According to an AiG timeline, based on Bishop Ussher, the Flood began 1656 years after creation. are you then suggesting that all the sauropods in the fossil record are pre flood?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
According to an AiG timeline, based on Bishop Ussher, the Flood began 1656 years after creation. are you then suggesting that all the sauropods in the fossil record are pre flood?
6days
New member
iouae said:
I suppose the counter argument would be that you need to learn to read the Bible and stop making illogical arguments trying to prove it wrong.*
Jesus: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me."
Jesus "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female"
So not only do you not know when an "ad hominem" is applicable, you also fail to understand what a "strawman" is. I gave you the link, the rest is up to you.
Wrong! That's the starting point for "creation science" and the main reason why it has nothing to show us. FYI in science one does not begin with a conclusion. Real science is about what, when and how. The 'why' is irrelevant and can be dealt with by philosophy. When early christian scientists discovered that the world is NOT like in your book, they chose wisely!
Oh, so that's the problem. It's your linguistic skills that made this misunderstanding. Relax, mate, of course mutations are more likely to be deleterious than beneficial. That's a totally different story than what you said that I understood as "all mutations are bad"
6days
New member
iouae said:
True...it was huge!. Our God is awesome and has created some amazing creatures. The world around us speaks of His majesty. Could titanosaurus be the animal Job described that swings his tail like a mighty cedar tree?
This discovery would also be evidence of the truth of the flood account. What happens to cow carcass out in the pasture? What becomes of whale *bones when it wahes up on a beach? The carcass is ripped apart by scavengers. Bateria and oxidation end up turning the bones back to dust. For a huge creature to be fossilized, it almost certainly was rapidly buried in sediment protecting it from normal decay process.
iouae said:
The hundreds of species that went extinct last year missed the boat?
8 lined up tail to nose? Wow..... the ark was huge then, wasn't it? Good thing Noah only had to take 2 smaller Sauropds. (Not older giganatasaur's!iouae said:
God's Word tell us otherwise. Ancient pottery, cave drawings, and even some historical accounts describe dinosaurs.*iouae said:
False.... Here is one of many articleals on the topic.iouae said:
How Could All the Animals Get On Board Noah's Ark?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.http://www.icr.org/article/how-could-all-animals-get-board-noahs-ark/
iouae
Well-known member
A minor correction. Four Titanosaurs in a row would be the length of the Ark.
The average dinosaur is 1000 times heavier than the average mammal of today. (850 kg as opposed to 850 g)
https://books.google.co.za/books?id...epage&q="average weight" of dinosaurs&f=false
300 valid dinosaur genera have been discovered, though there could be 1000.
https://www.google.com/search?clien...ber+of+species+of+dinosaurs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
At a minimum this means that 300 pairs of dinosaurs, were taken onto the ark.
This equals 300 x 1000 = 300 000 pairs of regular modern, cat-sized animals.
Now the article you referred me to said that only 20 000 animals went onto the ark. Here is what it said.
"The total number of land-dwelling mammals birds, reptiles, and amphibian species is less than 20,000 or so. The number of "kinds," the Biblical designation, is probably much smaller. For instance, of the 9,000 bird species, approximately 400 are hummingbirds, with only minor differences in color, size, and habitat. Very likely, they all come from only one or a few kinds, thereby dropping the total number.
The Ark itself was huge! With gross dimensions of about 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet, its volume was easily able to house two (or in some cases seven) of each land species, let alone kinds."
https://www.google.com/search?clien...ber+of+species+of+dinosaurs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Thus, with dinosaurs alone, you have 15 times more animals than could fit onto the ark. That is before you squeeze one modern animal onto the ark.
You are going to reply "but they were baby dinosaurs".
Even if the babies were 1/15th the size of adults, they would still take up all available space on the ark.
And this is such a waste of time argument anyway, since if you were rock-literate, you would know that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
Hopefully you'll understand why most folks will not take your say-so as unquestioned gospel. And I suppose I could ask for a citation to your claim that most, if not all, beneficial mutations are a result of loss of fitness. But then, we already know how that will go, don't we? I'll keep asking, you'll keep dodging, and eventually you'll dishonestly claim "I already answered".
Or you could surprise me and actually follow through on this one.
Of course there are deleterious mutations. The majority of mutations are typically neutral however, with the rest being deleterious or beneficial.
None of that means anything unless you can say what "genetic information" is and describe how you're measuring it. Can you? Or are we going to do this silly dodge, evade, "I already answered" game again?
You need to pay better attention. I did address that:
That's just stupid. The "specificity" he's talking about wouldn't even matter were it not for the mutation that allows it to act. Only the mutated form protects lipids from oxidation.
But then, we know how creationists read papers like this. They just go through it looking for excuses to wave it away and declare "It doesn't count".
But then, we know how creationists read papers like this. They just go through it looking for excuses to wave it away and declare "It doesn't count".
So again I'll ask, this seems to say that specificity = genetic information. Is that how you're defining genetic information?
Again none of that matters unless you define "genetic information" and say how you're measuring it.
And let me guess....you won't re-state it or do anything that would otherwise help move the discussion forward, will you? You'll just do this same silly game that so many others have called you on...repeat "I already answered" a few times, but never bother to actually say what that answer was or where you posted it.
Once again demonstrating the inherent dishonesty behind creationism.
Jose Fly
New member
So ~4,500 years ago, every canid species on earth was reduced to a single breeding pair. Then, after the flood that single breeding pair (which could only have 4 alleles at each loci) evolved rapidly into the diversity of species we see today.
Putting that with what you wrote above, that means your "model" stipulates that you can take a single breeding pair, and through a process of nothing but losses in fitness over ~4,500 years, produce tens or even hundreds of different species.
Further, Stripe has said that natural selection never occurs ever. You have said you agree. Thus, not only does your model include ~4,500 years of constant fitness reduction in order to produce immense diversity in very little time, there isn't even any selection to weed out the deleterious alleles!
Yeah.....makes total sense.
Ummmmm no...... why are you even asking that?
If you are referring to my avatar that it is nothing more than a computer game character (and not even a magical one - it's actually sci-fi). For the record I am not nor have I ever believed in witches or wizards, I find the whole concept of magic to be silly to be honest.
Dear Tyrathca,
Well, that's a relief!! I'm glad you aren't a witch. Thanks for answering me with such good news! I will just consider you as an atheist now. I'm sorry about my mistake. Please forgive me!
In The Name Of The Lord,
Michael
Dear iouae,
Are you telling me that they've dug enough to reach 65 million years of dirt and rock? I don't believe your dinosaurs came with ALL of their bones. Maybe God didn't bring most dinosaurs to the Ark. Probably just the turtle, armadillo, tortoise, alligator, crocodile? Also, God did not bring aquatic animals into the Ark. They were all able to remain in the water despite the rain. I know your TV show said there was a Titanosaurus and Colossus, but I don't believe a word of it. They are just guessing and projecting what they don't know at all. Don't believe everything you hear. Did they dig deep enough to find these dinosaurs back 65 million years ago. Maybe they just are bad at rock-reading. I can't believe they've isolated rock that was here 65 million years ago.
I can't say for sure if the way I believed before or the way I believe in now is correct. Right now, though, I believe as a YEC. If I change my mind back to being OEC, I'm sure everyone would have a field day with me and balk at me. You do know that I do not get upset by anyone jeering or ridiculing me. Everyone makes mistakes in their lives. So do I. Big deal! I ponder both sides of the 'facts.' You might find many dinosaur bones pre-Flood, because there were many others that didn't make it on the Ark. Only a few were allowed on the Ark. If there were no clean dinosaurs of a certain type, then they were destroyed in the Flood. I think dinosaur bones are being found in the pre-Flood era, not 65 million years ago. But I am only acting on conjecture. Only God knows these answers. I don't even believe if they found a dinosaur bone 8,000 years ago. Anyways, what they do is find one or two bones and try to recreate a whole dinosaur from it. Whatever!
Michael
Tyrathca
New member
They've dug much more than that (though thanks to plate tectonics and erosion sometimes it near the surface)
Which dinosaurs? There are certainly large dinosaurs which have been found with most of the bones.
Even if he only brought a few (or none) there is still a problem of space for everything else.
None of those are dinosaurs. The armadillo's a mammal, others are reptiles (dinosaurs aren't reptiles)
But what about the fish who can't survive in salt water? Wouldn't they have died when their rivers mixed with the ocean?
What is wrong with their evidence?
Yes.
It's not that hard to do.
You're being lazy and stupid by just throwing up your hands and saying you can't believe it. If you tried to understand it at all or look at why scientists have said what they have you'd understand why your objections make no sense.
There is no part of the strata which suggests a global flood layer/s
Actually no, people know these answers. The questions aren't as unknowable and mysterious as you think they are.
They do that for some fossils. There have been many many fossils of intact skeletons.
Creation Versus Evolution
Part 1.
We compare the theory of evolution with the Bible’s creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy. We provide links and a bibliography for those who want to study both sides of the issue. We fully explain all the scientific terms on this page.
How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.
If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:
1. The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
2. The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.
The Creation Account: In The Beginning
As we wrote in our “Science and the Bible” section, the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have additional proof in our “How Do You Know The Bible Is True?” section—and more on this page.
Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible’s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone.
Special Note—Genesis 1 and 2:
The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the first four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four “views” of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere.
This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adam’s presence. Chapter 2 is a “look back” at the last half of chapter
It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1.
1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind.
Note: The preceding list assumes that the universe was the result of a “big bang” type event (an evolutionary cause). This is not in agreement with the Bible. For example, this list proposes that the appearance of light (item 2) and the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars (item 6) are results of the Earth’s atmospheric changes — not a result of the literal creation of the sun, moon, stars, or light. So, be aware that lists like the one above do not agree with the Bible’s stated cause for these events. We only include this list to illustrate that science agrees with the Bible’s order of creation events.
Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the Bible because we can find some scientific proposals that agree with it. It means that science continues to uphold knowledge recorded in the Bible over three thousand years ago.
Part 2:
Another significant event occurs in Genesis chapters 6 through 8 — what can be referred to as “The Flood”. To save themselves, Noah and his family built a covered boat called an “ark.” It was a large, boxy craft that resembled a covered barge.
Notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered large underwater springs, so it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time—indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.
Although “off the subject,” this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas—some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.
Note: Genesis chapter 1, verse 7 states, “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” Since the word firmament means an “expanse,” some people proposed that the firmament corresponds to Earth’s atmosphere, and use the verse to “prove” that a canopy of water existed above our atmosphere. However, we learn in Genesis chapter 1 verses 14-19 that the Sun and Moon are in the firmament. Therefore, the firmament corresponds to the Earth’s atmosphere and the heavens beyond. This does not mean the “canopy theory” is wrong, but that well-meaning people must not use the Bible to “prove” that it is true. How Did the Theory Start?
Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery, by the way. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism’s appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called “micro-evolution” (with an “i”) and is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of evolution” on this page. After a series of micro-evolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frog—not a fish or a lizard.
More On This Later! Hope you found this interesting!!
Much Love, In Christ,
Michael
Part 1.
We compare the theory of evolution with the Bible’s creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy. We provide links and a bibliography for those who want to study both sides of the issue. We fully explain all the scientific terms on this page.
How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.
If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:
1. The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
2. The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.
The Creation Account: In The Beginning
As we wrote in our “Science and the Bible” section, the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have additional proof in our “How Do You Know The Bible Is True?” section—and more on this page.
Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible’s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone.
Special Note—Genesis 1 and 2:
The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the first four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four “views” of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere.
This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adam’s presence. Chapter 2 is a “look back” at the last half of chapter
It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1.
1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind.
Note: The preceding list assumes that the universe was the result of a “big bang” type event (an evolutionary cause). This is not in agreement with the Bible. For example, this list proposes that the appearance of light (item 2) and the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars (item 6) are results of the Earth’s atmospheric changes — not a result of the literal creation of the sun, moon, stars, or light. So, be aware that lists like the one above do not agree with the Bible’s stated cause for these events. We only include this list to illustrate that science agrees with the Bible’s order of creation events.
Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the Bible because we can find some scientific proposals that agree with it. It means that science continues to uphold knowledge recorded in the Bible over three thousand years ago.
Part 2:
Another significant event occurs in Genesis chapters 6 through 8 — what can be referred to as “The Flood”. To save themselves, Noah and his family built a covered boat called an “ark.” It was a large, boxy craft that resembled a covered barge.
Notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered large underwater springs, so it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time—indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.
Although “off the subject,” this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas—some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.
Note: Genesis chapter 1, verse 7 states, “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” Since the word firmament means an “expanse,” some people proposed that the firmament corresponds to Earth’s atmosphere, and use the verse to “prove” that a canopy of water existed above our atmosphere. However, we learn in Genesis chapter 1 verses 14-19 that the Sun and Moon are in the firmament. Therefore, the firmament corresponds to the Earth’s atmosphere and the heavens beyond. This does not mean the “canopy theory” is wrong, but that well-meaning people must not use the Bible to “prove” that it is true. How Did the Theory Start?
Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery, by the way. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism’s appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called “micro-evolution” (with an “i”) and is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of evolution” on this page. After a series of micro-evolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frog—not a fish or a lizard.
More On This Later! Hope you found this interesting!!
Much Love, In Christ,
Michael
Dear Tyrathca,
For the dinosaurs that they have found most of the bones for, maybe I will believe that. But what about this Titanosaurus and Colossus? I think it is BS. Also, the dinosaurs are mammals and reptiles, etc. There are different kinds. Just like the armadillos are mammals.
I would guess that the salt water that mixed with the fresh water from the lakes, rivers, streams, not to mention the rain and fountains of waters made a livable situation for all of the aquatic life. Those who couldn't make it just died. I'm sure most everyone made it. If God can save Daniel in the lion's den or furnace, He can certainly do this easy feat.
There are many flaws in your answers that I am not going to try to address every sentence you've made by answering them one at a time. I'm not just throwing my hands up in the air. That is YOU who says that. I have also heard that there IS a part of the strata that indicates a great Flood. Back your answers with some proof, not just because you say so with your one-line answers that you pop out of your head and mouth.
Michael
6days
New member
Your attempts at proving God and the Bible wrong are illogical.iouae said:
There likely is close to 700 names of dinosaurs. There is likely less than 60 different kinds.
Some dinosaurs were tiny. Some dinosaurs were gigantic. If the average adult dinosaur was bison size (It likely is closer to sheep size) ...the dinosaurs might occupy 2% of capacity.
Not according to God's Word. Not according to various geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, Egyptologists, theologians, historians, geneticists etc.iouae said:
And.... not according to Jesus who confirmed the creation account saying God made humans at "the beginning of creation".... referring to, and quoting from the creation account.
6days
New member
Sure, but keeping in mind the rubbery definition to the word species..... keeping in mind the evidence of organisms to rapidly adapt, surprising evolutionists....keeping in mind we see the variety of dogs, cats, cattle etc that result from breeders eliminating undesirable traits. So, yes...evidence fits the Biblical model.
Evidence is important..... and the evidence shows you continue to be dishonest. You have been shown numerous times Stripe agrees on rapid adaptation and the mechanisms that cause it. He just doesn't agree with some of the evolutionary terminology.
iouae
Well-known member
6days
New member
JoseFly said:
We would need to define what a beneficial mutation is, as well as defining what loss of fitness is.
But, for starters... https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...spective-of-beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria/
JoseFly said:
No exactly correct. In the past, it was believed the vast majority of mutations were neutral or silent. However, part of the reason for that belief was the false belief in "junk DNA". If 97% of our DNA was garbage, then it made sense that mutations in that region were neutral. However, ENCODE is changing the way geneticists look at our DNA, as well as how they look at mutations.
BUT..... even before ENCODE results were released, geneticists usually would not consider a mutation completely neutral. For example Kimura famously showed that with mutations there is a "zone of near-neutrality". In his graph, he shows no mutations that are absolutely neutral.
Your biggest mistake, or misrepresentation though is in saying "the rest of the mutations are deleterious or beneficial". You say that as if they are on a equal playing playing field. But, mutations that have a beneficial outcome, are so rare that geneticists such as Kimura do not even factor them in on a graph. (Crow agrees) Everything he shows is to the left of the absolute zero. (beneficial would be to the right) Geneticists have pegged beneficial mutations at 1 in 1 million (Lenski and Gerrish).
Tyrathca
New member
I'm not sure about those dinosaurs but there have been super massive dinosaurs with large amounts of skeleton found. Eg. Dreadnoughtus schrani <- (that is a link)
Or Tyrannosaurus Rex How many different dinosaurs of this size could the ark have fit? And we haven't even started on the other megafauna since the dinosaurs.
Unless you are proposing that there only existed Eurhyaline fish pre-flood and all stenohaline fish "evolved" post flood then this is wrong. Many fish (eg Carassius auratus the undomesticated version of goldfish) cannot survive in salinity even close to sea water. Note this study which showed them dying off at a salinity about 16ppt (the ocean is generally around 35ppt). Why didn't goldfish just die as you predicted?
And that's not even getting started with those that live in coral, the coral itself or those that fed on seaweed etc. How did they not starve? Or get eaten by other fish? And if they didn't get eaten how did the carnivorous fish not starve? The answer to me seems obvious - if the flood actually happened almost all marine life would have been rendered extinct before the water receded.
Sure you are (figuratively). You are doing it every time you say you can't believe that scientists found/know/etc something for no other reason than you think it sounds sensational/ridiculous/hard (or whatever reason you've been thinking but not saying).
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you don't think scientists have really dug up rock 65 million years or more older because you think that is really deep or something. You are simultaneously calling much of the geology and paleontology community liars and frauds while also making a claim about what rock we could possibly find. Both of which are supported by nothing more than your own incredulity.
Then you would be wrong, or at least disagreeing with most of the worlds geologists. I've never heard of YEC's claiming such, the best I've heard is the flood magically made all the strata at once somehow not putting layers with modern animals in the same layers as dinosaurs etc.
Dear iouae,
Note that, in Gen. 6:4 KJV, it is written, "And there were giants in the Earth in those days; and also after that ... " So that means someone's pituitary gland was working differently?? Were there 'giant' animals also? It's all in the pituitary glands, I would guess. Those were the days!!
Ponder it all!!
Michael
:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:
Dear Tyrathca,
I don't care how you feel about me or what I believe in. Also, yes, I have heard of Dreadnoughtus and they are large. I heard they were quite heavy. And of course, T-Rex. I don't know why I am talking about them though, because I don't know if any of them entered onto the Ark. Only God knows. What I do know is that God said to take of clean beasts, seven of each pair, and of unclean beasts, two of each pair. Perhaps the unclean were for food. I have no idea and do not care. I can not be bothered with conjecture regarding them. I have to use my brain for more important things. See Gen. 7:2 KJV.
I don't want to hear about Goldfish dying?! Whatever fish made it, when others did not, is really not up my alley. I'm sure that God had a plan and they fared well. Whatever! I didn't know you were so absorbed into the past. I have Fancy Goldfish in a 50 gallon tank here. They would prob. freak out with salt water, but if it were God's Will, I'm sure they would then survive.
I am a man interested in what God holds for the future to be honest. Not the past. So have your memories. I am looking for the New Jerusalem that you don't seem to know about. I am not into atheists' beliefs. Agnostics have a better chance and 'Others' have an even better chance, and Christians have an even better chance. I don't have time for BS. Can you tell? Right now, I am concerned with the present and the future of the Earth and it's inhabitants. From what I understand, no one will become extinct, etc., so that is cool.
You can have your memories. I will have my future. I just said that in so many words, in the last paragraph. Yes, Jesus will return, and you will get down on your knee{s} when He does, to greet Him or to be subservient to Him. It will hit you like a Ton of bricks. It will weigh heavier than your 4-ton Dreadnoughtus, I would foresee/guess.
Well, this is getting long, so I'd best close it. Thanks for listening. God be with you. Not Satan. Be wise and careful. There is always someone/something out for your treasure, to steal it away from you. Don't be dumb! You might know what I mean here and you might not. Only you know. If you need me to explain it, then wow, but I will if you ask. Choose the best and toss out the rest. Again, let me know if you still don't know.
God Be With You In Your Decisions,
Michael
Last edited:
- Status