gagster

I haven't ever seen an answer about how coral could survive the flood. As best I can tell is the apologetic for that is #5 "That's a good question. What's the next question?"



Greg

Kuu

^^^ I imagine shellfish would have a hard time surviving as well. I can't imagine a giant clam being able to survive extreme pressures. Also creatures like sea anenomes and lobsters wouldn't be able to cope either. Though Answer in Genesis would probably say that these animals would only have to survive at a 'kind' (Genus?) level and that all others creatures would have come from this original kind.

I cannot understand how anyone can accept Answers in Genesis explanations of 'kind'. If all species of cats are descendants of a pair of cats at a 'kind' level should there be massive evidence of these changes - far more evidence than one would find for evolutionary charge as the AIG would only have ben able to occur over 4000 years? Maybe we should ask the YEC 'where are the transitionals'

Of course these massive changes must have occured as the animals walked back to their lands of origins, so the evidence should be found in routes radiating out from the Middle East to the lands the creatures now dwell in.

Steve_F

Wow, another bare faced lie from the creationist sorts. As far as I am aware very few marine organisms are actually able to tolerate changes in salinity.

Clivedurdle

Have I missed the plot? Do creationists accept evolution has occurred in the 4000 years since Noah?

It is probably not only salt water fish, but crustaceans, bacteria, fungii, plants and the vast majority of life on this planet! We are now talking about millions of species!

Has anyone worked out how large Noah's ark would have to be to act as a spaceship earth? As life lives in ecosystems, was the ark designed ecologically?

We find it difficult to get pandas to breed in captivity, how did Noah manage it?

What is interesting is that this is really science fiction - although that is probably a too respectful analogy - , like debating a fault in a star trek transporter!

Sven

Yes. Creationists mostly have to accept that evolution occured - because even they realize that the arc could not have been that big. Funnily, they still call this evolution "microevolution" - despite the fact that it would have to include changes far greater than from ape to man, for example (I know, we are apes etc.), which they call "macroevolution" and which can not happen - no way. :banghead:

Gunbuster

Mount Everest is what, 8000 metres? 8 kilometers.
For you Imperial people out there that is 5 miles I think.
So there had to be enough rain to flood the world ALL around from sea level to just over 5 mile up ... Thats a fuckling truckload of rain. The oceans of which evaporation occurs DON'T have that much water. Goes against everything I know about science ...

And Noah's arc would have had to of been bigger than a Nimitz aircraft carrier. Noah would have had to of journeyed to Australia to pick up Kangeroos, Koalas, Platapusys, Emus, Echidnas etc, to New Zealand to pick up the Kiwi birds, to every single continent around the world to collect 2 of every animal. As well as build his Nimitz. How long does it say he has to do this, a year? Ten? A lifetime?

Creationalists would have to be pushing shit uphill to convince me that is entirely possible. Even today with world wide efforts, we are still finding new spiecies of this, that and the other. Noah doing this all by himself? Hrm.

Kuu

Here is part of AIG's explanation for kangaroos being on the Ark.

The rest of the article is here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../migration.asp

I think that creationists think that the Earth was much flatter in the time of Noah than it is today therefore the flood was only as deep as the highest point was back then.

from

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

There also believe that the Earth was enveloped by a dense layer of water in the sky and that this is where the rain came from. I know one YEC told me it had never rained before the flood.

Duvenoy

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

As described here, the flooded seas would have been nothing more than a gigantic, muddy chowder.

I've posted this site a dozen times -- how come I can't get any hard-core Creationists to debunk it?

doov

Kuu

Creationists would debunk it by saying that Mount Everest either didn't exist, or wasn't as tall as it is now, at the time of the flood. You could use the height of Mount Ararat (about 16,000 feet) instead of Mt Everest as YEC cannot deny that Mt Ararat existed. They could however say it was lower than it is today.

These people believe that there might have only been one continent 4000 years ago. They think it is possible that the continents might have drifted apart after the flood. Can someone tell me about how far the continents would have to drift each year for this to be so (taking into consideration that this massive drifting must have stopped before the last 1000-2000 years otherwise early mariners would have been aware of it).

I don't think there is any reasoning with those that believe that Noah's Ark is a true story.

Duvenoy

In truth, friend Kuu, there is not and it is all but pointless to argue with them. They have a real talent for pulling fantasies out of their collective ass and calling it 'Science', and sticking to it like Krazy Glue. I don't bother with them all that much anymore, although there is a certain amusment value to their struggles.

I especally like 'One Continant' jerk-around. The trap they've set for themselves with that one is a doozy: For the continent to have split up and the pieces come to rest where they are today, in less than 2,000 years, they would have had to travel almost like Poppy Bush's cigarette boat. After all, there is recorded history of that era, and before, that says nothing about such an event. You'd think that somebody might have noticed.

And o'course, there is the world's re-population of man and beast in such a short time to consider, and the whole thing is endless nonsense.

doov