior, they have drifted apart.

Another example of continental drift are the Hawaiian Islands. The islands formed due to an up-welling of magma, or a "hot spot" in the ocean floor. Lava spews out of the hot spot, builds up, and hardens, and forms an island. But the Pacific Plate gradually moves northwest until the magma upwelling from the hot spot seeks a more direct route and another island forms. Hawaii, the "big island," is now over the hot spot. Lava is upwelling through the volcanoes on the island, flowing to the sea where it cools and hardens, and the island increases in size. Soon (in geological time), the plate will move far enough northwest that the upwelling will burst through somewhere southeast of the big island, and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea.

The drifting of the Pacific plate formed a subduction zone off the coast of Japan. Tension built up until it released, part of the Pacific plate suddenly slid under Japan, and this is what caused the Fukushima earthquake.

It is this sort of tectonic activity that causes earthquakes. It also raises mountains. The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps. The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American.

What it amounts to is the WE are living on top of the crust of slag that's drifting around on the surface of a ball of boiling nickel-iron.

Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form.

Now—

Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!.

That would make sense, assuming that the rate of drift has been continuous. But it assumes that there hasn't been radical differences in the past such as hypercanes, huge earthquakes and major volcanic activity. It is assuming that the present is the key to the past--aka uniformity.
During the Biblical flood, there would have been catastrophic forces at work: earthquakes, volcanoes, underwater calderas going berserk, etc. etc. If all the land of the world was at one time connected, then it could easily have been split apart. Again, I do not know if all the land on earth was at one time one land mass (although it's possible, since it could be implied by Genesis 1:9; all the waters being gathered together in one place could suggest all the land being in one place too).
The only time that continental splitting could have occured would have been when 'all the fountains of the great deep were broken up", which would have provided enough water to cover the entire earth, as well as producing tremendous force that would have enabled the tectonic plates to wrench apart. The Flood is the answer to all of the evolutionary problems raised by 'continental drift': For instance, Evolutionists don't know the root cause of tectonic plates beginning to drift in the first place. But if the Flood really did happen like the Bible says, then we would see evidence of catastrophic rift all over the world. And we do.

"The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps.The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American."

So obviously we both agree that these sites were 'created' by rather violent forces. After all, the "African plate forcing itself against the European plate" implies.....force. Strong ones. Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc. There is no evidence of them being formed over long gradual processes.
Again, what you call 'evidence for Evolution' fits better with the Creationist model.