Debate #2 with Creationism and the Origin of Life

Creationism and the Origin of Life
Evidence for Biblical creation, a young earth and a global flood catastrophe. Science explained by a catastrophist geologist. Please visit: http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-must-you-do-...

  • Caroline McCreedy likes this.
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life GREAT VIDEO FOR EVIDENCE FOR THE FLOOD
      Sunday at 8:37pm · ·
    • Caroline McCreedy Yet the God deniers will continue to argue it never happened. It's a shame we didn't have video in those days, then they would be denying the videos were real too no doubt.
      17 hours ago · ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm
      Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go? Several people have proposed answers to these questions, but none which consider all the implications of their models. A few of the commonly cited models are addressed below.

      Vapor ca...nopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.

      How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
      If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
      If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
      A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
      Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
      Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

      How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
      Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
      Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
      Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.

      Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

      The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
      Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
      Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
      Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]
      New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind's) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth's terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don't give a cause.)

      How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
      Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
      Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
      How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
      See More

      17 hours ago ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm
      Also, A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

      How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

      Why is there... no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

      How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

      Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

      Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
      See More

      17 hours ago ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm That isn't even a quarter of the issues with the "flood geology".
      17 hours ago ·
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life The bible tells us exactly how it happened and where all the flood water went..hold on Ill be back with the scriptures :)
      14 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · ·
    • Isaac Ammons The flood is accurately supported by findings, you wan't to tell me all this happened by without a flood, no.
      14 hours ago · ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm
      YYou have it backwards. You can't use the bible as proof till you first prove it to be true and then you must begin to explain why the evidence we see shows us something very different than what the bible says... and yes I know the bible....

      For the first 22 years of my life I was a devout Christian. When I say Christian I mean I was a right-wing, super conservative, evangelical, creationist believing, bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christian. As a Christian, I had read the bible cover-to-cover nearly 6 times in various versions, I had read individual passages and selections tens-of-thousands of times, I had attended thousands of bible studies and prayer meetings, thousands of church services, many conferences and camps, read hundreds of deferent bible companion books and most of the top Christian literature. I had watched countless hours of Christian videos, taken many Christian classes both in person and online, had many discussion with pastors and other church leaders, and had believed every bit of it.
      See More

      14 hours ago ·
    • Ed Umpervitch
      ‎// Where did the Flood water come from //

      A little detour.....

      Are you inquiring about the 'Origin' of the water? Kyle, you are new here; this isn't 'directed' at you. You will need to review some of the other threads to see what I am gettin...g at.

      Can I borrow from the evolutionists position:
      - The Origin of the water doesn't matter.
      - We know it happened.
      - How the water Originated is not (the process of) raining.
      - We don't need to know the Origin of the water to know it rained.
      - The Origin of water, and the process of raining and flooding are two separate positions.

      etc. And the evolutionists can't understand why chanting this mantra, when confronted with the Origin of Life, is an issue.

      Why do evolutionists get to demand from Creationists - answers to questions - which are similar in nature to questions - that the evolutionists will not answer - when posed by Creationists?

      {and... back to the discussion...}
      See More

      13 hours ago · ·
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life I believe God exists....I believe there is Evidence for God...I believe Jesus Existed...I believe Jesus was the son of God and the real deal...Jesus told us the bible is truely Gods word so that means I believe the bible to be true...Its not circular reasoning at all..(now back to the discussion like Ed said)
      12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm
      Muslims believe Allah exists.... Muslims believe there is evidence for Allah... Muslims believe Mohammed existed.... Muslims believe Mohammed was the highest prophet of Allah and the real deal... Mohammed told us the Qur'an is truly Allah'...s word so that means that Muslims believe the Qur'an to be true.

      As I just demonstrated, your argument could be made for any religion as a justification to the validity of its religious texts. I would call this circular reasoning, a fallacy of belief, and it still leaves us with no logical reason to suppose that the bible is true.
      See More

      12 hours ago ·
    • Isaac Ammons The bibe can be no other thing then the word of god. You never know until you believe.
      12 hours ago · ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm
      Isaac, For the first 22 years of my life I was a devout Christian. When I say Christian I mean I was a right-wing, super conservative, evangelical, creationist believing, bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christian. As a Christian, I had read... the bible cover-to-cover nearly 6 times in various versions, I had read individual passages and selections tens-of-thousands of times, I had attended thousands of bible studies and prayer meetings, thousands of church services, many conferences and camps, read hundreds of deferent bible companion books and most of the top Christian literature. I had watched countless hours of Christian videos, taken many Christian classes both in person and online, had many discussion with pastors and other church leaders, and had believed every bit of it.See More

      12 hours ago ·
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life
      There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note “waves”). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they wer...e in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!

      Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography. New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

      That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers). We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.
      See More

      11 hours ago · ·
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life Kyle whats your point of telling us that you used to be a Christian?
      11 hours ago · ·
    • Kyle Richard Wilhelm Read Isaacs post. He said I will never know till I believe. My point is that for 22 years I did. Also, I find it pretty hypocritical of you to delete my post for not capitalizing the "G" and you let Isaac get away with it. ;-)
      10 hours ago ·
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life kyles this is your last warning for commenting on rule violations...you may want to read the notes section of this page.

      muslims believe in mohammed correct...do you really want me to go into the differences between Jesus Christ and Mohammed
      4 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · ·
    • Creationism and the Origin of Life And I gave you logical reason to believe the bible is true...that didnt even cover eyewitness accounts, etc...have you ever asked yourself how early Christianity started kyle

Views: 118

Tags: Creationism, Life, Origin, and, debate, flood, of, the

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Philip Jarrett 7 minutes ago. 172 Replies

Blog Posts

Seeing the man in the child.

Posted by Diane on April 19, 2014 at 9:52am 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service