The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

The Last Conformist · Mar 15, 2006

Quasar1011 said:
What about salmon? Don't they spawn in freshwater, but live much of their lives in saltwater oceans? Striped bass, Atlantic spurgeon, and eels are other examples of marine life that spend part of their time in freshwater, and part in saltwater.

Indeed, there's a variety of aquatic life that can handle wide salinity ranges. Now, how about addressing the majority that can't?

El_Machinae · Mar 15, 2006

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I have a wedding to plan!

A well-planned wedding is more important than bashing against this thread, imho.

Sahkuhnder · Mar 15, 2006

Quasar1011 said:
Are you saying there have never been mass extinctions of sea life, that have been preserved in the fossil record? Some geologists think that trilobites disappeared in a mass extinction; others believe that the first major extinction occurred 440 million years ago, causing a pronounced change in marine life resulting in the loss of thousands of species.

sahkuhnder said:
To the level your story requires, yes, I'm saying that. Large scale (mass) extinctions vs. the total extinction of all marine life due to such a sudden salinity change as your story mentions are two completely different things. The record of freshwater vs. saltwater fossils simply does not have any sudden switch from strictly one to both. Sharks have survived unchanged for example. If the salinity of the ocean was suddenly modified as your story speculates then the fossil record would reflect this.

Quasar1011 said:
By mixing the salty, subterranean water that escaped during the flood with an approximately equal volume of preflood surface water (which had little dissolved salt), the salt concentration of our present oceans would be achieved.

sahkuhnder said:
If the ocean had "little dissolved salt" then where did saltwater marine life even come from at all? Did it rapidly evolve? Saltwater life is very different than freshwater and can't survive in a freshwater environment and vice versa. Small isolated pockets like saltwater lakes couldn't support marine mammals like whales or entire saltwater ecosystems that only exist in the miles-deep ocean depths.

Mentioning Salmon or quoting the depths that whales swim didn't even being to answer the questions posed to you. Salmon are one of the very few forms of marine life that can tolerate both fresh and salt water, and the whales were mentioned not as deep water marine life but as an example of the many forms of marine life that require large amounts of space to feed as would be unavailable in confined spaces such as a salt water lakes.

I'll again ask these very exact and simple questions:

1. You claimed fresh-water half-depth oceans (third quote above). Where did all the widely varied saltwater ecosystems of millions of forms of life, including entire complex deep-water ecosystems, come from? Rapid evolution? Divine intervention?

2. How many years ago did the great flood take place? If your claim is supported by science you should be able to provide a fairly exact time period.

As this is a scientific discussion appreciated answers would not include any bible quotes or personal opinions about the validity of accepted scientific knowledge, but would include complete answers derived from the scientific method and including relevant supporting evidence for any unusual statements presented. This is a worldwide standard requirement for presentation of any scientific thesis or scientific answer.

P.S. - Good luck with your wedding.

ironduck · Mar 16, 2006

El_Machinae said:
When it didn't smell anymore. How do you tell if a shirt is clean?

Well, if you're washing your clothes down by the river it's not usually the smell-to-tell method that's preferred, but rather the stains-are-gone method.. clothes smells differently when it's wet anyway.

Of course, if the water is black then stains are pretty much irrelevant, but dirt is still dirt!

carlosMM · Mar 20, 2006

I see noone bothered to refute Quasar's latest bulb of nonsense during my holiday. Well, on we go:

Quasar1011 said:
Secondly, those distinctive stripes you mention, are often not parallel to the ridge itself.

So you have a much simplified idea of how plate tectonics works, find that reality isn't that simple, so the theory must be false?

:lol:

The textbook example is of the stripes in the Reykjanes Ridge near Iceland. But often, the stripes run perpendicular to the ridge, or show no discernible pattern at all.

Show a place where they run perpendicular.

The spreading of the mid-Atlantic ridge has been measured all along its length. There are some parts of the ridge that show no current spreading at all!

So? Why should the CURRENT rate matter?

And other parts of the ridge are moving the adjoining plates apart, at rates that are so slow that a date of 100 million years is a gross overstatement.

Again, you make the dumb mistake of assuming a static system :rolleyes:

So, we have "halted growth" as observed fact.

Your hair grows. Thus, you grow. Thus, you'll be at least 8 feet tall if you reach the age of 80.

That claim is about as logical as yours :lol:

The fact that South America is no longer joined to Africa, is evidence of a disruptive event which accelerated growth.

btw, 'growth' is an extremely dumb term to use when talking about an ocean. Grwoth suggests that there is some biological process, but there isn't. :rolleyes:

Obviously, we are disagreeing about the timing of that event.

If you insist on calling something that took a few hundred million years an 'event' - do so. But do not be surprised if we laugh at you. Please define the 'disruptive event' - was it the first ever fault to reach the surface? The first volcanoe along the grabenbruch? The first ever earthquake along the later fault line? The first influx of salt water into the graben?

I think even you'd agree, that a crack in Pangaea which eventually led to its splitting apart into separate continents, is a "disruptive event".

Nope, it is a process.

The only rock to be swept away, was that rock which water or mud was eroding. This can result in both vertical canyon walls, as well as V-shapes. See my next paragraph.

Again, my dear Quasar - why was this part of the rock swept away and the stuff the visitor's center rests on today wasn't? Why wasn't the material swept away that today forms the canyon walls? the debris at the foot of the near-vertical walls?

This doesn't match the observed evidence (see photo at end of post).

false - you claim that a soft sediment and a hard consolidated rock have the same properties. Obviously, this is nonsense. If you throw a piece of sandstone against a window, it will break. If you throw a lump of hardly compacted ash against it, the window will stay intact. Thus, the properties of the two materials are vastly different.

The canyon that was observed to form on Mt. St. Helens in 1982, has some vertical walls.

False - it has tiny sections of 'walls' where the current undercut a cliff. These sections are extremely instable and erode away quickly. Quite different from the vertical walls of the Grand Canyon, which look the same today as they did when the first pictures were drawn.

I discovered, however, that it was technically not water that cut that canyon, but a mudflow. However, the mudflow cut through some solid rock.

False, it cut through hardly consolidated ashes and thin lava flows. This is totally different from a solid 100 foot sandstone layer.

So we have an observed case where material (water or mud) cut a canyon with vertical walls, in less than a week.

As shown - false. Even if 2% of the walls of that 'canyon' are near-vertical, this doesn't in any way compare to the shape of the Grand Canyon.

There are other such canyons as well. Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, formed in 1926 in 6 days (see photo at end of post).

One look at these photos shows IN EACH SINGLE ONE a small erosional wall in a soft sediment or a layered sediment group with significant soft layers (marls). None of the walls is comparable in steepness to the Grand Canyon, and none is comparable in size to the Grand Canyon.

Seems you are prone to shoot yourself in the foot provided you cna get the firepower - you show that in soft ysediments and layered sediments ereosional walls look significantly different from the Grand Canyon. Congratulations :lol:

This canyon is 120 feet deep in places. Six days of runaway erosion removed around 150,000 m3 (five million cubic ft) of silt, sand and rock.

There we go - can you please explain how a 120 foot packet of sediments that contain both sitls, sands and 'rocks' (thin sandstone layers or conglomerates or what?) is in any way compareble to a several hundered feet thick SINGLE sandtone bar?

Also, Providence Canyon near Lumpkin, Georgia, formed in 1846 due to heavy rainfall, and continued to grow through the next several decades. There are 9 finger-like canyons in this system, some as deep as 160 feet; as wide as 600 feet, and as long as 1,300 feet. By 1971, this area was set aside as Providence Canyon State Park, and is often called Georgia's little Grand Canyon (see photo at end of post).

Again, much softer sediments :rolleyes:

This starts to get really boring.....

We've never observed a canyon actually cut with a little bit of water, over a long period of time.

But we do, constantly. it is just that the likes of you do not understnad that it takes more time that you can imagine :lol:

But we have observed, in the last 200 years, canyons that were cut with a lot of water, in a little bit of time.

and look significantly different from the Grand Canyon.......

Study the photos at the end of this post. None of those photos were possible as recently as 160 years ago, because the canyons had not yet formed!

Yup. And all show typical speedy erosion is soft sediments. Quite different from e.g. the up to 350 feet thick Coconino Sandstone, the up to 700 feet thick and rather massive Redwall limestone 1, the up to 100 feet thick Undivided Dolomite.........

an explanation of the layers can be found here:
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm

You keep throwing out geological evidence of rapid canyon formation, claiming irrelevance.

Yup, all your exaplmes come from very different sediments (much softer and subdivided).

But extinctions within the fossil record are evidence.

non sequitur.....

The mid-oceanic ridge is evidence of it.

of what - extionctions? rapic canyon formation? get your grammar straight enough for me to understand, please.

There is also a written account of a worldwide hydrological and geological disaster; it was observed (just like rapid canyon formation has been observed). You throw out all the evidence, because the written account happens to be in the Bible.

Yup - I do. Since the bible is neither peer reviewed, nor has it proven in any way to be more that goatherder tales and fishermen tales and later additions by priests. I an sure you know that fishermen like to tell big tales?

Therefore, why don't we listen to a non-Biblical source: the native American residents of the Grand Canyon?

According to the Havasupai Indians who live in its deep gorges, the Grand Canyon originated in the following way:
Before there were any people on earth there were two gods. Tochapa of goodness and Hokomata of evil. Tochapa had a daughter named Pu-keh-eh, whom he hoped would become the mother of all living. Hokomata the evil was determined that no such thing should take place, and he covered the world with a great flood. Tochopa the good felled a great tree and hollowed out the trunk. He placed Pu-keh-eh in the hollowed trunk and when the water rose and flooded the earth she was secure in her improvised boat. Finally the flood waters fell and mountain peaks emerged. Rivers were created; and one of them cut the great gushing fissure which became the Grand Canyon. Pu-keh-eh in her log came to rest on the new earth. She stepped forth and beheld an empty world. When the land became dry, a great golden sun rose in the east and warmed the earth and caused her to conceive. In time, she gave birth to a male child. Later a waterfall caused her to conceive and she gave birth to a girl. From the union of these two mortal children came all the people on the earth. The first were the Havasupai, and the voice of Tochopa spoke to them and told them to live forever in peace in their canyon of good earth and pure water where there would always be plenty for all!"

Wow, two gods? Not one? THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR BIBLE STORY MASSIVELY! :lol:

How long does it take for a fossil to form? If a creature is not quickly buried, and sheltered from weathering, it will decompose, rather than form a fossil. This is a physical, chemical, and biological process. Will you agree that fossils form in sediments?

Where are you going - trying to impress people with commonplaces?

If the entire world was under water at some point, wouldn't fossils form in sedimentary layers?

Sure would - so?

And some of those layers would be on mountaintops, just as is observed.

Maybe - depends on circumstances.

Now, if those mountaintops have been there millions of years, the fossils would have eroded away.

Please go and measure the erosional rates in the Rocky Mountains, the Cascades, the Dolomiti, Chalk Alps etc :rolleyes:

carlosMM · Mar 20, 2006

Mountaintops are some of the most erosion-prone places on Earth, subject to both wind and water. It is closer to say that fossils remaining on mountaintops for millions of years, is physically, chemically and biologically impossible.

See, this is typical hogwash - nobody says that what ntoday is a mountain top was a mountain top millions of years ago. Ever heard of uplift? Ever heard of erosion?
Uplift > erosion = mountain
uplift < erosion = valley

:lol:

The Grand Canyon is unique. Of course the processes that cut other canyons, will not be exactly the same for the Grand Canyon. The Missoula Flood is thought to have carved the Grand Coulee Gorge, which is only 80km long, and 300 meters deep.

Depends on how you define 'unique'. There's a bunch of similar valleys, vertical walls in hard rocks.

You also said that water couldn't quickly cut through solid rock, but water or a mudflow did just that in 1982 in Mt. St. Helens.

A blantant lie or outride 100% stupidity - please get a rock from a Grand Canyon sandstone or limestone and smash it against some aash from Mt. St. Helens. See whicxh is harder :rolleyes:

Also, you did not dispute my statement about the Missoula Flood carving through solid rock.

Why shouzld I? :lol:

Maybe you should consider it possible that a breached dam could carve the Grand Canyon relatively quickly, considering that other canyons have been observed to be cut quickly (of which I gave 3 examples).

Please show how any one of these canyons has hard rock walls of comparable strength as the Grand Canyon, how any of these has vertical walls similar to the Grand Canyon.

When you calculate that maximum rate from the width of the canyon, are you using where it is 18 miles across, or 1 mile across?

Anywhere. Just compare to the depth and the rock hardness. Figure in tributaries, too.

Yes they are. The Grand Canyon strata extends over 250 miles into the eastern part of Arizona. There, they are at least 1,600 meters lower in elevation. Supposedly, the uplift of the Grand Canyon area occurred about 70 million years ago-hundreds of millions of years after the sediments were deposited. One would expect that hundreds of millions of years would have been plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock.

Indeed.

Yet, the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated. Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 1,200-m thickness of strata being still 'plastic' when it was uplifted.

Do you have any idea what 'soft' sediments do when they get bent near the surface?

They break, Quasar, they break! They fold in tight folds if they are harder, and they totally smear out when they are softer. This is called klastic deformation. Only if there is great pressure from above (i.e. at great depth) the layers will fold 'softly'. That is called plastic deformation.

In other words, the millions of years of geologic time are imaginary. This 'plastic' deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah's day.

thank you for making my point before - and thak you for trying to do a logical 180 here - it gives me a great laugh!

You have no clue whatsoever about tectonics - may I recommend you a book?

Press & Siever: Earth.

Any good uni library should stock a copy.

It is very, very difficult to believe that its layers of sedimentary rock could have been uplifted from the depths of the ocean without disturbing the horizontality of its layers.

?????? Why?

That the layers of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon are perfectly horizontal is obvious even to the most casual observer.

Tsk tsk tsk, please google for a few pics. You'll see msot layers are NOT horizontal, only some are close to horizontal......

Could this plateau have been lifted up such an enormous distance, yet kept perfectly level? Or was there a worldwide Flood that laid down these strata, which were then carved out by the receding flood waters while the strata were still soft, forming the Grand Canyon?

Again, if the sediment was soft enough to have been freshly deposited, why was it then not washed away over the entire area? Oh, right, you need that dam break so you have a spot source of water - but even then (check the pics at the end of your post), you'd get, in soft sediments, V-shaped walls.

Why are these layers of sedimentary rock so high, yet so perfectly horizontal?

They aren't

Nor does it make any sense at all that these perfectly horizontal strata could have been laid down over the course of millions or billions of years. How could they possibly have remained so uniform and horizontal over such great periods of time?

Wow, let me count the unconformities:
See, two massive one: a tthe top of the Vishnu schist, and at the top of the Chuar group.

Also, why should sediments at the ocean bottom shift? obviously, they are depostited level, one above the other, while the ocean persists.....

Would there not have been a single shift in the earth's crust during literally millions of millennia? This is inconceivable.

Why should the crust at the bottom of an coean shift if there is no fault near?

The Last Conformist · Mar 20, 2006

carlosMM said:
ee, this is typical hogwash - nobody says that what ntoday is a mountain top was a mountain top millions of years ago. Ever heard of uplift? Ever heard of erosion?
Uplift > erosion = mountain
uplift < erosion = valley

Let's apply some creatologic to this. :evil:

The summit of Mt Everest is uplifting at about 25mm/annum. According to evilutionist geologists, the Himalayas began uplifting about 50 Mya. This means that the summit started out in a hole ~116km deep. Evilution is impossible OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!!!!!!

Believe it or not, but an only slightly more refined version of this was advanced by Sean Pitman, widely considered to be the most scientifically informed creationist at talk.origins - you imagine what the rest are like.

Sidhe · Mar 20, 2006

The Last Conformist said:
Let's apply some creatologic to this.

The summit of Mt Everest is uplifting at about 25mm/annum. According to evilutionist geologists, the Himalayas began uplifting about 50 Mya. This means that the summit started out in a hole ~116km deep. Evilution is impossible OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!!!!!!

Believe it or not, but an only slightly more refined version of this was advanced by Sean Pitman, widely considered to be the most scientifically informed creationist at talk.origins - you imagine what the rest are like.

Where were you when the great black water debate was raging, we could of used that sort of fine creatology then

classical_hero · Apr 15, 2006

Remember me with the ten things. I promised that I would go into number in greater detail well here it is.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp
This is about the dating of samples. The problem with many dating methods is that there are too many constants for them to be correct that we just do not know are constant at all.

Calculating the ages

The so-called ‘model’1 potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘ages’ calculated for each of the 27 amphibolite samples from Grand Canyon ranged from 405.1 ± 10 Ma (million years) to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. That is a six-fold difference, for samples that should be of similar age.

Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age. They are also small compared with the variation in ages between samples. This means that the laboratory testing was precise. However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the ‘ages’ of the rock samples.

Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma (figure 6). This includes two samples only 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) apart that yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ of 1,205.3 ± 31 and 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. Clearly, there is a problem with the assumptions on which the K-Ar ‘ages’ are calculated.

The isotopic results other than potassium-argon (K-Ar), namely rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) and lead-lead (Pb-Pb), were used to calculate ages for the rock formation utilizing isochrons.2 Three ages altogether were obtained, one for each isotopic system.

The best isochron plots are where the straight line of best-fit falls within the analytical errors (the ± values) for each data point. Routinely, if the data set is large, a few outlying data points are ignored if they don’t plot on the line. Geologists justify this, saying that some geochemical alteration in the past disturbed the radioisotopes in those samples.

The best-fit isochron plots for these amphibolites yielded a Rb-Sr ‘age’ of 1240 ± 84 Ma from 19 of the 27 samples, a Sm-Nd ‘age’ of 1,655 ± 40 Ma from 21 samples, and a Pb-Pb ‘age’ of 1,883 ± 53 Ma from 20 samples (figure 7).3

Note that the quoted ‘age’ error margins (the ± values) are relatively small, due to the excellent statistical ‘fit’ of these isochrons to the data. In spite of this, the three different radioisotope methods give three very different ‘ages’—that is the ‘isochron discordance’ is pronounced. Figure 8 graphically illustrates how that, even when the calculated error margins are taken into account, the different radioisotope dating methods yield vastly different ‘ages’ that cannot be reconciled.
References

1. A model age is calculated by assuming a value for the original isotopic composition of the molten liquid from which the rock solidified. In the case of K-Ar, it is assumed that when the rock formed, there was no Ar in it derived from radioactive decay of K.
2. An isochron is a graphical plot of the isotopic compositions of the samples. It allows an isochron age to be calculated from a straight line plotted through the graph of the results. The Isoplot computer program, developed by Dr Ken Ludwig at the University of California Berkeley Geochronology Center, was used. See: Ludwig, K.R., Isoplot/Ex (Version 2.49): The Geochronological Toolkit for Excel, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley Geochronology Center, Special Publication No. 1a, 2001. The method effectively requires multiple assumptions, namely that the initial isotopic ratio of each sample was the same as the ratio of every other sample in the group.
3. It is important to note that geologists routinely use only 6–10 samples for plotting isochrons and calculating isochron ages, so the isochrons obtained here from 19–21 samples are exceptional. Furthermore, all the results not included in the isochron ‘age’ calculations still plotted very close to the lines of best fit.

ironduck · Apr 15, 2006

Nooooooo! We've had enough about radioactive isotopes already!

Can we please talk about black water?

sanabas · Apr 15, 2006

ironduck said:
Nooooooo! We've had enough about radioactive isotopes already!

Indeed. Let's talk about the two Andrew Snellings, one of whom authored this article, instead.

While we wait, here's a bit more of the article:

AiG babble said:
It is entirely feasible that the basalt lava flows, now deep in Grand Canyon, erupted onto the ocean floor during Creation Week and were metamorphosed in the upheaval that produced dry land on Day 3, just six thousand years ago.

...

Indeed, there are several independent lines of irrefutable evidence which indicate that the rates of decay of these long-age radioisotopes were grossly accelerated during some event in the past, up to millions of times faster than their currently measured rates. Thus, it is entirely plausible that the rocks are only a few thousand years old.

None of those irrefutable lines of evidence, or this new article, have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, have they? Any chance of an article like this from a credible source?

Can we please talk about black water?

Only black water I've heard of is 'black water rafting' in caves. I missed the debate on it, so I have to stick to good old accelerated decay rates.

ironduck · Apr 15, 2006

sanabas said:
Only black water I've heard of is 'black water rafting' in caves. I missed the debate on it, so I have to stick to good old accelerated decay rates.

The black water hypothesis was conjured up in this very thread! It came about because in the bible god gives Noah a sign after the flood is over, to show that he will never flood the world again. The sign is a rainbow.

So, the logic enters: Were there no rainbows before the flood? If not, were they physically impossible? They must have been since there was sun and water (thus you can make your own rainbow). If they were physically impossible, does that mean the refraction properties of water were changed post flood? If they were different preflood water must have been opague or black or something.. that's the extent of our debate because no creationist has chimed in on this.

sanabas · Apr 15, 2006

ironduck said:
The black water hypothesis was conjured up in this very thread! It came about because in the bible god gives Noah a sign after the flood is over, to show that he will never flood the world again. The sign is a rainbow.

So, the logic enters: Were there no rainbows before the flood? If not, were they physically impossible? They must have been since there was sun and water (thus you can make your own rainbow). If they were physically impossible, does that mean the refraction properties of water were changed post flood? If they were different preflood water must have been opague or black or something.. that's the extent of our debate because no creationist has chimed in on this.

Well that one is blindingly obvious. The speed of light hasn't been constant throughout history, so the problem was obviously with the sunlight, not the water. God changed the sunlight when required, and rainbows started appearing.

ironduck · Apr 15, 2006

sanabas said:
Well that one is blindingly obvious. The speed of light hasn't been constant throughout history, so the problem was obviously with the sunlight, not the water. God changed the sunlight when required, and rainbows started appearing.

Hmm.. by how much did he change it? I mean, it's gonna cause some troubles if he messes with it too much (all the other stuff he has to adjust to compensate, what a mess).

sanabas · Apr 15, 2006

ironduck said:
Hmm.. by how much did he change it? I mean, it's gonna cause some troubles if he messes with it too much (all the other stuff he has to adjust to compensate, what a mess).

It's a constant decay built into the system. Light from a distant galaxy has only had 6000 years to travel the few million lightyears of space to reach us. Shouldn't be too hard to do up a graph, using say 10 million lightyears for the most distant galaxy, 6000 years of decay, 3x10^8 m/s for current speed, and assuming constant decay. That will give an answer for the initial speed of light, and the decay constant, and will let us know when the speed of light will drop below a certain point. Personally, I'd say when the speed of light in m/s = the number of years since creation, that'll be judgement day.

Judgement day will obviously occur at a different time in Biblethump, Kansas, and the rest of the US, as m/s is an alien measurement to them.

If I get really bored and/or drunk, I'll do the maths for that and come up with a reliable prediction. Maybe I can get published in AiG.

ironduck · Apr 15, 2006

That's all well and good and we will ignore the whole energy issue. I just don't understand why rainbows were possible from one moment to another if the decay rate is constant. Then they must be different now than they were then as well..

Perfection · Apr 15, 2006

classical_hero said:
The problem with many dating methods is that there are too many constants for them to be correct that we just do not know are constant at all.

There's only one constant for radiometric dating (in most cases, there's a few that deal with a few more, but never that many).
And it's nt an unreasnable assumption that decay constants are the same. The are predicted from quantum thery not to change and there is not observed case of them changing.

As for the experimental "evidence" the creationists claim, I'm just skeptical that their different samples are viewed to be the same age by geolgists. Without a closer look at thier experimental methodology one cannot truely rule out faulty experimental setup.

ybbor · Apr 15, 2006

ironduck said:
The black water hypothesis was conjured up in this very thread! It came about because in the bible god gives Noah a sign after the flood is over, to show that he will never flood the world again. The sign is a rainbow.

So, the logic enters: Were there no rainbows before the flood? If not, were they physically impossible? They must have been since there was sun and water (thus you can make your own rainbow). If they were physically impossible, does that mean the refraction properties of water were changed post flood? If they were different preflood water must have been opague or black or something.. that's the extent of our debate because no creationist has chimed in on this.

much as I love talking about Theology, and not biology (and my AiG colleagues would add geology and astronomy here as well most likely), as this thread was laid out for, I'd contend that a symbol does not require it's sole appearance to be with its association. The staff was used in the Bible associated to many different prophets, but that doesn't mean a staff can only represent the first. Similar arguments could be made about trumpets, and birds. Trumpets were used to bring down the walls of Jericho, but does that mean those were the first trumpets created? Does it make Revelation's references to trumpets less important?

ironduck · Apr 15, 2006

I didn't realize you were a creationist.. you have AiG colleagues? What kind of colleagues, you mean people you share opinions with or staff writers or something?

Anyway, it's true that a symbol can have existed before, but the way it's presented in Genesis it sounds like god puts the rainbow on the sky from then on as a sign of his covenant. Also, as far as I recall creationists have claimed that it didn't rain before the flood (although they probably disagree on that).

To quote the relevant passage (note, it's the first time a rainbow is mentioned in the bible):

Genesis 9:12-16

12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

So a couple of questions, once again to any creationist:

Was there rain before the flood? Were there rainbows before the flood? Also, does god need to be reminded to keep his covenant? It sounds that way.

As an aside, reading Genesis 8:20-21 it sounds like god regrets having flooded the world (like he regretted creating it just prior to flooding it):

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Can god make up his mind?

Perfection · Apr 15, 2006

Remember folks this thread should be about science, not theology

(I really got to regain control of this thread least it be "Perfection goes for a ride while other people converse about creationism")

The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

Irresistibly Attractive

Colour vision since 2018

Delusions of grandeur

Deity

Deity

Deity

Irresistibly Attractive

Deity

In whom I trust

Deity

Psycho Bunny

Deity

Psycho Bunny

Deity

Psycho Bunny

Deity

The Great Head.

Will not change his avata

Deity

The Great Head.

Similar threads