Does God Believe in Atheism?

[Fovezer]

If the world had flooded 7 or 8 thousand years ago (let's go with young earth) what sort of phyical evidence do you think there would be today to prove this event happened?

That biogeography is wrong, how every single creature could get to the ark from were they lived and back after the flood(like koala's), were all the extra water could come from to cover up to Mount Everest, proof of a large scale flood in the layers of the Earth, and etc. Good luck.

[artsylady]

That biogeography is wrong, how every single creature could get to the ark from were they lived and back after the flood(like koala's), were all the extra water could come from to cover up to Mount Everest, proof of a large scale flood in the layers of the Earth, and etc. Good luck. 

If Noah's flood had infact happened, we would find catastrophic changes to the face of the earth - the one continent (Pangea) would divide, mountains and canyons would form. There would be fossil beds found all over the world. In these fossil beds, or mass animal graves, we'd find all types of creatures, from sea to land, all quickly buried together and covered in sediment. We'd find layers of sediment. To prove these layers happened rather quickly, we'd find some creatures in the process of giving birth and we'd find trees growing through these layers. We'd find evidence for sea creatures at the top of mountains.

The mountains were caused at the time of the flood. The water didn't have to cover them in the first 40 days. The changes to the earth's surface were continuous, probably over the course of years.

Regarding animals and how they got to where they are, here's some good reading.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...q/migration.asp

Makes more sense than the evolutionary reasoning as to why marsupials 'evolved' only in Australia.

[Fovezer]

If Noah's flood had infact happened, we would find catastrophic changes to the face of the earth - the one continent (Pangea) would divide, mountains and canyons would form.  There would be fossil beds found all over the world.  In these fossil beds, or mass animal graves, we'd find all types of creatures, from sea to land, all quickly buried together and covered in sediment.  We'd find layers of sediment.  To prove these layers happened rather quickly, we'd find some creatures in the process of giving birth and we'd find trees growing through these layers.  We'd find evidence for sea creatures at the top of mountains.

That's pushing it. TO get from Pangea to the present continents took 200 million years, and, moving at 1-10cm/yr., you say that it took a very short time to happen?

And yet, none of these things you mention have been found, and you provide zero sources for anything.

The mountains were caused at the time of the flood.  The water didn't have to cover them in the first 40 days.  The changes to the earth's surface were continuous, probably over the course of years.

Well, even if they did form after, all that water still would have to come from somewhere. Even the Bible says there mountians: Gen 7:20: Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So, answer the question. Where did all the water come from?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...q/migration.asp

What about insects? worms? dodos? penguins? polar bears? kodiak bears? And how did Noah feed all the meat-eaters and plant-eaters that eat only specific plants?

Makes more sense than the evolutionary reasoning as to why marsupials 'evolved' only in Australia.

So your saying that a flood that covered the whole earth up to Mount Everest, that a man takes every single type of animal in pairs and put them puts on some big ark, then, after all this water magically disappeared, and as you said, the continents moved very rapidly apart, and then, when the ark landed all the animals ran and swam back to were they lived, makes more sense than a creature evolving to fit their habitat. Sounds like a nice story, but it holds no water. (pun intended)

[artsylady]

That's pushing it. TO get from Pangea to the present continents took 200 million years, and, moving at 1-10cm/yr., you say that it took a very short time to happen?

Sure, things are still moving at a very slow pace. Are you basing that rate on what they're moving at presently? A worldwide flood would certainly hasten everything wouldn't it?

You said

And yet, none of these things you mention have been found, and you provide zero sources for anything.

Catastrophic changes to the face of the earth - the one continent (Pangea) would divide, mountains and canyons would form.  There would be fossil beds found all over the world.  In these fossil beds, or mass animal graves, we'd find all types of creatures, from sea to land, all quickly buried together and covered in sediment.  We'd find layers of sediment.  To prove these layers happened rather quickly, we'd find some creatures in the process of giving birth and we'd find trees growing through these layers.  We'd find evidence for sea creatures at the top of mountains.

Which one of the above do we not find?

Well, even if they did form after, all that water still would have to come from somewhere. Even the Bible says there mountians: Gen 7:20: Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Here's a really good article if you're interested in the subject. I don't mean to keep giving you links but I hope you don't mind. If you're really interested, this explains it better than I can, since it is just an involved topic and I'm short on time.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...od-watersgo.asp

So, answer the question. Where did all the water come from?

In the 6 day creation, Genesis mentions God creating the 'firmament' - where He separated the water in the sky and on land. This is a very curious thing, but some creationists believe that the firmament was an atmosphere or layer of water around the earth, This created a greenhouse effect where it never had to rain on earth, satisfying another curiousity where it says that before NOah's flood, it never rained.

QUOTE

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...q/migration.asp

What about insects? worms? dodos? penguins? polar bears? kodiak bears? And how did Noah feed all the meat-eaters and plant-eaters that eat only specific plants?

The ark was humoungous - as big as a few football field and a number of stories high. Creationists do believe in evolution to an extent (as I think you already know) which is change within a kind or species. For example, Noah would have only had to taken one canine (As we also now know from recent news headlines that all dogs could have come from one original species, as Creationists have been saying all along). He also could have taken babies in the ark, as they eat less and are smaller. As for animals that only eat meat and particular plants, there is room for evolution here as well. The ability to evolve or adapt to new conditions was created by God for very good purpose and reason.

QUOTE

Makes more sense than the evolutionary reasoning as to why marsupials 'evolved' only in Australia.

So your saying that a flood that covered the whole earth up to Mount Everest, that a man takes every single type of animal in pairs and put them puts on some big ark, then, after all this water magically disappeared, and as you said, the continents moved very rapidly apart, and then, when the ark landed all the animals ran and swam back to were they lived, makes more sense than a creature evolving to fit their habitat. Sounds like a nice story, but it holds no water. (pun intended)

A man takes every kind of animal. One bovine, one canine etc. There is one continent and the animals come to him. They go on the ark. When the waters recede enough (after a year or so, more on that in the above links) they are let off the ark. The continents are dividing at this time. The marsupials happen to be on the peice of land that floats away and becomes Australia.

How is it, in your view, that animals evolved to become marsupials only on this one continent?

If your interested, there are about 250 other flood legends, outside of the Bible, that speak of a global flood. Many speak of a man who builds a boat and escapes the flood with his family and many animals. If this means anything to you, I can find you some of these legends. I think it's particularly fascinating that around the world, these stories, legends, remarkably similar have been passed down. Don't you find this even somewhat intriguing?

[sagz4Christ]

I would simply ask, without going into conflict with another Christian sister, that we stick to one topic on this. There is plenty of room for another poster in the other thread, where we are moving wuite nicely in a solid direction. I just wonder if it is at all possible to do this....

~thanks

[Fovezer]

Sure, things are still moving at a very slow pace.  Are you basing that rate on what they're moving at presently?  A worldwide flood would certainly hasten everything wouldn't it?

No, not continental drift. That is the crust moving. Water has nothing to do with that.

Which one of the above do we not find?

You still haven't provided any sources. (links)

In the 6 day creation, Genesis mentions God creating the 'firmament' - where He separated the water in the sky and on land.  This is a very curious thing, but some creationists believe that the firmament was an atmosphere or layer of water around the earth,  This created a greenhouse effect where it never had to rain on earth, satisfying another curiousity where it says that before NOah's flood, it never rained.

The canopy theory is a bust. For there to be that much water in the atmosphere, it would have to be very hot on earth to keep the water up there. So now you say it never rained? So then how could anything survive to go on the ark in the first place? No rain=no plants=no herbivores=no carnivores. Please, it had to rain, or we wouldn't exist right now.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...od-watersgo.asp

For were the waters go, this provides no evidence. It is just saying"this could've happened." The rock strata show no sign of a global flood. How do you explain this? Do you really think a mountain the size of Mount Everst could form in a couple thousand years? It would take millions and millions of years, because the plates move so slow.

Himalayas

The ark was humoungous - as big as a few football field and a number of stories high.  Creationists do believe in evolution to an extent (as I think you already know) which is change within a kind or species.  For example, Noah would have only had to taken one canine (As we also now know from recent news headlines that all dogs could have come from one original species, as Creationists have been saying all along).  He also could have taken babies in the ark, as they eat less and are smaller. As for animals that only eat meat and particular plants, there is room for evolution here as well.  The ability to evolve or adapt to new conditions was created by God for very good purpose and reason.

So your saying one species evolved into 1000's of subspecies? Dogs did come from one common ancestor, but that first species didn't come from nowhere, it evolved from another animal, and it would take a lot longer for the dogs to fan out and evolve into the thousands of species in the time after the ark landed allows.

A man takes every kind of animal.  One bovine, one canine etc.  There is one continent and the animals come to him.  They go on the ark.  When the waters recede enough (after a year or so, more on that in the above links) they are let off the ark.  The continents are dividing at this time.  The marsupials happen to be on the peice of land that floats away and becomes Australia. How is it, in your view, that animals evolved to become marsupials only on this one continent?

Your wrong. Marsupials did live all over the world. They were not dominant enough, and went extinct. They survived on Australia, because, as Pangea was splitting apart some 180 million years ago, they were on Australia as it split.

Plate Tectonics Affect The Evolution of Marsupials

Marsupials

If your interested, there are about 250 other flood legends, outside of the Bible, that speak of a global flood.  Many speak of a man who builds a boat and escapes the flood with his family and many animals.  If this means anything to you, I can find you some of these legends.  I think it's particularly fascinating that around the world, these stories, legends, remarkably similar have been passed down.  Don't you find this even somewhat intriguing?

You know I find even more intriguing? That Egyptian, Chinese, Sumarian, and all the old civilizations never show a big gap in their history. They wrote before, during and after the supposed flood. How did they do this? Did they have oxygen tanks and water-proof pens and paper back then?

Most cultures have flood legends because they all lived by rivers and lakes, and they would flood. That is why they are also different. Now I know that al these stories don't talk about a man and his ark, because how could they? Wouldn't they all have all died, and their stories cease to exist? That brings up another good point. After the flood, how did all you get Egyptians and Africans from Noah?

[Fovezer]

I would simply ask, without going into conflict with another Christian sister, that we stick to one topic on this. There is plenty of room for another poster in the other thread, where we are moving wuite nicely in a solid direction. I just wonder if it is at all possible to do this....

~thanks

This is what I said in the first place. It would be easier in one thread. Thanks for backing me up!

[artsylady]

Sagz:

Sorry, I thought you and Fovezer were doing your own thing on the other thread - "logical proof in the existance of God". I know that was your request on that thread so I left that one alone. If you want this thread, no problem.

[sagz4Christ]

that isn't really it, sister. I am not trying to hog all the talking. In fact, I may be able to use some help, but to be fair to Fovezer, and everyone else trying to read, I think it would be best to stay on topic, since there are two threads now dealing with one issue, I think it would halp everyone involved to stick to one thread, one issue at a time, so we can ponder and concider all the evidence involved in what we are talking about.

All it is, really is trying to be fair...

~serving Christ in faith

[Fovezer]

Sorry, I thought you and Fovezer were doing your own thing on the other thread - "logical proof in the existance of God". I know that was your request on that thread so I left that one alone. If you want this thread, no problem.

Hey, if you want to continue this discussion, I have no problem with it. Yes, it would be easier for just one thread, but I don't mind continuing this one, also.