This is certainly one of the most amusing of all cretinist arguments. What about the plants?

Grasses appear relatively late in the fossil record. But grasses are wiry little critters, I guess they could scuttle between the legs of the dinosaurs. A lot of the trees made it, but a lot didn't.

As for the animals: strange that the trilobites made it so far and then suddenly couldn't go any further. Those racy ammonites managed to overtake many dinosaurs: maybe they then got trampled by the grasses? The light, hollow-boned pterosaurs just lost the will to live for noapparent reason, then somehow did not float as the waters rose. But those sloths were awesome: who would have thought they would streak ahead of velociraptors like that?

Let's see, here's the quote from the bible: "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." I thought a cubit was on the order of 18 inches (the length of a forearm?); that would make the ark about 450ftx75ftx45ft. Maybe your forearms are 3ft long, but mine are not.

But let's say that it were 900 feet long - almost as big as a modern day aircraft carrier. You're gonna house 226,000 animals in that? Have you ever been on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier? I lived on one for 4 years - and sometimes it got damn crowded with 5,000 people on board. Fortunately it has plumbing, too - I couldn't imagine trying to shovel the waste from 5,000 people every day, let alone 226,000 animals (even if some of them were small).

How about food? The ark was supposedly "at sea" for about 10 months. We couldn't keep enough food on board for 5,000 people for more than a few months - let alone enough to feed 226,000 animals for 10 months.

I seriously doubt that a ship that size could be built with wood - any wood. Maybe there's somebody here that knows something about shipbuilding, but I expect that an object that size must be built to handle some enormous stresses just from moderate seas that you might encounter in a storm. What kind of stress would a 450 or 900 foot wooden boat encounter in an event that flooded the entire earth in such a short period of time?

Somehow, I'm just not buying any of it.

It's still a bad conclusion. The conclusion that should be reached is that there are similarities. No extra step should be taken saying that they were borrowed because that is not known. If a devastating local flood happened within that area, don't you think all the nations in that area would have said something about it? The fact that there are similarities only lends more truth to the Bible. The story would have been passed on to the nations of the sons of Noah.

On another similarity- the stories of the Greek, Egyptian, Aztec, and Babylonian gods bear great similarity to the story of Nimrod, Cush and Semiramis. Some would say the stories are also borrowed, but it could also mean that maybe all these civilizations were together at one time and witnessed the same events. After they separated they formed their version of the story due to the language problems the language barriers that were created as a result of "Babel". That is an equally plausible explanation.

And from that you will be able to see which of the stories is accurate.

But they WERE together, and always have been: they existed in the same general region, and could have shared myths. And it's interesting to note that, while many cultures have flood legends, the specifics of the Ark story are confined to the Middle East.

But the whole point is that there never was a Great Flood (though there was at least one local flood, the inundation of the Black Sea basin). Therefore shared myth (possibly based on a local flood) is the only explanation remaining. So where does this "equally plausible" nonsense come from? Are round-Earthism and flat-Earthism equally plausible?

But isn't the Bible supposed to be the "original" inspired word of god? There are other things that are very similar to more ancient writings.... I can think of at least one from the Tao Te Ching.

Also, Pantera said: "What did they eat? They would have needed a lot of fresh food, with no refrigeration. Carniverous animals would have had to have meat."

If I understand it correctly, according to the Bible all the creatures were vegetarians prior to the flood.

Genesis 1:29-30
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Evidently there were no carnivores until after the flood. Not that this solves the impossibility of the ark!



[This message has been edited by katlynnhow (edited April 12, 2001).]

Freego wrote:

The fossil record is also quite mixed up in toher places: At Lake Athabasca, we can find the Cretaceous over Devonian, in Banff Alberta we find the Lower Cretaceous over Lower Carbinoferous, and in Tennessee the Lower Carbinoferous over the Silurian.

Pat:

Rather than going through all your statements, I will focus on what you've said about these locations.

You're in error as to what these examples show. Cretaceous strata overlying Silurian, Devonian, or Carboniferous strata is not 'mixed up'. I think you meant to say is Silurian overlying Cretaceous, etc.

Notice that this is not found in places that are not tectonically disturbed, for instance in intracratonic basins such as the Williston Basin, the Appalachian basin, the Illinois basin.

*All* the locations you mention are located at thrust faults in western Canada (Lake Athabasca and Alberta=Lewis Thrust), or in the Appalachian region, where the evidence clearly indicates post-depositional tectonic displacement. Rather than expand on this here, I recommend the following links, which discusses the Lewis Thrust and how creationists have totally misrepresented the geology there.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsolum/yec/lewis.html

see also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis-overthrust.html

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/othrust.htm

You might also want to check out Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain
the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69 for a *creationist* refutation of ICR's ideas about thrust faults. Robinson states:

"Whitcomb and Morris minimized the fossil succession further by arguing
that overthrusts, that is, places where rocks with earlier fossils lie on
top of rocks with later fossils, cannot be explained by the thrusting of
earlier rock over later rock. This is not, however, supported by the
evidence adduced for it, for example the Lewis Overthrust Montana [this is part of the same fault system in western Canada - pat]. Contrary to popular creationist belief, overthrusting is deduced first and
foremost from geophysical evidence rather than from any inverted order of fossils, and is demonstrable only in regions of deformation, a dramatic
example being the multiple thrusts of non-fossiliferous Precambrain over
Palaeozoic rock in the highlands of Scotland. Overthrusts testify to the
operation of catastrophic processes, and since they are not primarily
inferred from the fossils, they tend only to confirm the geological
column."

"Thus, the iconoclasm of Whitcomb and Morris in this area--still prevalent, as recent contributions to this journal make clear--is unwarranted and indeed embarrassing. The assertion that the geological column is built on the premise of biological evolution is untrue. Fossils
are used to assign rocks a place in the geological column not because the
order in which they occur shows a gradual evolution from simpler to more
complex life--it does not --but because they occur in a definite succession. To suggest, as Froede does, that an alternative timescaleshould be developed which 'will allow the user the flexibility to evaluate individual sites and large
areas without confusing evolutionary geology with the stratigraphic record.'
is simply to wish that the evidence were different from what it is."

As for the vapor canopy you postulate, it is based on Vail's mytho-geology and couldn't exist in reality. Again, rather than reinventing the wheel, I refer you to some resources:

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/canopy.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

Much love,

Patrick

I know it says that, but that just introduces even more problems. If the dinosaurs were all herbivores, why did they need such big pointy teeth? And why did lions lose the ability to digest grass in so short a space of time?

To write a complete list of objections to the flood story I'd need the patience of Job and more spare time than Methuselah, so partial lists are all we can come up with.


Boro Nut, far be it for me to defend Freego, but where did that figure of 547 square miles come from? 547 miles is about the length of England - it's more than a mile wide in most places.



[This message has been edited by Pantera (edited April 12, 2001).]

If my very dim memories of working on a farm as a child are any guide, herbivores eat quite a lot of plants and produce quite a lot of manure.

Yow! First if I am parroting any stuff that is not true, I apologize right here and now. I have tried to pull stuff from the best resources I could find. Now, Single Dad, of course not, the rise of civilizations are not much evidence for the flood at all, I was merely mentioning that these do seem to arise in that general time period.
Mister Dodwell, as far as I know is not even a Christian. His letter is published in the book the Ark File by Rene Noorbergen.
For the flood theory, read The Case for Creationsim by Colin Mitchell, he sites many references for this.
Yes I know science has advanced, I should not have mentioned Darwin.
About the fossil record, I'll retract this, because I posted it too fast. I went back to by trusty Campbell's Biology and compared that assertion with the fossil record. Obviously it does not work out. Uh, Single Dad, what do you mean by specific studies. If I know what you mean , I will get them for you.
My biology book speaks of wood in the carbinoferous age as much stronger than the wood found today. To call this extraordinary would be going against what biologist today assert.

Pantera, you are quite right, I should have left ol' Darwin out of this.
Although I did retract that statement, I must add this: Have you seen an elephant move, I have and they are much more nimble and quick than they seem. According to paleontologists, the larger dinosaurs were slow and unwieldy.
How about the Noah story? Evolutionists generally believe in Panagea(sp?) correct? We creationists do too. We believe that flood's massive upheaval of the world shifted the continents. So animals did not have trouble getting to the boat. We talk about microevolution? It is quite possible that this happened after the flood. We assume that the types of animals were the same as back then, Microevolution does happen (look at all the dogs we have). Dust mites- heh, I don't think Noah worried about them. A large misconception is that he collected the animals. Not true, God did. That was God's problem, not Noah's. I believe that the genetic strain was much stronger in the days of Noah, they hadn't been fallen very long, and so it was possible for parents to have kids of different color. The Bible says that Noah's sons were of three different appearances. This is where the various races found today come from. I don't know about germs, but it is also possible that since the world, again, was newly fallen, those things had not developed yet. Developed in the evolutionary since? No, but sin had not mutated microbes in such ways yet. The food most probably was stored on ark, and the animals may have stayed there until more vegetation appeared. But just because the bird came back with one olive branch does not mean that there was only one tree. There was a great possibility that other trees were already beginning to grow. We are thinking in todays terms, but these plants were still very unmarred by sin. Their growing rate may have been much faster.
The animals were created to be gentle and so carnivorous traits may not have appeared in the animals yet. This may have taken a few more years.
Um Jesus, I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about (in light of your ark comment) This are not my numbers, but numbers based on the measurements found in Genesis. Since you spend the rest of you post laughing at my poor attempts to stay up to par with you guys i think I'll move on.

Ipetrich: Chinese,Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Caananites (not necessarily in that order. Is it not possible that the solid iron-nickel is a result of the flood?
The violent deaths are exhibited by the look of pain on their fishy faces. (I'm joking) Seriously though, we can find evidence for this is found by the fish being contorted and curved (the tail many times bent around the head. The spines stick out and the fins are spread full, evidence of violent convulsions.

[LP:] Those two are science writers, not professional geologists. And their puzzlement over mass extinction was the "consensus" of paleontologists for many decades. Since the couple had been born in the 1920's, their statements very likely precede the publication of the Alvarez meteorite-strike hypothesis, which was in 1981 or thereabouts. That hypothesis has he honor of being much more successful in explaining the mass extinction of dinosaurs than any of the earlier ones.

okay, my bad.

Hey that is interesting, where can I find out more about anoxic basins?

Boro nut: I know that England is not that large
These numbers are quoted by geologist H. Miller (not a creationist as far as I know) He was speaking about the Devonian rocks that cover most of England. You are right, now that I've gone and posted it, it does not make sense. You'll have to talk to Miller. ican only assume that he was speaking of some offshore areas and maybe underground areas.
About the ark, the design it was built in was quite floatable, this has been proven by modern engineers.

Damaged goods, the boat was hardly a Nimitz, I have seen but not touched Were you a pilot? That's awesome that you could serve in the Navy (I looking at an Air Force career, ahh but that is off subject).This was basically a floating crate designed to fit as much in as possible. Noah's family had been collecting food for 100 plus years, so I think that was not a problem. The cubit measure I use is based on the Egyptian measure and the size of the antediluvian human, According to the Bible, they were quite a bit larger that we are now.

Jack, the Native Americans of both North and South America and the early European tribes all have flood stories.

Ps418: thank you for the corrections.

I am running out of time, but before I go, I should say this. I will try to post material that is completely objective and scientific. I would like this to be an intelligent argument and not filled with a lot of the creationist crap that is commonly found. Thanks for helping me out.

Yes, well, we would expect to have our myths date to just before the rise of writing.

Well one weird astronomy hobbyist does not scientific fact make. Something as dramatic as his conclusion would have a profound impact on the astronomical and geological scientific communities.

Creationists have burned too many scientific bridges to be taken seriously as secondary sources. Let's see the primary experimental sources.

Spoken like a man. I admire this.

Generally, when you're citing scientists general quotes in support of your theory, you should include a citation to the entire work in which the quote appears, so others can judge the context. Also, if you say "several studies show..." you should provide references to the studies.

The Carboniferous period is more than 300 megayears ago. This sort of time period works against you.

Calculate, if you will, the amount of energy necessary to move the continents around in even a few hundreds of years.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I believe that the genetic strain was much stronger in the days of Noah, they hadn't been fallen very long, and so it was possible for parents to have kids of different color.[quote]

If you are trying to make a scientific case, making ad hoc assertions to make the math come out right is not considered an acceptable technique. Rather, you should find these sorts of counterintuitive implications and find a way to actually test them.

And how do you go to "stronger genetics" to having babies of different colors? Do you have any idea how modern genetics works?

Have you ever actually observed sin mutating a microbe?

Yet another ad hoc assumption unjustified by observation.

I'll stop now, because I'm getting tired.

Freego, if you want to say, "God did it! I believe!" then groovy for you. However, if you're going to try for a scientific analysis, you have to analyze things the scientific way. You're just not doing this here, and I don't know how to show you how your methodology differs so dramatically from ordinary scientific methodology.

Of course, you're under no obligation to accept "science", but it has a tremendous reputation and emotional appeal (secondhand, to be sure, but it's still quite popular); adherents such as myself really become upset when the methodology and terminology is so deeply abused.