Answers I DIDN'T get - Noah's Flood covering the mountains

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-07-20 10:14am

Magnetic wrote: -snip-

Whoa... I mean, thats, thats just... WOW! That people actually believe this... um, 'Science' is scary to say the least.

Striderteen · Post by **Striderteen** » 2005-07-20 07:12pm

Magnetic wrote:I attended a creation seminar years ago and (at that time) was amazed at the evidences they gave for a few facts surrounding length of life times, dinosaurs, how mountain ranges formed, and the like. I thought it was brilliant, . . . at the time. It went something like this:

The flood consisted of two sources.

Source #1
There were waters under the survace of the earth that were opened up, at the Oceanic Ridge, which accounts for why mountain ranges line up with that ridge.

With a piece of foam, the speaker showed how a mountain range could be pushed up as the waters came up out of the fissure. He took the flat piece of foam, put his hands at both ends, and drew his hands (and the foam) together and BINGO, the center part pushed up.

Source #2
There was a water canopy that encircled the earth, made of ice. Because of this ice, radiation from the sun wasn't able to penetrate it, and oxygen levels were higher, thus people and animals lived a lot longer than before. This also accounted for the dinosaurs. Being reptiles, as they aged, they would keep getting bigger and bigger, since reptiles continue growing in body size until they die, which accounts for the large bones that are called dinosaurs today. They died out because their nostril size, after the flood and the changed environment, was too small (since the oxygen level was lower now) for them to get enough oxygen. Hence is why today reptiles are only as big as they are, they don't life as long now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, at the time, I bought right in to it.

The fatal flaw with this "canopy theory" is that a water vapor canopy simply ISN'T POSSIBLE unless you posit that God sits there and holds it in place; barring supernatural intervention, any such canopy would immediately fly off into space or fall to the ground.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-07-20 07:28pm

I remember once having an assignment in high school math in which we were allowed to attack or defend arguments for either creationism or evolution. It rapidly deteriorated from "creationism vs. evolution" to "young-earth creationism vs. all of fucking science", because the majority of topics that people picked were about how old the Earth was.

One person tried to argue that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the flood, and when I tried to point out the various problems with that, she just said "I'm assuming that God just made it happen, that it was a miracle." I just sat back and muttered "...fine, okay..."

By now you're probably wanting to ask quite a few questions of me, and they can all be answered with "the teacher was a fundie". Real bad. As in he led the student prayer group before school started, as in all the churchy-girls flocked to his classroom, as in the physics teacher wouldn't speak to him anymore because "debating" evolution with him was much like "debating" ST v SW with Darkstar.

So of course he had no problem stroking the egos of his fundie students by letting them wank off to their various half-baked creationism theories, and he had no problem with letting them incorporate acts of god into their graded arguments, so I wasn't about to try taking on more than half the classroom plus the teacher on something I wasn't going to change their minds about anyway, hence my capitulation to the "act of god" defense.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-20 08:19pm

Striderteen wrote:The fatal flaw with this "canopy theory" is that a water vapor canopy simply ISN'T POSSIBLE unless you posit that God sits there and holds it in place; barring supernatural intervention, any such canopy would immediately fly off into space or fall to the ground.

Not to mention the fact that it would block out the Sun and kill all life on Earth. But you could write whole books on how stupid these "flood geology" theories are. They take a stupid idea, layer stupid explanations on top of it, and then top it off with a rhetorical flourish of even more stupidity.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-20 09:06pm

oxygen levels were higher, thus people and animals lived a lot longer than before. This also accounted for the dinosaurs. Being reptiles, as they aged, they would keep getting bigger and bigger, since reptiles continue growing in body size until they die, which accounts for the large bones that are called dinosaurs today.

Ironically, higher oxygen levels are associated with shorter lifespans, not longer ones.

Furthermore, dinosaurs are not merely giant reptiles. They are archosaurs, like crocodillians. However, modern crocodillians do not retain the antiorbital fenestrae that defines archosaurian skulls (it is only present in their ancestors; which of course, is a lie, since evolution can't happen

). So creationists are stuck with the fact that modern reptiles giant-sized are not compatible with dinosaur skeletons.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-07-20 09:13pm

Darth Wong wrote: Not to mention the fact that it would block out the Sun and kill all life on Earth.

Well not all life, all that odd stuff that lives around deep-sea volcanic vents probably wouldn't notice the sun was gone.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-07-21 10:42am

Striderteen, I got the conclusion that the icy water canopy was like a Dyson's Sphere, completely intact.

Wolveraptor, If I recall correctly, they would state that, for example, the Horned Lizard, would be like a Anodontosaurus, or Kentrosaurus.

The basilisk would be a Spinosaurus.

There's a species of camelian that would have grown to be a Triceratops.

The Loch Ness 'Monster' is actually a living plesiosaur. Which would be the proof that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but died out a few thousand years ago, the one in Loch Ness would be the last remaining living group and live deep in the water to escape man.

At least, that is what I believe he was saying back then. Something along those lines.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-07-21 11:47am

The Loch Ness 'Monster' is actually a living plesiosaur. Which would be the proof that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but died out a few thousand years ago, the one in Loch Ness would be the last remaining living group and live deep in the water to escape man.

Even if they exist (which there's no evidence to assume they do), why would that presuppose a younger Earth? There are other examples of "living fossils" (coelocanth comes to mind). For that matter, how does their existence disprove the reams of data supporting an old Earth?

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-07-21 12:08pm

Firefox wrote:
The Loch Ness 'Monster' is actually a living plesiosaur. Which would be the proof that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but died out a few thousand years ago, the one in Loch Ness would be the last remaining living group and live deep in the water to escape man.
Even if they exist (which there's no evidence to assume they do), why would that presuppose a younger Earth? There are other examples of "living fossils" (coelocanth comes to mind). For that matter, how does their existence disprove the reams of data supporting an old Earth?

They don't believe in the earth being any older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old, according to the geneology of the line from Adam to Jesus.

Though not all say this next part, there have been some who say that God created some things to look extremely old, such as some rock formations, the distance of other stars and galaxies, etc.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-07-21 12:19pm

Magnetic wrote:
Though not all say this next part, there have been some who say that God created some things to look extremely old, such as some rock formations, the distance of other stars and galaxies, etc.

Simply ask them to explain why he'd make them that way. It's quite frankly idiotic. What would be running through a supposed omnipotent being's head when doing that? "Durh, I know! I'll -make- things really old, that way them thar scientists that come about in a few thousand years will be fooled, and my true believers will stand resolute!".

You'd imagine it would make more sense to create things so it's -more- obvious there's a divine hand at work, not -less- obvious.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-07-21 12:19pm

Magnetic wrote:They don't believe in the earth being any older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old, according to the geneology of the line from Adam to Jesus.

I'm aware of this bullshit, based on the ramblings of an idiot hundreds of years ago. Of course, I've yet to figure out where they get the 10,000-year figure, though I'm well aware of the 6,000-year one.

Though not all say this next part, there have been some who say that God created some things to look extremely old, such as some rock formations, the distance of other stars and galaxies, etc.

Ask them why they need this explanation, when it's easier to say the world is a lot older than they think. Why would God be so deceitful, anyway? Doesn't he love us?

One argument they may attempt is that c was a lot faster in years past, and that it has gradually been slowing down. Not only does this have (disastrous) consequences for physics and life on Earth and elsewhere, such slowing has not been observed. If there had been any, it wouldn't allow for a universe nearly as young as they suggest.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-07-21 12:29pm

Well, they would say that it isn't our place to question God, or that because we are finite beings, we can't understand everything, or they use christian scientists websites that give evidences to show that old earth science isn't right and young earth is. . . . . . .or they don't say anything at all.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-07-21 12:37pm

Take their "loving parent" analogy to the hilt: ask them why shouldn't a child question the actions of an abusive parent?

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-07-21 12:50pm

Okay, I will post a link to a discussion in the Christian Forum about old earth vs. new earth.

Some of the stuff in there is typical bible talk.

However, some of them give some interesting tidbits of information, namely Dr, Roi. Here's the link:

+http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthrea ... oung+earth

Enjoy!

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-21 01:07pm

Oh for fucks sake, break the link next time you link to a forum! Like this:

+http://randomassheadedforum.net

If you don't, they'll be able to trace us, and might invade. It's a necessary precaution. Back on topic:

Wolveraptor, If I recall correctly, they would state that, for example, the Horned Lizard, would be like a Anodontosaurus, or Kentrosaurus.

And it doesn't at all affect their judgement that the horned lizard looks only barely superficially similar to Kentrosaurus? As I said earlier, lizards, being diapsids, don't have antiorbital fenestrae, and don't walk upright. Dinosaurs do.

The basilisk would be a Spinosaurus.

This is right out of some 50s campy monster movie isn't it?

There's a species of camelian that would have grown to be a Triceratops.

The Jackson's Chameleon? You've got to be kidding me. Do they not notice that Triceratop's feet, jaw, and general body structure are terrestrial, while the chameleon's is arboreal? Do they surmise that Triceratops used its long sticky tongue to nab monster-sized insects?

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-07-21 02:47pm

wolveraptor wrote:Oh for fucks sake, break the link next time you link to a forum! Like this:

+http://randomassheadedforum.net

If you don't, they'll be able to trace us, and might invade. It's a necessary precaution. Back on topic:

Can a moderator change my post above then? I have to plead ignorance on this. I just used the URL button above.

My apologies.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-07-21 03:30pm

What?! Of course I've known that people are discussing such nonsense, but actually to see it? Of course, people are free to believe and discuss whatever they wish, it's not my business. I just mean to sit and interpret passages from an old fairy-tale book in order to reach a conclusion on how old the Earth is... I find that scary to say the least and it puts my faith in mankind to the test. Dogmatic religion has been (and still is) one of the worst tragedies of human history.
Oh, I found this to be a gem: "Since they can't show another event of this kind [the Big Bang]..."

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-07-21 09:58pm

Magnetic wrote: Because of this ice, radiation from the sun wasn't able to penetrate it, and oxygen levels were higher, thus people and animals lived a lot longer than before.

Obviously these guys don't understand that higher concentrations of oxygen is toxic. But I have also heard that they thought back then they must have ozone instead of oxygen gas (oxygen gas being composed of 2 oxygen atoms, ozone composed of 3 oxygen atoms). Since 3 is bigger than 2, ozone must be more conducive to health than oxygen gas

(its toxic).

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-22 02:27am

Magnetic wrote:Can a moderator change my post above then? I have to plead ignorance on this. I just used the URL button above.

My apologies.

Don't worry, it's been accounted for. But I have to wonder: if a link has been broken AFTER it's posted, can it still be traced?

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2005-07-22 02:57am

A link can only be traced if somebody clicks that link from a page. The URL of the page is sent to the target website as the referrer parameter. They can then examine the logs to see who has been linking to them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-22 04:56am

Not everyone checks their logs all the time; I usually check mine only when there's some kind of unusual activity, because they're so large. That's how I found out that some assholes out there were in-lining my MP3 files into their websites (of course, I put a stop to that with hotlink protection).

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-07-22 07:16am

I don't think everyone even knows there is such a thing as a referer log. Any idiot can buy a web space and set up a forum these days. But even so, it's still better to be safe rather than sorry...

Whenever the Flood is brought up, I can't help but think of that moron who wrote that all animals were herbivores prior to the Flood, including the T-rex. And you just got to love the justification for that claim: Bears are omnivore! That's just brilliant logic!

Anyhow, I would like to see how the fundies explain how they could have wood inhabiting termites on the Ark. They would have had to take at least one queen with them, and those things lay eggs like there's no tomorrow. It would not take long for them to be very fucked

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-07-22 02:03pm

Firefox wrote:
Magnetic wrote:They don't believe in the earth being any older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old, according to the geneology of the line from Adam to Jesus.
I'm aware of this bullshit, based on the ramblings of an idiot hundreds of years ago. Of course, I've yet to figure out where they get the 10,000-year figure, though I'm well aware of the 6,000-year one.

They had to find some way to get around ancient Egypt living through the Flood without any cultural records, so they pulled arbitrary lifespan figures out of their collective asses to push the creation back a couple thousand years, conveniently putting the Flood before Egypt began its rise.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-07-22 03:38pm

Dooey Jo wrote:Whenever the Flood is brought up, I can't help but think of that moron who wrote that all animals were herbivores prior to the Flood, including the T-rex. And you just got to love the justification for that claim: Bears are omnivore! That's just brilliant logic!

Do they even attempt to offer a mechanism for this change, or any documented examples of this taking place? This is the first I can remember hearing about this particular lunacy.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-07-22 05:32pm

Firefox wrote:Do they even attempt to offer a mechanism for this change, or any documented examples of this taking place? This is the first I can remember hearing about this particular lunacy.

Do they ever? I don't think I've ever met a creationist who actually explained anything in terms of mechanisms, as opposed to generally stupid hypotheses like "the light from distant galaxies could have been created to look like the universe is expanding" (yes, expanding, not just looking big, but expanding, and this wasn't even the same guy) or *ahem* "god did it". I like to ask them what their mechanisms are, but they just disappear, become angry or change the subject ("disprove my hypothesis, bitch", they like to say. To that effect anyway. If I can't, I'm a liar. Heck, I'm a liar anyway (I've been called a liar no less than five times this week). Again, brilliant logic. But one of them even thinks that fallacies are valid arguments, so...).

But some of them are capable of forming their own arguments. The T-rex argument (as I like to call it) is one example of this. I had never heard it before either, so the only conclusion I can draw, is that he made it up himself. He became awfully quiet after this though. Perhaps he realised how stupid he looked. Too bad none of the other idiots can do the same...