Jump to content


Photo

Questions About The Flood


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#41 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 01 January 2012 - 07:28 PM

and its the tree of knowledge not the tree of life. the former was the test.

#42 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2012 - 07:54 PM

On what basis? The Giant Anteater is suberbly adapted/desinged to eat insects. Are you proposing that level of physical change occurred in the last 3000 or so years? If so by what mechanism?



They were most likely designed for feeding on nectar and after the flood they switched to feeding on ants. God told Noah after the flood that "Now I give you meat to eat" since planting crops would be slow in developing and the same was true for animals, so they became predatory.


Enjoy.

#43 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 January 2012 - 08:16 PM

Maybe because God knew that the Fall would occur and that genetic variance would be required for survival outside of Eden?

Yes, but that is not including mutation in the creation, but including the mechanism for mutation when the fall happened.

It is odd that God would create everything "perfect" yet allow the Serpent to ruin everything.


He gave us free will. Without it, we would just be robots, programmed to love Him. It is man who ultimately caused the fall. The serpent tempted, but if Adam and Eve had obeyed God's one and only command at the time, knowing the consequence, they would have been able to prevent the fall. They chose instead to disobey God.

#44 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 January 2012 - 08:22 PM

They could die, but they didn't have to. God saw His creation was good, not the specifics. By that token, he also decided that defecation was "good" I do not think the Almighty would be overly concerned with toilet habits.


If He created an organism that could not eliminate toxins, I don't think that would be good at all. So why would defecation be not good? I am so glad you aren't God...

#45 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 January 2012 - 10:02 PM

And what reason do we have to suppose that marines animals of today cannot tolerate fresh water, where as their ancestors 3000 years ago could? Do you have any reason at all to support this notion?
On what basis could salt and fresh water remain in stable strata throughout the Flood as described?


Maybe you want to read the my second post on page 2 so I don't have to keep retyping things you failed to read the first time I posted it. The first and third external quotes should answer your questions.

What reason do we have to suppose that Everest was significantly smaller in the past? Give me a figure and I will happily recalculate for you.

I wasn't there. Mountains can rise up gradually or cataclismically...

Ok, lets suppose that 3/4 of the water came from the Fountains of the Deep, you can reduce the daily energy released figure from 4.5 megatons to 1.125 megatons. Still hugely more than the largest ever man made explosion and this relies on the waters from the deep adding no energy to the whole when released.

In fact I made an error in my calculation above, the final energy release should have been 108,950,400 per day. or 108 megatons

No it isn't. I'll half the size of Everest and reduce rainfall by 3/4.

This reduces the rain fall to 2lbs per square metre per second. So the total energy released works out at 548 tons of TNT per second. Or 47,347,200 tons of TNT per day 47 megatons.

Well thats mighty generous of you. That doesn't seem like much spread over the surface of the earth...2 lbs per square meter per second? Even 2 pounds per square inch per second wouldn't be much, but that doesn't tell me how much heat it would generate. Enough to replace the heat from the sun? I would like to see numbers on that.

Ok, assuming you have enough seeds, how long would it take to grow enough grass to feed a horse?

Grass can start to sprout from seed in about 5 days. How long does it take a horse to starve to death?

Are you suggesting that Koalas ate bread and honey after the Flood? What about fruit eaters?

I'm saying you don't know what they were eating, but it didn't have to be eucalyptis. They could have drank cow's or goat's milk. The burden of proof is on you my friend. Prove that animals could not have survived with a change in diet.

This is simply not true. Even omnivores, such as ourselves suffer greatly from an all meat diet and there is evidence to suggest that eventually it would kill us and we have the ability to metabolise meat.

We were talking more about an all plant diet, not all meat.

A lion cannot survive on grass, when carnivores do eat plants, it remains undigested as is passed through the system, essentially they do it for healthy bowels.

So does my dog, but my dog can also eat almost anything else I throw at her, with mixed results. Grass is another story. They even include rice, grains, and oats in various dogfood. If I were tasked with feeding that many animals rapidly, off the top of my head, milk would be a great way to do it, but that is not even giving it much thought. Cats like milk.

The only exception I know of is the Panda, which has a digestive tract of a carnivore, yet also has features similar to ruminant species, thus it uses bacteria to break down its food, otherwise its diet would kill it.

okay

We are talking about diet, not climate.

The two are somewhat interlinked. Theres different food sources in the great plains than the desert, or the forrest, or the mountains. Even evolutionists agree that the diet of organisms change over time, based on migration or cataclismic events changing climate.

Is there any reason to suppose otherwise? But lets run with that and I'll reduce the food requirements by 9/10ths.

You still need over half a ton of food for the horses alone.

Another problem.

Lets suppose that it takes a mere minute to clean, water and feed every animal on the Ark. This gives us an upper limit of 8400 animals based on 7 people working 20 hours per day. Do you think that figure is high enough?


Proper engineering of the ark could reduce the workload significantly. The ark was large enough to fit substantial amounts of food. I will refer you to this article to provide you with further, sometimes more specific, answers.

I don't know if these animals were well fed from start to finish. When times get tough, I am sure a horse could survive on far less food than a horse breeder would give them, but I wasn't there so I don't claim to know everything. I have yet to see one question you have raised that would make Noah's Ark completely impossible, just hard for you to imagine. Seek and you shall find.
http://creation.com/...k/chapter13.pdf

#46 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 02 January 2012 - 12:50 AM

....What reason do we have to suppose that Everest was significantly smaller in the past? Give me a figure and I will happily recalculate for you.....

For starters, there would be the same reasons why old earth evolutionists did believe that Mt Everest was "significantly smaller in the past" (In fact they believe it was the bottom of the sea once). The marine fossils or sediments that you can find on it. I think there are already discussions about this on the forum. So there is actually consensus that the material of Mt.. Everest was once under water.
  • JayShel likes this

#47 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2012 - 02:19 PM

Maybe you want to read the my second post on page 2 so I don't have to keep retyping things you failed to read the first time I posted it. The first and third external quotes should answer your questions.



I did and it says nothing about species that cannot tolerate fresh water having the ability to so several thousand years ago.

I wasn't there. Mountains can rise up gradually or cataclismically...





So none then?

Well thats mighty generous of you. That doesn't seem like much spread over the surface of the earth...2 lbs per square meter per second? Even 2 pounds per square inch per second wouldn't be much, but that doesn't tell me how much heat it would generate. Enough to replace the heat from the sun? I would like to see numbers on that.



Not much? 47 megatons.? The largest bomb ever detonated was 50 megatons. The resultant fireball rose almost 10 kilometres. The explosion could be seen from 1000 kilmetres away. The mushroom cloud rose 64 kilomtetres. A village 50 kilometres away was utterly destroyed and the shockwave caused damage as far away as 900 kilometres.

This to you is not much?

Grass can start to sprout from seed in about 5 days. How long does it take a horse to starve to death?



Start to sprout? Or grow fully?

I'm saying you don't know what they were eating, but it didn't have to be eucalyptis. They could have drank cow's or goat's milk. The burden of proof is on you my friend. Prove that animals could not have survived with a change in diet.



No, I'm not the one suggesting they DID change their diets. YOU are, so burden of proof lays squarely at your door.

We were talking more about an all plant diet, not all meat.


I said there would be no food available on Earth, you brought up a change in diet. If there are no plants, then only meat is available.

So does my dog, but my dog can also eat almost anything else I throw at her, with mixed results. Grass is another story. They even include rice, grains, and oats in various dogfood. If I were tasked with feeding that many animals rapidly, off the top of my head, milk would be a great way to do it, but that is not even giving it much thought. Cats like milk.



Do you feed your dog exclusively on plants?

Proper engineering of the ark could reduce the workload significantly. The ark was large enough to fit substantial amounts of food. I will refer you to this article to provide you with further, sometimes more specific, answers.



Proper engineering of the ark could reduce the workload significantly. The ark was large enough to fit substantial amounts of food. I will refer you to this article to provide you with further, sometimes more specific, answers.



It's vauge at best, although I do like the idea that an "average" cage would be 20"x20"x12", about four shoe boxes.

I don't know if these animals were well fed from start to finish. When times get tough, I am sure a horse could survive on far less food than a horse breeder would give them, but I wasn't there so I don't claim to know everything. I have yet to see one question you have raised that would make Noah's Ark completely impossible, just hard for you to imagine. Seek and you shall find.



I just reduced the required food amount by 9/10ths.

To put that in perspective, it would be like you living on 250 calories per day. Your brain uses more than that by itself. It is insufficient for a baby, let alone a young adult.

#48 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2012 - 02:23 PM

For starters, there would be the same reasons why old earth evolutionists did believe that Mt Everest was "significantly smaller in the past" (In fact they believe it was the bottom of the sea once). The marine fossils or sediments that you can find on it. I think there are already discussions about this on the forum. So there is actually consensus that the material of Mt.. Everest was once under water.



Not a single old Earth evolutionist would entertain the idea that Everest had leaped in height by thousands of metres in the last few thousand years.

#49 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 January 2012 - 02:50 PM

[/font][/color]
Not a single old Earth evolutionist would entertain the idea that Everest had leaped in height by thousands of metres in the last few thousand years.

And I did not even imply let alone say that. The difference is, and I guess by now you'll know that's a pretty general difference, is in the time frames the different schools of thought assume. The point has been made I think and that is that even Mt. Everest was once under water, Something that is btw. a pretty common feature of mountains. And, I should add, sometimes it is pretty obvious that the shaping of the mountains from previous mud on the sea floor towards their present overall shape must have happened in a relatively short time frame.

#50 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

I don't dispute that Mark. My point was is there any reason to assume that Everest is significantly taller now, than it was 3000 years ago?

#51 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:35 PM

I did and it says nothing about species that cannot tolerate fresh water having the ability to so several thousand years ago.

I offered that there are freshwater and saltwater varieties of almost every type of fish, therefore it is possible. I also offered that there may have been stabilized saltwater and freshwater layers which allowed certain species to survive.

In slightly stratified or partially mixed estuaries, saltwater and freshwater mix at all depths; however, the lower layers of water typically remain saltier than the upper layers. Salinity is greatest at the mouth of the estuary and decreases as one moves upstream.
http://oceanservice....stratified.html


So where the fresh rain was falling, it would little to no salinity, and where the salty ocean was, there would be plenty of salt.

So none then?


About eight million years ago,” says geologist Mark Harrison, “all hell broke loose when the present range, the really steep topography, developed.” Now slicing nearly six miles (ten kilometers) into the sky, the Himalaya became the highest mountain range on Earth.
http://www.nationalg...roof_start.html



Everest could have formed , or been raised cataclismically as a result of the flood. We do not know how tall the tallest mountain was.


Not much? 47 megatons.? The largest bomb ever detonated was 50 megatons. The resultant fireball rose almost 10 kilometres. The explosion could be seen from 1000 kilmetres away. The mushroom cloud rose 64 kilomtetres. A village 50 kilometres away was utterly destroyed and the shockwave caused damage as far away as 900 kilometres.

This to you is not much?

47 megatons would be devastating as a nuclear bomb, but that isn't what we are talking about is it? 47 megatons worth of rain spread over the face of the earth, spread over the course of 24 hours, minus nuclear radiation, mushroom cloud, and shockwave that you are implying. Your comparison is silly...

Start to sprout? Or grow fully?


I don't know if grass ever stops growing. I said sprout, so why do you ask me again? Are you trolling?

No, I'm not the one suggesting they DID change their diets. YOU are, so burden of proof lays squarely at your door.

So you believe that animals are limited to their current diet, and it cannot change, nor has it changed in the past? And you call yourself an evolutionist?! It takes more than changing diet to call it evolution, but certainly a changing diet would have happened if evolution were true.


I said there would be no food available on Earth, you brought up a change in diet. If there are no plants, then only meat is available.

And I showed you why your assertion that "there would be no food on earth" is irrational.


Do you feed your dog exclusively on plants?


No I never tried that. Feeding her dogfood seemed good enough.


It's vauge at best, although I do like the idea that an "average" cage would be 20"x20"x12", about four shoe boxes.

Vague? We can only extrapolate what the Bible tells us on this. We can't guess every detail because some of this was miraculous, I mean, no one could round up all of those animals on their own. If you are a theistic evolutionist, then perhaps you believe in miracles? If you are actually an atheist in TE clothes it would make more sense as to why you are so detail oriented and stepping on your own theological toes.

I just reduced the required food amount by 9/10ths.

To put that in perspective, it would be like you living on 250 calories per day. Your brain uses more than that by itself. It is insufficient for a baby, let alone a young adult.


You are right. I would say about 4-8 bales of hay for the horses, given a bale of hay is around 1500-2000 lbs, the average horse that was not doing hard work would eat around 10-20 lbs per day, and that there were 2 full size horses, and no divine intervention.

#52 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 01:10 AM

1) This comes from the minimum amount of inbreeding allowed by domestic animal breeders. Much less than this number greatly affects the chances of deteriation of the genome.


In your opinion.

2) Very few species can tolerate both salt and fresh water, however the salt levels of the water would be the least of their concerns.


Since it did not rain until the flood as the Bible says, there was nothing running minerals into the water to make it salty. So all water before flood was fresh water. But when the fountains of the deep broke up much mineral sediments came up with the water making it salty. And because it would gradually get salty the fish had a chance to adapt.

3) No. However, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the sheer amount of kinetic energy released would boil the Earth. Nothing could survive.


First it must be understood that the sun is totally blocked by the rain and rain clouds.

Second the kenetic energy produced would first have to match the sun's heat which is averaged over an entire year and the entire Earth, the Sun deposits 342 Watts of energy into every square meter of the Earth. This is a very large amount of heat—1.7 x 1017 watts of power that the Sun sends to the Earth/atmosphere system. For comparison, a large electric power plant would produce 100 million watts of power, or 108 watts. It would take 1.7 billion such power plants to equal the energy coming to the Earth from the Sun—roughly one for every three people on the Earth!

Third the kinetic energy no only has to match the sun's out put, but also go beyond that several times. Now if you have the math to prove that kinetic energy can exceed the sun's energy by several times to broil the earth as you say, I'm all ears. But let's be honest, you are using old copy and paste questions and never thought to ever actually do the work to make sure you were right before making such a comment, right?

#53 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 01:18 AM

I said nothing about the veracity of the claim, only where that figure comes from.


And you were hoping no one would challenge you on this as to the reason you just threw it out there.

The Earth would be completely dead after an event as described in the Bible. No life at all except what came off the Ark.


Maybe you could go into more detail about how the earth would be completely dead and why. Like why would not any plants be able to grow after the flood?


No it doesn't. It demonstrates that adaptation can occur quickly.


Because you say so? Because that's all I'm hearing is opinion and not science. Should we start debating you that way?

But after the Biblical Flood, there would have been nothing to eat, at all, except what came off the Ark.


What about seeds from existing plants? Do seeds die because of the flood?

If you are going to bring up the subject of how dead the planet would be after a flood then go into detail why. Otherwise it's only your opinion and not science.

#54 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 01:43 AM

Nowhere does the Bible state this.


If the creation were imperfect then everything would have died after the flood.

Well, no. As I said Very few species can tolerate both and many of the ones that can, can only do so for a limited time. The Overwhelming majority or marine species cannot tolerate fresh water.


Do you believe in adaptation or not? The flood waters took a whole year to recede.


The cloud cover would have zero affect on the localised release of kinetic energy. Essentially you are saying that cloud cover could prevent the heat release from a bomb.


You forget that once the sun's heat is gone the kinetic has to match the suns energy just to keep the earth at it's normal temps. Also, heat is produce in the clouds, right? And heat rises right? Clouds can act as a blanket partially insulating the atmosphere underneath the clouds from the heat produced in the clouds and the heat would rise to be transferred into space.

How well do clouds insulate? Here in florida we often get forecasts of very cold weather. About 30% of the time the forecast gets messed up by cloud cover that roils in and does not allow the heat to rise from the ground and the temps become much warmer then predicted. So if could cover can insulate one way it can also insulate the other as well.

Serious cloud cover of that magnitude would also reflect any heat generated from the surface of the planet back down to the surface. So any energy released by the falling rain would not be able to escape into the atmosphere.


How much heat comes from water to be held in?

Well, no. Cloud cover will reflect solar radiation away from the Earth, but it will also retain heat from the Earth and radiate this back to us. That is why, at night, the temperature is higher with heavy cloud cover.


And I agree. But how much heat is water going to produce?


So how long does grass take to grow from seeds? Or trees? What about animals with specialised diets, such as Koalas, or Pandas? What about species that only eat fruit? What about insectivores, how many thousands of ants do you think Noah would have needed to keep two Giant Anteaters? (they eat upto 30,000 insects per day, so we'll say 20,000x2x365=14,600,000)
How about the carnivores? Bears, lions, tigers, crocodiles, cheetahs, wolves, foxes, stoats, snakes, etc. What did they eat? Were there extra prey animals on the Ark?


Just as God put meat into the mouths of the lions when David was thorwn into the den, God can also do the same for the animals off the Ark.

Ok. A horse will eat around 2% of its own body weight, assuming an average size horse at 1000lbs That is 20lbs of food per day per horse.
So we have 20x2x365=14,600lbs of food just for the horses. That is 6.5 metric tons or 7.3 if you are American. Just for the horses.


As I said above, God will provide.



The surface area of the Earth is 510,000,000,000 metres.


The suface area during the flood would be to the highest mountain. These math figures are based on that nothing changes, not even water covering thr earth. So the math is wrong from the very beginning.

To cover this in one one metre of water you need 510,000,000,000 cubic metres of water. A cubic metre of water weighs around one ton.
Mt Everest is around 8800m high. So we need 510,000,000,000 x 8800 = 4,488,000,000,000,000 cubic metres of water.If this water falls in forty days, then we get 112,200,000,000,000 tons of water falling per day. Spread over the surface of the Earth, this requires a rainfall of 220 tons of water, per square metre, per day. Thats 9 tons per hour. 330lbs per minute.


This part of the math is wrong also. You forgot that water was also coming from underneath the earth as well. Your calculations are based on all the flood water falling as rain. You know that if you add that part into this equation this would work. So hoping that most people here would be to stupid to figure that out you instead post this as is. You should really do your homework instead of doing copy and paste from anti-creationist sites. Their math is usually flawed.


The slowest speed rain falls is 3 metres per second. So where ever you stood on Earth you would be struck by over 5 pounds of water at three metres per second every second.
This means that every second the kinetic energy released by this rainfall equates to 10.35x510,000,000,000= 5,275,800,000,000 joules. One ton of TNT equals 4,184,000,000 joules. So 5,275,800,000,000/4,184,000,000=1261.
So the energy released by that rainfall would be roughly equal to the explosive force of 1260 tons of TNT per second. That means by the end of the first day, you have an energy release equal to 4,541,730 tons of TNT. That is 4.5 megatons, far larger that the largest ever tested nuclear device and an amount that dwarfs the atomic bombs of WWII.


Your math is flawed.

Nothing would survive.


Your conclusion is flawed because your math is flawed. Leaving "facts" of the Bible out only shows you have a weak argument.

#55 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 01:46 AM

Yes, the Bible says "Good" not "perfect"


I would not expect you to understand that when God says good it means perfect. Example: In the spiritual realm you only have good and evil, correct? And since Heaven is considered good, and Hell considered evil what do you think good now means coming from God? Good relates to Heaven so like Heaven good is perfect.

#56 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 02:30 AM

And what reason do we have to suppose that marines animals of today cannot tolerate fresh water, where as their ancestors 3000 years ago could? Do you have any reason at all to support this notion?
On what basis could salt and fresh water remain in stable strata throughout the Flood as described?



All water started out fresh until the flood came which brought up mineral sediments that made the water salty..

What reason do we have to suppose that Everest was significantly smaller in the past? Give me a figure and I will happily recalculate for you.


That's just one theory. But if you look at how techtonics work, the water coming up from the earth would have made the surface of the earth smaller. In turn the tectonic plates would have come together pushing up the mountains that exist. So the mountains were created because of the flood.

And I'll add one more thing. The extra water from the canopy going under the crust would have split the plates causing the continents to drift apart as you currently see. When the earth was created all the water was on top (genesis 1:2). Which means all the land mass was together at one time. The water had to all go onto one place so that the dry land could appear (genesis 1:9). The first water going under the crust was the first expansion which caused the super continent to exist. When the flood happened the canopy fell there was even more water to take in, in the second expansion which caused what we see today. Don;t believe there were 3 water sources for the flood?

gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

1) Fountains of the deep.
2) Windows of heaven.
3) Rain from heaven.

So not all of the rain that fell needed condensing that would cause kinetic energy. And the 2 expansions of the crust caused the Pangea. So what proof would I have to showing you that the earth was one solid mass at one time? Neal Adams, who is not christian, did some calculations and figured out that if you "shrink" the earth and remove the water, all the land masses fit as one piece just like a puzzle. Here's the animation he did:



Ok, lets suppose that 3/4 of the water came from the Fountains of the Deep, you can reduce the daily energy released figure from 4.5 megatons to 1.125 megatons. Still hugely more than the largest ever man made explosion and this relies on the waters from the deep adding no energy to the whole when released.


Your conclusion is flawed because your facts are not right.

In fact I made an error in my calculation above, the final energy release should have been 108,950,400 per day. or 108 megatons


Still wrong.

No it isn't. I'll half the size of Everest and reduce rainfall by 3/4.


Still wrong.

This reduces the rain fall to 2lbs per square metre per second. So the total energy released works out at 548 tons of TNT per second. Or 47,347,200 tons of TNT per day 47 megatons.


Still wrong you did not factor in the earth is covered with water, And that there are 3 sources of water for the flood.

Ok, assuming you have enough seeds, how long would it take to grow enough grass to feed a horse?


You just keep beating that dead horse.

Are you suggesting that Koalas ate bread and honey after the Flood? What about fruit eaters?


Can you prove empirically that all animals that exist today ate the same exact thing through out all time? Of course not. But you are making that assumption and basing your conclusion on that assumption. No leeway means you are not really looking for truth you are preaching it as truth.

This is simply not true. Even omnivores, such as ourselves suffer greatly from an all meat diet and there is evidence to suggest that eventually it would kill us and we have the ability to metabolise meat.


Can you show us empirically why it's not true, or is that statement more of an opinion?


A lion cannot survive on grass, when carnivores do eat plants, it remains undigested as is passed through the system, essentially they do it for healthy bowels.




The only exception I know of is the Panda, which has a digestive tract of a carnivore, yet also has features similar to ruminant species, thus it uses bacteria to break down its food, otherwise its diet would kill it.


You still cannot prove that all animals that exist always ate the same diet throughout time. So you are making conclusions based on the assumpttion that they did.

On what basis? The Giant Anteater is suberbly adapted/desinged to eat insects. Are you proposing that level of physical change occurred in the last 3000 or so years? If so by what mechanism?


The reason most things were created to be vegetarian is because actual blood shed is not allowed in a perfect creation. Do ants have blood?

Is there any reason to suppose otherwise? But lets run with that and I'll reduce the food requirements by 9/10ths.


Still kicking that dead horse?

You still need over half a ton of food for the horses alone.


God provides like I showed in another example from the Bible.

Lets suppose that it takes a mere minute to clean, water and feed every animal on the Ark. This gives us an upper limit of 8400 animals based on 7 people working 20 hours per day. Do you think that figure is high enough?


It was raining so I doubt watering was a problem. If you account that every species was needed. You don;t take into account that the starting point for every species was all that was needed and the genes did the rest.

#57 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 January 2012 - 02:47 AM

I don't dispute that Mark. My point was is there any reason to assume that Everest is significantly taller now, than it was 3000 years ago?

Yes there is. One would need to investigate how the Himalaya came into being. And that would have start with an investigation, if rapid forming is a viable model.
I hold that there are many geological indicators demonstrating a fast formation, while the material was still soft. Not sure, if that would explode the thread, but I could post examples.

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 02:59 AM

I did and it says nothing about species that cannot tolerate fresh water having the ability to so several thousand years ago.
So none then?
Not much? 47 megatons.? The largest bomb ever detonated was 50 megatons. The resultant fireball rose almost 10 kilometres. The explosion could be seen from 1000 kilmetres away. The mushroom cloud rose 64 kilomtetres. A village 50 kilometres away was utterly destroyed and the shockwave caused damage as far away as 900 kilometres.
This to you is not much?

[size=3]
Start to sprout? Or grow fully?
No, I'm not the one suggesting they DID change their diets. YOU are, so burden of proof lays squarely at your door.
I said there would be no food available on Earth, you brought up a change in diet. If there are no plants, then only meat is available.
Do you feed your dog exclusively on plants?
It's vauge at best, although I do like the idea that an "average" cage would be 20"x20"x12", about four shoe boxes.
I just reduced the required food amount by 9/10ths.
To put that in perspective, it would be like you living on 250 calories per day. Your brain uses more than that by itself. It is insufficient for a baby, let alone a young adult.

Legion, you have beat that dead horse so much it's started to sound like a broken record.

#59 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 03:00 AM

Not a single old Earth evolutionist would entertain the idea that Everest had leaped in height by thousands of metres in the last few thousand years.


And this is what, a YEC forum? So does that matter to us? Nope.

#60 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2012 - 04:49 AM

Sorry guys, but this is impossible.

I really, really am interested in this and many of you have raised valid points worthy of discussion. However, I cannot reply to all of you, especially when many of you have made mulitple posts and we seem to have several topics going on at once.

I would suggest that we pick a single topic related to the flood and focus on that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users