davidH

Just like to ask a question here, why is there ice from the outer solar system - where did the water come from to produce the ice?

There's ice on the moon too - did that come from the earth or is there some other place in the solar system where water has been made?

Yeah, and how did the bacteria find there way to the outer edges of the solar system to the meteorites?

What if the meteorites where orginally from earth..... force of the explosion lauched them...I dunno.

You have said that they know that this cataclysm has been going on for many millions of years - would you provide the evidience that leads them to know this to be the case?

Would you care to show how this dating shows that the mountain range actually formed all those years ago?
According to that you are only dating the age of the rock - you have no way of knowing that it was at "whatever" time that it became part of the mountain range - ?

Yeah but what are you making those assumptions on?
Once you make those assumptions you have to examine them and then show why this could have been the only way it happened.

eg. If the FOTD where in the sea somewhere - steam would have been cooled down by the water in the ocean - even if the explosion was enormous - it would also have resulted in salt water raining down in that area.

You are also assuming the temperature of the water to be something - and yet we don't know how much water was down there if there was anything at all. That too would greatly affect the temperature of the water.

etc etc. Since we weren't there - there's no end to the assumptions that were made.

Fair enough - but where is the evidience since you know this to be the case.
If there is no evidience for this and it is just a theory then there is no reason why it couldn't have been FOTD.

I think maybe you underestimate the size of such an event - if it did wipe out all life on land, if it did send the meteorites into space originally from earth, if it did cause all the fracture zones on the sea bed - the maybe it was big enough to start the moving of the continents.

I'll check out that site you gave me too.

It all depends on when the continents started to break apart. The Gondwanaland might have been what it was like before the Flood.
Maybe u underestimate the ability of animals to survive and adapt in new environments.

If there was an area underground that burst open when the FOTD urupted then it would be logical to assume that that area would have collapsed in - it may well have become one of the oceans of today.
Look at the sea bed and see the fracture zones, the trenches, the mountain rigdes -something happened to cause them.

I'm not an expert in Hebrew by anymeans - but the quote you gave you said "earth" which implies land, if it was written with a capital E, then I would take it to be all life on the planet.
But as I said I don't know what the original Hebrew says, or what it meant to the people in that day and age.

No, I think most of these species have come from those that where on the ark - a beetle family could easily produce all the variatities we see today - remember they adapt to different environments and through mutations some may be better adapted - natural selection.

In essence they were made because God saw that they were good. Did God need to create plants, trees, seas etc. He could have just had us and made us not need to get hungry etc.
But God is like an artist - making things that all fit into the earth along with us.
- Also maybe they must serve a purpose otherwise why would they still survive against those that seem to have a more set purpose?

As far as I can see, no fossil shows animals in the process of evolving - remember the bird/reptile dinosaur and all the excitement over it. -It turned out to be a fake - why all the excitement if it has already been proven - surely it should just be the normal?

Also have more complex fossils that come later in the evolution time line been found "lower" in the "earth" than simpler organisms that were suppose to come way before them?

Or maybe people convince themselves that it is so inorder to convince them that they have nothing to worry about cause there is no God.
Remember the number of people believing in something does not prove that it is so - or maybe the millions and millions of people that are so convinced in Islam are right after all. Cause surely they are more convinced than you are, since many are so willing to die for their religion.

True God could have - but why should he when he can use "natural" means.
Remember God could have just made Adam and Eve - instead he chose to make Eve out of Adam's rib.

Yes, many do. Sadly they can then no longer be classed as Christians - for if you reject a literal transelation then you must therefore reject the resurrection of Jesus - or maybe they have just kidded themselves and are using double standards.

I have a question - Was Noah's boat ever found? I know a numerous expeditions have taken place but I haven't heard if anything has ever been found.
If not then why don't people mount an expedition and see if they can find the remains of Noah's boat - apparently it's suppose to be in a glacier or something?
Just interested to know.

lpetrich

The ice is left over from the Solar System's formation from an interstellar nebula. Much of it formed the Sun, while the leftover parts stayed in orbit, becoming the planets and asteroids and comets. Far from the Sun, water could condense, thus accounting for all the outer-Solar-System ice.

The answer is: they didn't. They wiggled into those meteorites as those meteorites got rained on.

This has been abundantly discussed in the geological literature. One line of evidence is paleomagnetism; one can find the magnetic latitude and orientation of a continent by studying the orientation of igneous rocks' frozen-in magnetic fields. And one finds that India has been moving northward relative to the rest of Asia.

Those rock ages provide an upper limit, since they formed while the sediments were flatland, instead of being crumpled up into mountains.

It's rather difficult to work out patterns of mantle convection, I will concede. Especially 200-150 million years ago, when Pangaea was breaking up.

And while there was a big mass extinction at the end of the Permian, but it was not a worldwide flood, and it did not create the meteorites. The fracture zones are a result of seafloor spreading, part of continental drift.

As to meteorite ages, most are about 4.5-4.6 billion years old, as opposed to the oldest known Earth rock having an age of only 4 billion years -- which shows that the meteorites could not have come from the Earth. There is a class of significantly younger ones, the shergottites, but those are most likely from Mars.

Actually, the interesting question is why all the kangaroos hopped to Australia and why none of the rabbits did. According to evolutionary biology, the answer is simple: their common ancestor was an early mammal in the Jurassic that could have wandered over most of the Earth's land area without big bodies of water getting in the way. This ancestor would have looked something like a present-day small rodent. However, as continents drifted, rabbits emerged in the northern continents and kangaroos in Australia -- and were unable to travel to their counterparts' habitats because of big bodies of the water getting in the way.

And this supposed adaptability often does not exist; many species are specialized in various ways, some to bizarre extremes. And to change from such specializations would require ... evolution.

That is, evolution. Creationists have been willing to accept the occurrence of a remarkable amount of evolution that had supposedly happened only a few hundred or thousand years after Noah's Flood.

Which is biologically absurd; if only a single individual was to be created, as God had initially done in that story, why not a parthenogenetic female?

And yes, I have had a long career of being a creator: a creator of computer programs. I am far from being either omnipotent or omniscient, but I do think I have some competence in creating.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Daggah

davidH, I'll let others go into detail in correcting you. I think it's sufficient to say:

Get over it. You're wrong.

davidH

Yes, but there is ice on the moon - that is very much nearer to the sun so no water that was formed from the nebula could have condensed this close to the sun and have formed the ice.
- True the ice is in the shaded parts of craters where the light of the sun never hits - but how did it get there?

I persume you are talking about meteorites that entered the earth's atmosphere and then passed out through again?
I doubt any bacteria could have survived the immense heat generated as it passed through the atmospere. - Plus I doubt the meorite could have passed low enough to be rained on and the earth's gravitational field not caused it to collide with the earth.

ok but that in no way tells you that all this took place millions and millions of years ago.

Yeah, but how big an upper limit are we talking about? One that went back to the formation of the rocks? - If so how can that a reliable point for knowing when the mountain formed?

So there was a massive extinction at that time - if it wasn't the flood, do you know what caused the extinction at that time?

But then the evolutionary theory raises another interesting question - if the rodent could have wandered over most of the land mass without the sea in the way - why when the continents started separating did all the "rodents" flee to the northern continents where they later evolved to rabbits? If they didn't flee why then did they not evolve to rabbits on the Australian continent?

Yes many species have been seen to become more specialised - but none ever seen to become an intirely new creature - like a small rodent to a rabbit.

Yes, but it is not "macroevolution" where one species becomes and intirely new creature - remember the different types of beetles are still all beetles.
You see this type of diversity necessarily need mutations - it can be caused from the animals already present genetic makeup, and natural selection.
If a rodent has a litter, and some of those have the genetic make up of a less furry coat than others then these will survive better in hot climates - the same with the colour of the coat and all. The other may not survive and will be "removed" by natural selection. - So a rodent with hardly any hair may be the end result.

But it is still the rodent - it has just been adapted through natural selection, no mutations have been necessary.

Yeah, but why not a female that was created from the rib of adam. You remember that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground - so eve was formed from Adam's rib.
I am curious as to why you think this to be biologically obsurd?

You are a creator of computer programs - so would you never incorporate another program that you had made into a new one that you were making?

I think the term here is "innocent until proven guilty" - all the evidience has to be submitted and verified before a conclusion has been reached.
I don't think that has been done yet.

lpetrich

If the ice is really present, and not some false alarm, then it may have been carried there by impacting comets. Which contain a lot of ice.

I think that there is a serious possibility that that ice is a false alarm, since essentially no water has been found elsewhere in the Moon.

No, I am talking about what had happened after the meteorite arrived. It would have been rained on, and this rainwater could slowly trickle through cracks in the meteorite, carrying bacteria with it.

One determines that by dating those volcanic rocks. While Siberia has stayed in the north over the last 200 million years, India had been far to the south 200 million years ago, and had moved northward since then, colliding with Siberia and producing the Himalaya and Pamir mountains. That recent earthquake in Afghanistan is a result of India continuing to try to move northward.

It is uncertain what had caused that extinction, but it certainly was not some worldwide flood. Remember that this was almost 250 million years ago, which is long before our species had made itself apparent on our planet. There would have been no Noah; humanity's ancestors back then were mammal-like reptiles.

This mass extinction was worse than the famous K-T extinction; evidence of its scope can be seen in how river valleys changed from meandering (result of plants trapping sediment with their roots) to braided (no plants to trap sediment). This means that there had been a mass extinction of land plants as well as land and sea animals. (see <a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-00zs.html" target="_blank">this article</a> for more).

What happened is that different populations of early rodent-ish mammals got separated and thus evolved in their separate directions.

What do you mean by "entirely new"? One will need a lot of changes to get from a mouse to a rabbit.

That is, evolution. Creationists have been willing to accept the occurrence of a remarkable amount of evolution that had supposedly happened only a few hundred or thousand years after Noah's Flood.

In what way are they all beetles? Do they contain some special beetle-essence?

And considering how diversified beetles are, that means an impressive amount of evolution.

The problem is this: in that story, God had first created Adam, as if he was the only one that he really wanted to create. God only created other entities when Adam got lonely. But Adam would have no direct way of reproducing, since he is male.

However, if God had originally intended to create only Eve, he could have made Eve capable of parthenogenetic reproduction (yes, virgin birth), in aphid fashion.

And in Genesis 2, God uses a chemically-absurd and gross method of creation: forming Adam from some dirt. Compare Genesis 1, where God only has to issue a command that something come into existence.

I say "chemically-absurd", because living tissue is primarily H, C, N, and O, with some P, S, and some rarer elements. However, dirt is rock powder, and most minerals in rocks are metal silicates.

I do so because I'm not omnipotent.

So every theory is to be assumed true unless shown false?

Coragyps

And a small factoid: meteorites like the Monahans, which nearly hit some kids playing basketball near here a few years ago, are typically covered with frost by the time they land. The interior is maybe -200 C, and there is only a very thin molten crust. The last few miles of fall is also at only a couple of hundred km/hr, because the fall is through dense air.

ps418

DavidH:
So there was a massive extinction at that time - if it wasn't the flood, do you know what caused the extinction at that time?

You can find plenty of information on the Permian extinction in <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/permo.htm" target="_blank">this review article.</a>

babelfish

The reason why it cracks me up that creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is this:

If you believe that all beetles and all rodents "microevolved" from one beetle and one rodent kind, then what about primates? I'm no expert, but if all the cats evolved from one cat kind, then I guess all of us bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans must have evolved from a single "ape kind" that was on the ark. Is Noah the ancestor of all the great apes then?