Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, he wrote about the land mass the size of asia which moved into the western sea (Atlantic Ocean).
Who discovered America? Leaf Erricson, Chinese, The native population that was here before anyone else.
Columbus used a book which told him there was land in the western sea. I think he was reading Socrates. That is why he went to the king of Spain for ships.
Congratulations, you just defended evolution as science. You are absolutely right about theories crashing when their basic axioms are shown to be incorrect--that is the difference between science and religion. You are also right that this is not the case with evolution. That's because its basic axioms have never been proven incorrect--there are many discussions in evolutionary biology circles about refinements of Darwinian natural selection (species selection, hierarchical, punctuated equilibrium, limitations imposed by structural restraints, etc). But the basics remain unrefuted by any new evidence.
As an interesting aside, you can read "The Bible" for "evolution" in your first sentence, and also have an accurate statement.
Sorry, but the basic axioms have not been proven and have not even shown to exist. Namely that new animal kinds arise through Natural Selection and Mutation. They have not. A dog is a dog, A cat is a cat. All animals reproduce after their own Kind.
Evolution is not science. I said if it was a science that is how it would operate but it is not. I have said it is just like a story that uses science to attempt to make it seem viable, but it dose not.
Great methods you creationists have. Let science do the work, then twist the results to fit your YEC agenda. What integrity!
Science was developed by Christians. There are many Christians working in every science field today. Science does not belong to evolutionist. We are not stealing from evolutionist!
True science does seek the truth of nature. God created nature. So nature reveals the hand of God. Evolution reinterprets science to fit it's own agenda.
According to creationists everything has a creator, so is there a fossil maker and a rock maker running around?
You are getting into foolishness. Fossils are made when plants and animals are quickly burried by water born sediment. So quickly that no scavengers or oxygen can cause damage. This is what happened in the flood of Noahs day.
The geological column almost in its entirety was formed from the catasclysmic event.
Sorry, but the basic axioms have not been proven and have not even shown to exist. Namely that new animal kinds arise through Natural Selection and Mutation. They have not. A dog is a dog, A cat is a cat. All animals reproduce after their own Kind.
Evolution is not science. I said if it was a science that is how it would operate but it is not. I have said it is just like a story that uses science to attempt to make it seem viable, but it dose not.
What exactly is an animal "kind"? Do you honestly think evolution states that a dog with give birth to anything other than a dog? That's just silly and shows a huge misunderstanding of what evolution is.
If there were a 2% increase in population how many people would be alive right now? Your model fails just like AIG's.
No it doesn't. I have given the results of the population growth. We all know that this is a constantly changing number. So, to assume that it is static and futile.
In comparison, if we believe that man lived 60,000 years ago and used even small population growths, there would be more humans now than can fill a thousand earths. This alone refutes evolution. Where have all these humans gone. Even if they were some transitions in there, then we would still be tripping over all these bones of transitional humans. We don't even have one. Rather a small pile of questionable bone fragments that can fit in a foot locker.
No it doesn't. I have given the results of the population growth. We all know that this is a constantly changing number. So, to assume that it is static and futile.
In comparison, if we believe that man lived 60,000 years ago and used even small population growths, there would be more humans now than can fill a thousand earths. This alone refutes evolution. Where have all these humans gone. Even if they were some transitions in there, then we would still be tripping over all these bones of transitional humans. We don't even have one. Rather a small pile of questionable bone fragments that can fit in a foot locker.
Your model doesn't work because, if it did, there would be a lot more people alive now than there are. You've done what a lot of creationists do. Take the conclusion (600,000+ people during Exodus) and came up with a model that let's it work while simultaneously failing to realize that the model fails to account for the current population.
We know that birth rates are not static. We know people die from war, disease, famine, lack of technology, etc. I don't claim that there is a model that will show how many people were alive at any certain time. There are a lot of factors in determining population growth. Years can go by without any. Years can go by where the population is actually decreasing. I'm not going to assume that population growths are constant. Creationists, such as AIG, are the only ones that claim populations will grow uniformly.
The geological column almost in its entirety was formed from the catasclysmic event.
Except for all the formations that were formed in arid and semi arid environments, such as deserts, evoporites, paleosols - along with associated features and remnants that could not form if associated with water or any cataclysm. Or formations that could not have formed in high energy environments such as reefs and chalks, etc. Flood Geology is no more than "folk science" dreamed up (literally) by SDA Ellen White developed by SDA George McCready Price, eventually revived by Henry Morris. It has never produced anything as a real science, and is utterly useless, since it is not reflected in the geology. YECs can't even agree on which formations are pre-or post-Flood, Some say all, some say only those above the C-T contact, some just the most upper strata. YECs are all over the board on this.
You are getting into foolishness. Fossils are made when plants and animals are quickly burried by water born sediment. So quickly that no scavengers or oxygen can cause damage. This is what happened in the flood of Noahs day.
The geological column almost in its entirety was formed from the catasclysmic event.
How did plants survive the flood?
Quote:
* Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest?
* Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.
* Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood.
* Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.
* Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990; Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
The fish?
Quote:
How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
The coral?
Quote:
How did sensitive marine life such as coral survive? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.
Disease?
Quote:
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.
Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.
Host-specific diseases which don't kill their host generally can't survive long, since the host's immune system eliminates them. (This doesn't apply to diseases such as HIV and malaria which can hide from the immune system.) For example, measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 [Keeling & Grenfell, 1997] because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood.
Some diseases that can affect a wide range of species would have found conditions on the Ark ideal for a plague. Avian viruses, for example, would have spread through the many birds on the ark. Other plagues would have affected the mammals and reptiles. Even these plague pathogens, though, would have died out after all their prospective hosts were either dead or resistant.
(My personal favorite) Short-lived species?
Quote:
Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.
Predators?
Quote:
How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?
How did they survive after the flood?
Quote:
The Flood would have destroyed the food and shelter which most species need to survive.
How did animals migrate to their current locations?
Quote:
How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?
Why are so many animals limited to certain ranges?
Quote:
Why are so many marsupials limited to Australia; why are there no wallabies in western Indonesia? Why are lemurs limited to Madagascar? The same argument applies to any number of groups of plants and animals.
Why isn't inbreeding a problem?
Quote:
Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
