Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M
That's just silly. Using word-play to attempt to establish scientific truth in the Bible is an old trick that still doesn't work. But whatever.
|
It's not an issue of "word-play", I am making a point...everyone who ever questions the validity of the Genesis flood account always says somehting like "there is no way Noah could have gotten two of every SPECIES of animal on the ark". I am simply saying that the bible doesn't use the term "species", it uses the word "kind". That word does have a biological term equivalent, "family" is the nearest option. In any case, many of myown professors have admitted that those classifications are rather arbitrary anyway, and they are constantly being rearranged. I do find it interesting though that, instead of trying to actually refute what I said, you have to resort to using terms like "silly" and "old tricks". Typical of someone who doesn't want to give a serious look at the other side of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M
I'm sorry again, but I'm staggered by the level of twisted meanings and misinformation coming from someone so educated in this field. There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood." We can probably just start and end that debate by noting there isn't even enough water on the planet to fully cover it. No point even getting into the dizzying array of methods for forming the various geological features of the planet without pretending they're all from "catastrophic water-sourced erosion."
|
Well I am "staggered" by the level of assumptions coming from people who have little or NO education in this field. You can say what you want, but I have been out there on the rocks and digging in the dirt, measuring the faults, mapping the ground, looking at the fossils, and seeing with my own eyes the kinds of processes that work out there. I have the advantage of having studied BOTH models (evolution and creation) for years, which is more than I can say for most people out there...I actually have a standard of comparison. Do you have anything more than TV indoctrination? The formation of geological features is my speciality, and there is no "dizzying array" of methods or processes. The kinds of forces that can change the way the earth surface looks is actually pretty limited...water, wind, tectonics, and chemical reactions. When you actually get away from the tv and look at the rocks themselves, water erosion is actually the primary method responsible for most of the features we see. The only question is how much water and how much time. Most geologists are realizing that catastrophic changes are more the norm, which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it.
In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin M
There very well could have been a Noah, who built an ark, and loaded it with his family and lots of animals and survived a wicked flood. There is clear evidence of a MAJOR flood on the Euphrates roughly corresponding to when Noah would have lived. Scholars generally attribute the Noah flood story to another ancient Babylonian king, but it's close enough. Trying to parlay such things into a claim that there was a planetary-scale flood, that all creatures not on Noah's ark perished and that all of humanity is directly descended from him is preposterous, silly, and irresponsible. After seven years of studying geology I find it very, very hard to believe that you can accept what occurs in the book of Genesis as literal scientific fact in any way.
|
Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up.