Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christian1:
Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up.
If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect.
Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------LOL...Crazy Kent Hovind is actually reknown for being a major pain in the butt of most creationists worldwide because of his intolerant view of well just about anyone who doesn't agree with him. He's convinced that evolution scientists and paeontologists are actually servants of lucifer and that communism and nazism are all extensions of evolutionary thinking. I have debated many creationists over the last few months and met some who are actually approaching the question of evolution Vs creation from a purely scientific perspective...their science is often very flawed but at least they are making the effort. Hovind proceed by FIRST admiting that he was convinced of the inerant nature of the Bible BEFORE giving any reflection on the question and THEN accumulates evidence which MAY be interpreted as supporting HIS view of things while completely ignoring evidence which would cast some doubts on it. I watched his online seminar,all 14 hours of it TWICE...once to be informed on what evangelical creationists like him propose and the second time purely for its comedy value...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

Why do you insist that I prove my belief?

​

LUD: oh i dont know...maybe because we discuss SCIENCE here and not theological (read:superstitious) beliefs. And BTW,have you ever considered that maybe people ask you for proof because they want a reason to believe? The hebrew in the time of Jesus alledgedly all had the benefit of miracles to aid their faith along...why cant we have that as well? i would be so much simpler that way,wouldn't it? Next time you speak to your God,bring up this point...

​

When others ask you and other evolutionist's to prove evolution, why is thier answer so incomplete and full of more beliefs?

​

LUD:well they answer to the best of their knowledge. And their "belief" as you call them are not based on dogmatic teaching but on many observable facts and on mathematical probabilities.

​

My proof is in the bible, if you want specific proof, ask Dr. Hovind, heh, if you dare or read the bible which others have taken the time to study.

​

LUD:the simple fact that you actually make this statement illustrates how little you know about science. There is no proof of anything in the Bible,save perhaps that people at the the time it was writen,whenever that was,knew how to write a good story. "Dr" Hovind (God i'm being nicer to him than he really deserves there) does seem to know a great deal about the Bible but unfortunately,not much else.

​

Dr. Hovind is much better at specifics than I am.

​

LUD:LOL...good one Chriss. Getting "Dr" Hovind,or other evengelical creationists for that matter,to talk about specifics is just about as easy as wrestling a pig in mud...most of them have yet to define what a "kind" is.

​

And the bible has already been written.

​

LUD:...So have Santa Claus stories books. Many of them were writen long before i was born. Does that mean that there's an old fat guy in a red suit living in the North Pole?

​

If you don't believe him, the bible, and God, why don't you prove me, Dr. Hovind, and the bible wrong?

​

LUD:Actually,wouldn't it be up to you,"Dr" Hovind,the Bible and God to prove to US that you are all correct?...I mean,you're the ones that want us to believe you,right?

​

And I do urge you and other evolutionist's to be truthful and not work around the questions as though they are not there.

​

LUD:Are you somehow under the impression that evolutionists are all a tightly nit group working at defending pre-conceived ideas and not researching their subject any further? Scientists are always questionning each other's conclusions. Its really a rare thing when they actually are all in full agreement over anything. Thats the main reason why Science is self correcting...the frauds cant survive for very long in this environement. How often to you see a creationist questionning the validity of the Bible?

​

I would like an answer on if we evolved, why are we not evolving?

​

LUD:Who says we aren't? Evolution does not occur overnight...its been theorised that it takes a few thousand years to see any meaningfull changes in some species,human included,as a result of evolution...we've been studying this for less than 200 years...give us some time.

​

If it is science, why can't you prove it?

​

LUD:Science cant prove even prove gravity as of yet...it can just catalogue the observable results of gravity and theorize about it...Does that mean its safe to throw yourself off a cliff? why dont you give it a try? If science has not proven it yet,then you wont wind up a big stain on the bottom of a ravine,right?

​

Do I need to prove that the Earth is there, here, everywhere?

​

LUD:Well if the earth is not here,underneath us,than its a neat trick we're doing,floating in the void.

​

Do I need to prove that we exist?

​

LUD: no...i think that this is one of the rare things which we can all agree on.

​

If my beliefs are wrong, why do so many people swear and take the lords name in vein?

​

LUD:Have you ever heard the expression "Bagning your head against the wall" in reference in reference attempting to solve a puzzling problem without much success? Well,do you think that this expression was born out of people actually hitting walls with their skulls in order to make their brains work better?

​

Who is your lord?

​

LUD:Well,i dont live in england so i dont think i have a lord. I have a landlord though. A really friendly old guy...is this who you mean?

​

I can't rationalize that "we JUST exist" or "evolved from nothing", there had to be something not nothing. If you give nothing, you get nothing, that is a fact.

​

LUD:Boy,are you the champion at battering down open doors!...Of course we came from something. Nobody in their right mind ever suggested otherwise...oh wait...Christians all believe we were all born from a void 6152 years ago...hum...i stand corrected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sld:
DR. Hovind??!!

​

You really believe that he's a doctor? If so, do you have any free cash and are you interested in some real estate down near Miami?

​

SLD

​

---

Thats true...Kent Hovind did receive a PHD in some barn school somewhere in Florida. A Doctor of what exactly,i dont really know...probably of theology or something to that effect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
ey go christian!!! woooo.
look at it this way evolutionists, God and the bible have been around in all of civilized society and are accepted as fact, we dont need evidence; you need to disprove it, good luck with that (contradictions in the bible dont prove anything other than bad story telling). Evolution is very new theory and has to be proven and still fit in with the facts already layed down, it also cant be made on any assumptions or guesses. it has to be 100% pure evidence otherwise it isnt science, even according to yourselves. we dont really need to show whats wrong with evolution, but where being nice and showing you the faults.

​

---

Very nice indeed. Only you are not succeeding at dismanteling evolution theory...you're just making it stronger by pointing out the flaws so they can be adressed. Thanks a million for that.
Oh and another thing...care to know how long people actually believed as fact that the earth was flat and stationary and that it was the sun that revolved around it? This was accepted "fact" by civilised societies for thousands of years before Galileo came along and set the record strait for everyone. And there are still people who cling to this notion to this day(ex:the flat earth society) even though its allready been demonstrated PHYSICALY that the earth is a sphere so i guess some of you dark ages refugees will likely continue to hold on to your literal belief in the fairy tale book of your choice while the rest of us will move forward in a futur of enlightened science. And that futur is edging ever so closer...just this week,they announced that scientists had just discovered evidence of macroevolution,something ALL creationists claimed was not possible in a world created by God in 6 days 6152 years ago. Oh well...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
quick question quick reply. says 2000 years of christians and even more years of judaism.

​

---

Oh...so your reply is 4000 years of superstition? well thats nice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh and Christian1. Please enlighten me- how should I interpret millions of animals being taken from all over the world in a time when the world was not mapped"
--Millions of animals were not taken on the ark, there were many, but nothing in the millions. All kinds of animals could have lived in this one particular spot, variation shows it can, they were not as specialized.

​

LUD:That always puzzles the hell out of me...whats your imperical evicence that animals were not as specialised back 4500 years ago as they are today? What evidence do you possess that say Lions,Tigers,Albino Tigers,Pumas,Cougars,Jaguars,Cheetas,Panthers,Lynxs,mountain lions and so so did not ALL exist 4500 years ago and so did not have all needed to send a pair of representatives of each sub species to still exists to this day? What evidence is there that large cat ancestry converges 4500 years ago? Patiently waiting your data so i can review it.

​

"and put on a made boat by a few men during the bronze age over 100 yrs. This boat then managed to feed and maintain millions of animals for many, many days on a rough sea"
--Actually, many people could have helped him build his boat, atleast with the factor of supplies. And again, they did not have to feet nor maintain millions of animals.

​

LUD:Yeah,the amusing Noah contracting company story from the article you linked me to the other day. Of course,there isen't the slightest shred of evidence of it...not even scriptural evidence. The autors of that article took a few lines in the book of genesis and extrapolated well beyond what common sense would allow,given such limited actual information. They did so with the clear intention of fooling casual readers into believing that they knew more about the alledged time of Noah than they actually did.

​

"including insects that would live for a maximum of three days, and required the fruit of fig trees to reproduce [figs were not aboard the ark])."
--By looking through the fossil record you would realize that insects grew to significantly larger sizes, most likely by longer life spans, insects arent a problem. Insects do not need to produce in fig trees, most all need water or moist environments to reproduce in the first place.

​

LUD:Moist environement yes...completely flooded environement,no way. Besides,the large size of insects in the fossil records would have played against them,greatly limiting their choices of refuge during the flood. Some insects were almost as large as some birds...yet birds did not survive the flood. Furthermore,your swimming pool model fails to account for three important factor...time(6-9 months+),the sheer unstable environement of an ocean(which is rarely calm water like a pool) and the many predators under the waves who eat insects found at the surface. Some biologists in my cousin's departement told me to ask you a question...to the best of your knowledge,how many formerly land dwelling insects live on the ocean today?

​

"The unicorn, which we have found no fossil records of, stayed on land and was washed away with the brackish water that would have wiped out all plants and fish that cannot tolerate both fresh and salt water."
--the unicorn? I hope your not looking for a unicorn as it is portrayed to day as being a horse with a horn on its forehead. As the biblical discription makes it as alot more of a monster than a horse. Many fish can go through changes such as high and low salinity, showing variation has taken place along with other reasons. Fish could have tolerated fresh and salt water. If you realy wanted to, depending on the fish, you could change it from salt water to fresh water or vice versa either through time, or generations.

​

LUD:yes,fishes do adapt...over time. but history has taught us that an abrupt change in environement often spell the end for most of the species living in that environement.

​

"promised that he would never create another flood that had been intended to punish humans"
--Actually he would never have a global flood peroid, by today's topography, the odds of it happening even through chance are one in a billion.

​

LUD:as i am fond of asking in this post,what evidence do you possess that the today's topography and 4500 years ago's topography are so extraordinarely different that a flood was well conceivable back then but not today? Did you know that if all the glaciers melted,much of the world today,save higher grounds,would be underwater? Its conceivable that this very thing happened in the distant past,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES and its possible it may happen again,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES.

​

"and had in the process wiped out all creatures on the planet"
--Actually he didn't wipe out all the creatures on the planet, only creatures who breath through nostrils and live on land.

​

LUD:Yes and land dwelling insects survived the flood by floating on unstable vegetation matts and fresh water fishes survived because they could dwell in bubble of fresh water in the oceans. Its all been said before,yet no one has ever presented any credible evidence to back this up. Just a few small exemples here and there which are then extrapolated to huge proportions with no considerations for the obvious problems that this entails...but if the bible say it,it must be true,right? after all,the earth has four corners,rests on pillars and Jesus did come back to bring his Father's kingdom in his appostles lifetime,didn't he?

​

"(why didn't god just click his fingers and make all but a few humans disappear?)"
--I don't wan't to get into this argument again, we already wen't over this, its by many factors that made the Flood a plausable conclusion towards God.

​

LUD:yes because God,in his all knowing power couldn't just kill everyone he didn't like and then inscribe in our genome the knowledge of what he did so we would know all of this instinctively and be abilitated to make our choices with INSTINCTIVE knowledge of right and wrong...I'm telling you TC,if we are to believe the Bible's accounts of God,he seems to reflect like a very stupid and superstitious man...kinda like the Bible autors...interesting...

​

"Then a few people who had apparently lived for 100 yrs in order to make a boat to save all the animal species on the planet"
--Actually they lived to about 900 years, Noah was 600 when the event took place. And 'animal species' is inaccurate, I'm sure the most inexperienced debater in the creation and evolution topic would know this.

​

LUD:This is the most amusing part about creationists...they accuse evolutionists of inventing billion year long periods of time to make the evolution theory work yet they themselves invent 900 year old people to make THEIR beliefs work. No one has ever observed the lifetime of someone lasting 900 years save perhaps in cancer cells...and not even that,since no one has seen a cancer strand replicate for 900 years. The longevity of the Biblical patriarch is pure mythology and will remain mythology until your side can provide actual evidence of people living so damn long...it doesn't have to be 900. People who lived so long would have had a much slower life cycle,so their bodies would have been that of a child,a teen or a young adult for MUCH LONGUER than ours...show me a 30 year old human being that still has the body of a toddler and i'll buy into the patriarch belief no question asked.

​

"(excluding the dinosaurs, who didn't esist during this day)"
--Dinosaurs sure did live in his day.

​

LUD:Funny how the fossil record just dont say that.

​

"somehow reproduced in Turkey and restored all cultures on the planet in their original forms"
--original forms wouldn't be right, but otherwize this is correct.

​

LUD:evidence,evidence,evidence...

​

"including the Egyptians and Chinese, who made no note of the great flood."
--Yes, Egypt and China both have flood legends, much of the Egyptian flood has been taken the factor of age and the like, China on the other hand has many variations of Flood legends.

​

LUD:someday,someone will have to teach you the difference between LOCAL flood,which occur all the time,and GLOBAL flood,which may have happened long ago over the course of many centuries. Most flood legends are LOCAL flood legends.

​

"Of course they restored all the cultures and the cities, including the pyramids."
--Restored?

​

LUD:yes,restaured...the great pyramyd of Gise and the sphynx are said to be over 5000 years old...yet they show no sign of ever having been underwater.

​

"They then began farming a few years later in the salt soaked soil."
--Farming probably was something taking place after the flood.

​

LUD:according to the Bible,Cain was a farmer so even the Bible claims that farming began well before the flood...and since we know it today to be the primary source of food for the human race,there's no reason to believe that it wasn't so 4500 years ago...hell,the Bible even says that vegetation is what people were supposed to eat. Heavily salinated soils would not have been able to produce plants for decades,if not more. and they couldn't eat the animals they had just saved from the flood either,since all clean beasts were sacrificed (sacrifice means no part of them were consumed by man) and the unclean beasts had to reproduce.

​

"At the same time, the two representatives of species in South America managed to head throught the deserts of the Mideast, the tundras of Siberia, the rockies of north america, and the blaring humidity of s. america back to their homes, which were stripped of all habitats."
--there is a major problem with your argument...do you know what the Flood theory is, even parts of it?

​

LUD:He raises a god point...how did the animals of south america or australia reached the ME? Oh i forget...the world was completely different back then,even though we have no evidence to show that...

​

"They managed to do this without eating any food, as all vegetation was killed"
--On the contrary, vegetation would have been massivly abundant.

​

LUDk i'm stumped...HOW?

​

"and did so without having one animal dying on the trail, as of course there have been no remains of koalas been found, in lets say asia."
--Many probably died on the trail, the problem is, as I am sure you know, fossilization requires specific conditions. so even if koala's had produced the variation of actually being koala's at the time, you would most likely not find one.

​

LUD:i think what he means is you are asking us to believe that none of the ark couples lost any members on their swim back home...oh thats right...they walked because the oceans has all dried out. silly me...

​

"the fossils of only very primitive looking animals were fossilized, while other modern animals were not fossilized."
--No, they were all fossilized in the same time period, what is your argument asserting?

​

LUD:they were not all fossilized that the same time and the geologic columns are ample proof of this...just because creationists CHOOSE to disreguard this evicence because it doesn't compute with THEIR beliefs does not make it untrue.

​

"Hmmm... on second thought, it all seems to make sense now..."
--Don't I wish.

​

LUD:yeah i bet you do...

​

"If you really ignore all common logic, it actuaally starts to seem possible. If only I wasa little more ignorant..."
--If the way you propose the biblical flood were true, it would be in big trouble, luckly, its nothing in its likeness.

​

LUD: But he does make a valid point...our observation of what occured 4500 years ago HAS to start with the observable present which is then extrapolated slowly and piece by piece with testing all allong until it can give us an idea of what things were like back then...But your begin with a pre-determined completely different past and then make up all sort of improbable assertions to explain how that pre-determined past turned into the observable present...he's right...the only way we can follow you is if we abandon all logical thinking along the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUD:That always puzzles the hell out of me...whats your imperical evicence that animals were not as specialised back 4500 years ago as they are today? What evidence do you possess that say Lions,Tigers,Albino Tigers,Pumas,Cougars,Jaguars,Cheetas,Panthers,Lynxs,mountain lions and so so did not ALL exist 4500 years ago and so did not have all needed to send a pair of representatives of each sub species to still exists to this day? What evidence is there that large cat ancestry converges 4500 years ago? Patiently waiting your data so i can review it."
--You can find out a rudimentary evidence, as I don't think you can look in the fossil record for this evidence, (as all it is is bones in most cases) for instance, tigers and lions can breed, showing variation has taken place to this large extent, the various bear kinds can breed, also the killer whale and dolphin.

​

LUD:Here we go again..(those are getting to be some very long threads)...I've never questionned the obvious fact that big cats have a common ancestry...just your assertion that this ancestry converged to 4500 years ago,which is substanciated by no facts whatsoever. Same with dolphins and killer whale (which btw are not even needed in the expemple,since they weren't on the alledged ark.

​

"LUD:Yeah,the amusing Noah contracting company story from the article you linked me to the other day. Of course,there isen't the slightest shred of evidence of it...not even scriptural evidence."
--Really, what else would you attempt to be even able to look for besides the scriptural depiction:

​

Genesis 5:29 - He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."

​

youngs literal translation:

​

Genesis 5:29 - and calleth his name Noah, saying, `This [one] doth comfort us concerning our work, and concerning the labour of our hands, because of the ground which Jehovah hath cursed.'

​

LUD:what i would expect is for people not to make broad extrapolation based on so little evidence just to try and sound convincing.

​

"The autors of that article took a few lines in the book of genesis and extrapolated well beyond what common sense would allow,given such limited actual information. They did so with the clear intention of fooling casual readers into believing that they knew more about the alledged time of Noah than they actually did."
--I don't see what your trying to say?

​

LUD:What i'm trying to say is that scientists practicaly never describe the past in such details because so many things about it remain a mistery. And because people have a tendency to listen more people who dont make them think too much,the autors of the article are painting a picture that is unrealisticaly clear and precise about the days of Noah in the hope that people will believe them over the realisticaly vague descriptions of scientists. This is very dishonest in my opinion.

​

"LUD:Moist environement yes...completely flooded environement,no way. Besides,the large size of insects in the fossil records would have played against them,greatly limiting their choices of refuge during the flood."
--I asked you earlier why this would have been a dissadvantage, I don't believe I got a response. Also, who said they were all the big ones that lived through the flood?

​

LUD:Both big and small insects could have survived a world wide flood,period. The only expert on insects i could talk too is a friend of my cousin and work at the montreal insectarium. At my cuz's behest,i gave him a call and when i suggested that ridiculous notion,he could barely contain his laughter. He explained to me that while many insects actually live by water and lay their eggs in it,its always FRESH water because high salination is extremely lethal to them. He also agree with me that vegetation matts would have constantly been washed by waves during the nearly one year long cruise and no insects could have survived this ordeal for very long. His opinion(which i assume is based on his 21 years of experience on the subject) is that if there was a biblical flood,Noah ABSOLUTELY HAD to take the insects with him...find me an insect expert who says otherwise and we'll talk some more then.

​

"Some insects were almost as large as some birds...yet birds did not survive the flood."
--Birds would have had to stay in flight, they can't stay in flight for that lenght of time.

​

LUD:large insects would have faced the exact same problem. And if large anthropods like tarentulas could have survived the flood,why not small birds and rodents?

​

"Furthermore,your swimming pool model fails to account for three important factor...time(6-9 months+),the sheer unstable environement of an ocean(which is rarely calm water like a pool) and the many predators under the waves who eat insects found at the surface."
--Well Sorry, I can't put a vegetation mat as big as the amazon in my pool, the ocean environment would have been drastic in many places, though with the sheer size of the mats many though some wouldn't have been swampt.

​

LUD:So you are assuming that there were vegetation mats as large as the amazon that could form in the churning water of the biblical flood? hum...

​

"Some biologists in my cousin's departement told me to ask you a question...to the best of your knowledge,how many formerly land dwelling insects live on the ocean today?"
--Well probably next to zero, but ofcourse they don't have those mats of vegetation like the flood would have had.

​

LUD:and why exactly would there be large vegetation mats formed by the flood?

​

"LUD:yes,fishes do adapt...over time. but history has taught us that an abrupt change in environement often spell the end for most of the species living in that environement."
--Right.

​

LUD: So you agree that the massive change in salination of the water for different species of fish would have spelled their doom.

​

"LUD:as i am fond of asking in this post,what evidence do you possess that the today's topography and 4500 years ago's topography are so extraordinarely different that a flood was well conceivable back then but not today?"
--Plate tectonics and folded layers, showing that tectonic activity occured during and after the Flood (or whatever layed down the layers). for instance, the himilayas did not exist as they are almost completely formed with folded sediment terrain.

​

LUD:yes,i understand all that...why did it happen 4500 years ago...what evidence in today's geology points to 4500 years ago?

​

"Did you know that if all the glaciers melted,much of the world today,save higher grounds,would be underwater?"
--Much of it would, yes, so how are you going to melt all those glaciers anywhere in the next couple hundred or thousand years (unless ofcourse humanity made melting the ice caps a goal and priority).

​

LUD: a big change in the temperature of the atmosphere might to it. Geologists are adament there there were not one but several ice ages over the course of the earth's history...and then there's humanitie's growing emmission of carbon dioxide causing global warming.

​

"? Its conceivable that this very thing happened in the distant past,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES and its possible it may happen again,OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES."
--Well atleast we are getting 'somewhere', though why do you presume that it would have taken centuries?

​

LUD:well i dont see anything that would melt the glaciers inside anything less than a few decades and if it had happened slowly,people and animals could have survived it without the need for an ark.

​

"LUD:Yes and land dwelling insects survived the flood by floating on unstable vegetation matts and fresh water fishes survived because they could dwell in bubble of fresh water in the oceans."
--The vegetation mats were not exactly 'unstable' it would have been a bit of a ride, but werent unstable. And fresh water fish would not have had to dwell in bubbles of fresh water in the oceans, though this is possible.

​

LUD:have you ever thrown a fresh water truit in ocean water? it dies within minutes from salt poisoning. And the large waves of the oceans would constantly disrupt large vegetation matts,not to mention washing them in salt water daily. I've been on a cruise in the St-laurent Gulf a couple of years back...on a good day,the water is uniformly calm...on a bad day,the waves sometime rose as high as the ship,which was very big...and this was nothing compared to the conditions on the high seas. The sailors told me that some waves on seas have the potential to overturn a cruise ship if they hit from the side...imagine a vegetation matt...or even Noah's boat,which had no steering.

​

"Its all been said before,yet no one has ever presented any credible evidence to back this up. Just a few small exemples here and there which are then extrapolated to huge proportions with no considerations for the obvious problems that this entails"
--So what is it that I would have to show you to make it plausable, if what I have told you so far is not?

​

LUD:well,lets take the insect exemple. I've described to you the condition that would make for a good experiment about vegetation matts and insects. Whilke i realize that your means may be limited(and even if i make a lot of doe myself,i dont want to spend it on something i'm allready convinced is futile),contact one of your creationists institute and ask them if they would fund such an experiment. once you get the result,we'll look over them and if they are convincing,i'll fund your creationist venture,whatever it may be...what do you say?

​

"but if the bible say it,it must be true,right?"
--If you wan't to believe that sure, I am showing you it is alot more plausable than anyone would begin to think.

​

LUD:its not that i DONT WANT to believe the Bible...its that i cant believe those parts of it while keeping common sense and logic,both of whom are important to my identity as a human being. But as i said,show me a plausible representation of one of those occurences and i'll reconsider. Since i dont lead a sinfull life to begin with(at least,i dont think i do),it wont be much of a hassle to re-convert to christianity.

​

"after all,the earth has four corners,rests on pillars and Jesus did come back to bring his Father's kingdom in his appostles lifetime,didn't he?
--I've already shown that it doesn't say that it has four corners, what is the resting on pillars thing?, and I have shown that there is no contredictino in the prophesy.

​

LUD:yes it does speak of the four corners of the earth and the pillars of the earth. As for the prophecy,.HUH? som,e of the 12 original apostles of Jesus are still alive today? Where...i so want to meet them...

​

"LUD:yes because God,in his all knowing power couldn't just kill everyone he didn't like and then inscribe in our genome the knowledge of what he did so we would know all of this instinctively and be abilitated to make our choices with INSTINCTIVE knowledge of right and wrong...I'm telling you TC,if we are to believe the Bible's accounts of God,he seems to reflect like a very stupid and superstitious man...kinda like the Bible autors...interesting..."
--you don't have to be sarcastic, give me a reason why it was 'a stupid' thing to do.

​

LUD:well,wouldn't it be simpler(and well within the abilities of an all powerfull God) to just kill the sinfull people and program knowledge of right and wrong at an instinctive level in all humanity?

​

"LUD:This is the most amusing part about creationists...they accuse evolutionists of inventing billion year long periods of time to make the evolution theory work yet they themselves invent 900 year old people to make THEIR beliefs work."
--I already shown you the evidence, and you have repeatedly failed to continue the discussion, because you asserted that therer is no medical evidence to back it up, yet I gave you 'direct' medical evidence.

​

LUD:you gave me ONE piece of evidence that you extrapolated well beyond its possible context(cancerous cells alledgedly multiplying ad infinitum translated into 900 year old people). Its the same as with your lion...one lion does not make a rule,just as one piece of medical evidence(however interesting it may be) does not make a 900 year old man. Science drawn conclusions on each of its fields of study based on TONS of evidence...not just on or two.

​

"No one has ever observed the lifetime of someone lasting 900 years save perhaps in cancer cells...and not even that,since no one has seen a cancer strand replicate for 900 years."
--This is the same thing as me saying 'No one has observed an amoeba produce a human, so I'm not going to believe it untill it does, and I'm not going to believe that the world is billions of years old, untill I can see it live for another billion years', it doesn't get you too far ludvanB.

​

LUD:indeed it doesn't,i'll concede the point.

​

"The longevity of the Biblical patriarch is pure mythology and will remain mythology until your side can provide actual evidence of people living so damn long...it doesn't have to be 900."
--I already gave it to you and it wasn't just 'cancer cells', are you going to continue asserting this, or will you accept it in full possibility?

​

LUD:and i've all ready told you that i dont reject the POSSIBILITY of it(hell,living 900 year would be very neet) but based on the evidence we have so far,it very improbable that we A:even did and B:ever will.

​

"People who lived so long would have had a much slower life cycle,so their bodies would have been that of a child,a teen or a young adult for MUCH LONGUER than ours...show me a 30 year old human being that still has the body of a toddler and i'll buy into the patriarch belief no question asked."
--They wouldn't have had a slower life cycle, as I already showed you their 'cycle' can continue for these emense periods of time. (see above)

​

LUD:actually,you havent shown me that their life cycle would or wouldn't be slower...care to elaborate? Why wouldn't their life cycle be slower?

​

"LUD:Funny how the fossil record just dont say that."
--Assuming that the fossil record accounts for geologic periods of time, again you can't use the evolutionary framework to work with the biblical event, likewize you can't use the biblical framework to work with the evolutionary events. So then, what evidence is there that they didn't live then?

​

LUD:i certainly can use geologic evidence to COUNTER biblical assertions because they are based on science,not doctrinal dogma.

​

"LUD:evidence,evidence,evidence..."
--(See top) tigers-lions, dolphins-killer whales, etc.

​

LUD: ok...evidence that it occused 4500 years ago...sorry if that wawesn't clear.

​

"LUD:someday,someone will have to teach you the difference between LOCAL flood,which occur all the time,and GLOBAL flood,which may have happened long ago over the course of many centuries. Most flood legends are LOCAL flood legends."
--And this proves.... You wanted flood legends, I gave you hundreds of them, now you want them to all be the same, next thing you know, you'll wan't the guy to be Noah, have the guy have 3 sons and wives, etc. It is obviously typical, I already shown this.

​

LUD:Hundreds? try 2 dozen at most,all of whom are local floods,making no mention of the whole world being swallowed by waters. try again...

​

"LUD:yes,restaured...the great pyramyd of Gise and the sphynx are said to be over 5000 years old...yet they show no sign of ever having been underwater."
--The erosion sure shows alot, though It could have been weathering by wind factors but by a linear dating by current erosion it would be dated at 7000-5000 BC. There is even debate on when the sphinx and the pyramids were made, and it doesn't seem to be based on anything conclusive. I found that the sphinx is dated at about 2520-2500 BC.

​

LUD:that actually doesn't work all that well,because it means that 8 people would have had to build it...and its not far from what i said....5000 years old means 3000 BC. And why would these particular construction,assuming there are pre flood,would have survived and no other did?

​

"LUD:according to the Bible,Cain was a farmer so even the Bible claims that farming began well before the flood...and since we know it today to be the primary source of food for the human race,there's no reason to believe that it wasn't so 4500 years ago...hell,the Bible even says that vegetation is what people were supposed to eat. Heavily salinated soils would not have been able to produce plants for decades,if not more. and they couldn't eat the animals they had just saved from the flood either,since all clean beasts were sacrificed (sacrifice means no part of them were consumed by man) and the unclean beasts had to reproduce."
--1.)Yes the bible says cain was a farmer and thus farmed the land. 2.)Soil that was heavily salinated would not have been a factor for very long, given the water cycle, also magma makes excelent for nutrient soil, in some places this would have been present. 3.)Sacrifices would have taken place after they could have reproduced, also because it would have taken him some time to create the alter.

​

Genesis 8:17 - and they have teemed in the earth, and been fruitful, and have multiplied on the earth.'

​

LUD:unsubstanciated biblical quotes non wistanding,why did you claim that farming appeared AFTER the flood. Also,the Bible says that Noah sacrificed ALL the clean beasts they had and salinated soils stay salinated for quite some time,despite water cycles...far longuer than needed for everyone being sustained by this to starve to death.

​

"LUD:He raises a god point...how did the animals of south america or australia reached the ME? Oh i forget...the world was completely different back then,even though we have no evidence to show that..."
--Yes, the world was always the same, the continents don't move, speciation doesn't take place, etc. (sarcastic). The animals in south america, didn't need to be in south america.

​

LUD:they didn't...there were NO animals on south america in Noah's time?

​

"LUDk i'm stumped...HOW?"
--Vegetation floats on water when it is condensed into piles, especially if vegetation were on top of trees.

​

LUD:rotting vegetation soaked in salt water...thats what they ate comming out of the ark?

​

"LUD:i think what he means is you are asking us to believe that none of the ark couples lost any members on their swim back home...oh thats right...they walked because the oceans has all dried out. silly me..."
--Ok good then.

​

LUD:in case you dind't notice,that was a sarcasm,which i thought was self evident. I dont buy your ocean drying model for one damn minute and neither do most serious geologists for obvious reasons. the sheer heat needed to boils off the oceans in such a short time would have poached everyone,Noah included.

​

"LUD:they were not all fossilized that the same time and the geologic columns are ample proof of this...just because creationists CHOOSE to disreguard this evicence because it doesn't compute with THEIR beliefs does not make it untrue."
--I think I know what you 'mean', that they were not all burried at the same time, which is what I said, I said same time 'period'. What is the evidence against it if it is so abundant.

​

LUD:the geologic column...what evidence SUPPORTING your model is there aside the Bible?

​

"LUD: But he does make a valid point..."
--He makes valid points yes, but they are basics in Flood theory that have already been addressed.

​

LUDbviously not to his or my satisfactiuon,since we dont seem to buy it.

​

"our observation of what occured 4500 years ago HAS to start with the observable present which is then extrapolated slowly and piece by piece with testing all allong until it can give us an idea of what things were like back then..."
--Basically right.

​

LUD:you know,its so rare that we agree on something that a feel the need to mark this moment in the annals...there,its done.

​

"But your begin with a pre-determined completely different past and then make up all sort of improbable assertions to explain how that pre-determined past turned into the observable present...he's right...the only way we can follow you is if we abandon all logical thinking along the way."
--I have addressed many of these questions, tell me in some detail exactly what is it that is the problem, and what it would take for it to be probable if I have not already shown it as such.

​

LUD:i have explained to you on several occasions that while you do present POSSIBLE arguments,you dont present a reason why they should be considered LIKELY or PROBABLE arguments.

​

fiou...that was long...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUD:Here we go again..(those are getting to be some very long threads)...I've never questionned the obvious fact that big cats have a common ancestry"
--Great, thats my point, and this is speciation, they have common ancestry.

​

LUD:We agree here at least...

​

"just your assertion that this ancestry converged to 4500 years ago,which is substanciated by no facts whatsoever."
--Why, do you think that it takes vast periods of time for this to be applied?

​

LUD:weather it may or may not take large amounts of time to obtain such diverse speciacion from two "generic" big cats is not what i asked...I asked what evidence YOU know of that would conceivably lead one to conclude that the big cat ancestry converges to 4500 years ago. In short,i'm not asking if its possible...i'm asking what evidence is there that it happened that way?

​

"LUD:what i would expect is for people not to make broad extrapolation based on so little evidence just to try and sound convincing."
--Ok thats nice, but my question was, what would you expect the bible to say for my argument to be true?

​

LUD:well,i would expect it to go into much more details for starters. Creationists claim that Noah had aquired enough knowledge in 600 years to build this large boat and keep all the animals alive in it. I want to know what leads them to this conclusion. What did Noah do in his life,when he wasen't busy saving animals and people...besides convert oxygen to carbon dioxide(unless they didn't do that either back then...). What were his interests? He was said to be a good man...How? What was his life? How was his wife called? how about his daughters in law? What did HE do after the flood,beside grow a vine and get drunk? Why do we know more about pharaos of that general time period than we do about the alledged savior of the human and animal races? Why is there virtually no mention of Noah in any other place than a few cryptic passages in hebrew religious documents? Such informations would have gone to great lenght to convince me that this guy was actually more than the figment of some writer's imagination.

​

"LUD:What i'm trying to say is that scientists practicaly never describe the past in such details because so many things about it remain a mistery."
--This is back to the creationism model, like I say, we can only say that hey, a flood happend and it could have happend like this, and we say hey the earth is young, but we can't give it a date like 6000 years in this. What we do is we take the scientific research, and then we say hey, this can cooperate with what the bible says, so those are our details. It is a mystery technically.

​

LUD:The flood does not even qualify as a mistery...A mistery would be"well we know for certain that it happened bu we dont know how"...we cant even say that we know the Flood happened,since it left virtually no evidence.

​

"And because people have a tendency to listen more people who dont make them think too much,the autors of the article are painting a picture that is unrealisticaly clear and precise about the days of Noah in the hope that people will believe them over the realisticaly vague descriptions of scientists. This is very dishonest in my opinion."
--I don't see any dishonesty, I see an idea on how things may have been, its like watching a movie that is based on a true story.

​

LUD:Those movies are never made based on a few cryptic,unconfirmed passages in an old book somewhere...when they make a movie about a true story,they actually KNOW the details of it and speculation is left to a minimum.

​

"LUD:Both big and small insects could have survived a world wide flood,period."
--Ok.

​

LUD:Sorry...that should have read COULDN'T HAVE SURVIVED...

​

"The only expert on insects i could talk too is a friend of my cousin and work at the montreal insectarium."
--You seem to have alot of connections, at least it is helpful.

​

LUD:I have one or two connection,who themselve have many connections but not in all fields...i have no connection to any geologists,archeologists,anthropologists or paleontologists...there are not such branche of study here in Quebec City...at least not to the level of such ancient times.

​

"At my cuz's behest,i gave him a call and when i suggested that ridiculous notion,he could barely contain his laughter. He explained to me that while many insects actually live by water and lay their eggs in it,its always FRESH water because high salination is extremely lethal to them."
--I found this interesting on encarta:

​

--With 40 days of rain that would have been going on, fresh water would have condensed towards to top of the ocean.

​

LUD:Actually,that doesn't make much sense...the salt water would simply have mixed with the rain water...it might have reduced the salinity index of the ocean on the surface during the rain and for the few days that followed its end but it wouldn't have been very noticable and due to the intense underwater churning due to the sysmic activity of the supposed fountains of the deep,it wouldn't have lasted very long.

​

"He also agree with me that vegetation matts would have constantly been washed by waves during the nearly one year long cruise and no insects could have survived this ordeal for very long."
--How Did you come to that agreement, what did you take into account?

​

LUD:Well,large waves would have constantly been hitting the mats,dispersing them,turning them over and even sinking them...seas are rarely calm even on a good day.

​

"LUD:large insects would have faced the exact same problem. And if large anthropods like tarentulas could have survived the flood,why not small birds and rodents?"
--Insects and most anthropods are much much lighter than birds, also, birds even if they attempted to land, would have been overcome by insects.

​

LUD:not true....small birds are lighter than some large beetles and most hunting spiders like tarentulas and mygales so any vegetation matts and trees that could sustain the weight of those insects would also support birds up to a certain size(I'd say robin and down in weight). Also,birds would have had a much better chance of surviving than most insects since they could always take to the air to avoid waves crashing on their vegetation matts and even find a new one if the old matts was sunk by a violent wave or a wirlpool...the other insects would simply go under with the matt and die.

​

"LUD:So you are assuming that there were vegetation mats as large as the amazon that could form in the churning water of the biblical flood? hum..."
--I didn't mean it in that context, what I meant was, the amount of vegetation that the amazon (actually much more) posesses would have been drifting in the ocean, much of it being swampt, most only the areas where they would not have been constantly bombarded by waves would have been a place of abundant insect life.

​

LUD:well,first and fomemost,no it wouldn't...most of it would remain underwater and whatever vegetation actually did wind up on the surface wouldn't have the stable conditions needed to form swamp-like matts for any appreciable amounts of time.

​

"LUD:and why exactly would there be large vegetation mats formed by the flood?"
--Vegetation, particularely tree's will float in water, they don't just sink to the bottom for a bit of time.

​

LUDead,dried trees will float for sometime on calm water but most trees in the flood would have remained below the waves. When wood mills workers used to bring trees to the mill via rivers,they had to hurry up and guide the trunks to the mill as quickly as they could before the center of the trunk became soaked,at which point the tree would sink at the bottom of the river. They would always lose about 20% of the trees they funneled this way,which is why this means of transporting trees was eventually abandonned by most industries.

​

"LUD: So you agree that the massive change in salination of the water for different species of fish would have spelled their doom."
--For many who would have already diversified enough to be unable to cooperate with this change, yes they would have died, and would have in some cases gone extinct, though many would not have suffered this fate.

​

LUD:fresh water fishes who had spend 1600 years in fresh water(from creation to flood) would all have been specialized to fresh water environement...none of them would have survived such a massive intake of high salination in their environement.

​

"LUD:yes,i understand all that...why did it happen 4500 years ago...what evidence in today's geology points to 4500 years ago?"
--By the mechenisms for the Flood, this can be accomplished. Also I believe that there is evidence that magnetic variation went wild at some point in time, showing tectonic activity was going at fantastic rates.

​

LUD:indeed there is,the so called reversal of the magnetic field on the mid atlantic ridge. Who ever presented evidence that this occured 4500 years ago?

​

"LUD: a big change in the temperature of the atmosphere might to it. Geologists are adament there there were not one but several ice ages over the course of the earth's history..."
--I've tried to discuss this before, what is the evidence that they base this on?

​

LUD:this is based on global warming theories of environementalist scientists,who speculate that at the present rate of warming,the polar glaciers would completely melt over the course of the 21th century.

​

"and then there's humanitie's growing emmission of carbon dioxide causing global warming."
--The more carbon dioxide you have, the happier plants will be, so it will take a bit of time, also, to melt all the glaciers, I think you would have to raise temperatures quite significantly, as antarctica at its pole has averages well below zero.

​

LUD:the fact that plants would be happy makes absolutely no difference in the amount of time it takes to melt glaciers.

​

"LUD:well i dont see anything that would melt the glaciers inside anything less than a few decades and if it had happened slowly,people and animals could have survived it without the need for an ark."
--Glaciers would not have had to melt significantly, glaciers would have melted from the oceans heating up a bit, but in this same effect, a global warming process would have set in by blocking sunlight, so the water would have been sucked right back up into the glaicers about mid-flood and thereafter. And with the topography in the time (slightly higher ocean basins and no mountain ranges) this water would have created significant effects.

​

LUD:Greenhouse gases let the sun in...they just keep the heat from getting out. and what makes you think that there were no mountain ranges 4500 years ago?

​

"LUD:have you ever thrown a fresh water truit in ocean water? it dies within minutes from salt poisoning."
--LoL, well of course the thing is going to die, your not going to have changes like that.

​

LUD:the truits of the flood would have had to adapt this quickly.

​

"And the large waves of the oceans would constantly disrupt large vegetation matts,not to mention washing them in salt water daily."
--I showed above how water salinity towards the first possibly hundred feet or so depth would have been very low if it was at all. And I am wondering how are your waves going to act when you have no continents for it to build up its splash peak wave characteristic.

​

LUD:You have presented an hypothesis but no fact to back it up so in effect,you have shown me nothing. I seriously doubt that rain would have reduced the water salinity on the survace by any appreciable degree but i will inquire on the question nevertheless. As for the waves,i think you really need to get informed a little better. Waves are most often the result of wind and underwater current...if anything,continents break waves and reduce them...case in point,the St-Laurent Gulf,which,although large is basicaly inland and is not animated with 100 feet high waves,such as are often observed on the high seas.

​

"I've been on a cruise in the St-laurent Gulf a couple of years back...on a good day,the water is uniformly calm...on a bad day,the waves sometime rose as high as the ship,which was very big..."
--What kind of waves were they? What were the characteristics of the wave.

​

LUD:what do you mean,what kind of waves?...not the kind that would sink a cruise ship...that doesn't happen inland.

​

"and this was nothing compared to the conditions on the high seas. The sailors told me that some waves on seas have the potential to overturn a cruise ship if they hit from the side...imagine a vegetation matt...or even Noah's boat,which had no steering."
--What is it that causes such waves, this is probably a good discussion, on the ocean characteristics during the flood.

​

LUD:as i said,high winds and water currents...moon cycles also plays an important role.

​

"LUD:well,lets take the insect exemple. I've described to you the condition that would make for a good experiment about vegetation matts and insects."
--I was hoping it would be considerable, I don't have millions of dollars.

​

LUD:i dont either...yet.

​

"Whilke i realize that your means may be limited(and even if i make a lot of doe myself,i dont want to spend it on something i'm allready convinced is futile),contact one of your creationists institute and ask them if they would fund such an experiment."
--Thats a good idea, i'll probably contact some of them and see what their solution would be.

​

LUD:you do that.

​

"once you get the result,we'll look over them and if they are convincing,i'll fund your creationist venture,whatever it may be...what do you say?"
--That would be a good idea for a factual conclusion, untill then we can only see in theory.

​

LUD:in my opinion,it would simply confirm what i told you all along but if they do make this experiment,i'll still be curious to see the actual results.

​

"LUD:its not that i DONT WANT to believe the Bible...its that i cant believe those parts of it while keeping common sense and logic,both of whom are important to my identity as a human being."
--Likewize, but I have been unable to locate a passage in the bible that seems that it violates this.

​

LUD:thats because you just interpret the passages in a way which makes more sense then what it actually says...i'd be curious to speak to whoever wrote this,to see what they actually meant...oh well...time machine,get invented allready!!!

​

"But as i said,show me a plausible representation of one of those occurences and i'll reconsider."
--I think were well under way, these debates arent just an in and out kind of thing all the time ya know.

​

LUD:i'm afraid its actually the other way around myself...

​

"Since i dont lead a sinfull life to begin with(at least,i dont think i do),it wont be much of a hassle to re-convert to christianity."
--Well we all do of course as I am sure you probably get sick of hearing, lead a sinful life, and I'm sure you know the rest. But that would be great to see you reconsider.

​

LUD:being reasonable means remaining open to all possibilities...but it also means considering the PROBABILITIES as well.

​

"As for the prophecy,.HUH? som,e of the 12 original apostles of Jesus are still alive today? Where...i so want to meet them..."
--These prophesies were not speaking of the apostles but speaking of us, humanity, mabye the literal translation would give some more insite, what was the 'contredition'?

​

LUD:thats a good exemple of personal re-interpretation right there. The passage clearly says that Jesus would be comming back IN THE APOSTLES LIFETIME...a lifetime still means "until you die" as far as i know. The passages did not say "in your descendent's lifetime",which could conceivably have been interpreted as meaning "the human race lifetime".

​

"LUD:you gave me ONE piece of evidence that you extrapolated well beyond its possible context(cancerous cells alledgedly multiplying ad infinitum translated into 900 year old people)."
--And I gave you the reason that cancerous cells can repllicate in this way, and also gave examples of test subjects showing it plays a major part in an organism's life-span.

​

LUD:What you have not shown me is evicence that this medical condition ever existed outside a laboratory or that they ever applied to any human being at any point in earth's history,which is what i mean by extrapolation beyond resonable levels...

​

"Its the same as with your lion...one lion does not make a rule,just as one piece of medical evidence(however interesting it may be) does not make a 900 year old man. Science drawn conclusions on each of its fields of study based on TONS of evidence...not just on or two."
--In the context of this argument, I could say that mutation isn't enough to say that evolution could have occured, because that is only one example of how it happend. The Telomere activity is direct evidence toward organism life-span, and is even a big interesting topic in science.

​

LUD:the sheer number of observed mutation is evidence that there is an evolution in progress...But the exemple of ONE specific mutation(Lion eating no meat) is NOT evidence that Lions used to be grass eaters

​

"LUD:and i've all ready told you that i dont reject the POSSIBILITY of it(hell,living 900 year would be very neet) but based on the evidence we have so far,it very improbable that we A:even did and B:ever will."
--The evidence we have so far is extreamly conclusive, we can extend an organisms life-span significantly, unfortunatelly they definantly won't allow testing on humans.

​

LUDk...lets look at it a different way,since you dont seem to understand my problem with your argument. I have a computer today,which i'm using to write this...so do you,if you can read this. Is this evidence that people 5000 years ago had computers as well? Do you understand now?

​

"LUD:actually,you havent shown me that their life cycle would or wouldn't be slower...care to elaborate? Why wouldn't their life cycle be slower?"
--Because bodily functions and all would have gone at the same regular human rate. The thing that makes their life-span so significantly longer, is because their bodies instead of wearing out after 40 (or whatever age) the bodily tissue at the celluar level doesn't stop replicating, so you simply continue in this way.

​

LUD:But that still doesn't explain to me why their life cycles wouldn't be much slower as well,if the degredation in their bodies occured on a much slower rate.

​

"LUD:i certainly can use geologic evidence to COUNTER biblical assertions because they are based on science,not doctrinal dogma."
--Ok then this is a different argument than you asserted previously, what is the evidence that it does contredict the biblical flood?

​

LUD:If the flood model assert that the stratas are the result of hydrological sorting,then the geologic columns contradict this assertion because hydrological sorting would deposite the heavier bodies on the bottom of the sorting and the lightest bodies on the top,which is not consistant with the columns. The cambrian stratas for instance dont contain large dinosaurs...Just small critters.

​

"LUD: ok...evidence that it occused 4500 years ago...sorry if that wawesn't clear."
--Speciation is quite rapid, how does speciation require lengthly time periods.

​

LUD:What exemples of rapid speciacion has been observed that could lead us to conclude that it began 4500 years ago?

​

"LUD:that actually doesn't work all that well,because it means that 8 people would have had to build it..."
--Huh? There were alot more people before the flood than 8. And world repopulation would have been quite rapid.

​

LUD:Why...they had about 4-5 kids every centuries accoring to the Bible. And the Sphinx most likely required thoudands of workers to build...since it is placed as being about 2500 BC,just a few months after the flood,explain this feat of rabbit reproduction to me please.

​

"and its not far from what i said....5000 years old means 3000 BC. And why would these particular construction,assuming there are pre flood,would have survived and no other did?"
--Because of the sheer size of the structures, each of the massive boulders weigh many tons, the force of water would have done very little damage in its whole. So what is it that makes it evident that it was built before or after, (whenever it was built) the Flood.

​

LUD:It may have survived the flood,assuming it was pre-flood but most of its features would have been erroded away by it...and i doubt it could have survived the recede of the water,which are said to have occured in a mere few hours...Hovind and many creationists believe that the Grand Cannyon was dug by the receding waters of the Flood in a few short hours...its unlikely that in this case,the sphinx or the great pyramid could have survived this ordeal.

​

"LUD:unsubstanciated biblical quotes non wistanding,why did you claim that farming appeared AFTER the flood."
--Well we have farming now don't we? Thats after the flood. (I don't think I understand the assertion)

​

LUD:i'm asking why you seem to believe that there was no farming BEFORE the alledged flood??

​

"Also,the Bible says that Noah sacrificed ALL the clean beasts they had"
--No it doesnt' say he sacrificed all, it says some:

​

Genesis 8:20 - 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.

​

LUD:i stand corrected.

​

"and salinated soils stay salinated for quite some time,despite water cycles...far longuer than needed for everyone being sustained by this to starve to death."
--For one, the last many feet (around 100 or so ft.) of flood water to drain off the continents would have been fresh water, and also, why do you say it would take so long for the water cycle to remove much of the salinity?

​

LUD:thats assuming your unrealistic assertion about water salination is correct,which i dont believe it is but as i said above,i'll look into it.

​

"LUD:they didn't...there were NO animals on south america in Noah's time?"
--No they sure were, I am saying that animals could live in a larger veriety of environments (even though veriety would not have been much of a veriety in that time most likely), so they would not 'have' to have been located in south america as they could have lived fine within the vicinity.

​

LUD:hum...thats seems like reaching...even for you TC.

​

"LUD:rotting vegetation soaked in salt water...thats what they ate comming out of the ark?"
--Fresh water would have been suspended during the flood.

​

LUD:see above and even then,its still rotting vegetation...certainly not fit for consumption.

​

"I dont buy your ocean drying model for one damn minute and neither do most serious geologists for obvious reasons. the sheer heat needed to boils off the oceans in such a short time would have poached everyone,Noah included."
--You are aware that there is 400 Degree Celcius waters in places on the bottom of the ocean coming out of fountian like springs. Though at mixture with the near freezing waters virtually neutralizes it. Tell me, why would they have been poached? You've made the assertion that 'the sheer heat needed to boils off the oceans in such a short time would have poached everyone,Noah included', now what is the supporting evidence?

​

LUD:Because TC,if the cold water near the surfaced cancelled the heat,it would also have cancelled the hyper boiling off of the ocean...you cant have both your cake and eat it too. Either the water was boiled off,meaning that the air on the surface of the oceans were heated by this,or the air on the sirface cancelled the heat and so the ocean DIDn't boil off.

​

"LUD:the geologic column...what evidence SUPPORTING your model is there aside the Bible?"
--Evidence supporting the Flood in the geologic column, the Geologic column is made up of layers which is what you would expect, the geologic column has fossils sorted by many factors, which is also expected by the Flood. The Geologic column contains many mineral deposits, for example, some minerals are formed when greatly heated water makes contact with cooler water, with this being a great factor during the Flood, these deposits would be expected, etc.

​

LUD:Hum...what minerals are these?

​

"LUD:you know,its so rare that we agree on something that a feel the need to mark this moment in the annals...there,its done."
--Annals?

​

LUDn the record if you prefer...perv...:-)

​

"LUD:i have explained to you on several occasions that while you do present POSSIBLE arguments,you dont present a reason why they should be considered LIKELY or PROBABLE arguments."
--I see them as very probable, many of them even improbable not to occur. Tell me some of my arguments and tell me what you would need to make them probable to your own satisfaction.

​

LUD:well,first and foremost,i'd like you to explain to me why you DO consider your arguments to be probable.

​

---