Changes

::::::::::::Wow this is getting long:).  The environment changing, if it was changing so much that the mutations were causing the rapid diversification of animals and plants then the same should have happened to humans.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow this is getting long:).  The environment changing, if it was changing so much that the mutations were causing the rapid diversification of animals and plants then the same should have happened to humans.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::: From grass to a tree?  What?  We are talking about diversification within a created kind, not evolution.  You don't need to go from grass to trees, nor oaks to pines, as you would have had both to start with.

::::::::::: From grass to a tree?  What?  We are talking about diversification within a created kind, not evolution.  You don't need to go from grass to trees, nor oaks to pines, as you would have had both to start with.

::::::::::::You need to go from grass to trees when tree seedlings would not be able to survive the conditions on the ark nor in the water for the length of time.  Many common tree species seen today would have died out in the humidity conditions that would have existed on an ark and the water would have destroyed the seeds if they were on a mat of vegetation.  This is important due to the verity of tree species found today that can not exist in water logged conditions.  In regards to land bridges, there is no evidence of a land bridge to Australia.  Not to mention that many animal species could not survive the land bridge between the Americas and Asia in their current forms, the reptiles for example could not survive the temperature to migrate.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::You need to go from grass to trees when tree seedlings would not be able to survive the conditions on the ark nor in the water for the length of time.  Many common tree species seen today would have died out in the humidity conditions that would have existed on an ark and the water would have destroyed the seeds if they were on a mat of vegetation.  This is important due to the verity of tree species found today that can not exist in water logged conditions.  In regards to land bridges, there is no evidence of a land bridge to Australia.  Not to mention that many animal species could not survive the land bridge between the Americas and Asia in their current forms, the reptiles for example could not survive the temperature to migrate.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::2. Flood geologists believe that the salt content prior to the flood was ''smaller'' than now, not larger.  We don't know how much water was added to the oceans, but likely a lot of salt was added at the same time, and has been added since (salt entering the oceans exceeds the quantity leaving).  Also, the ice age (see below) would have reduced the water content, concentrating the salt a bit in the remaining water.

:::::::::2. Flood geologists believe that the salt content prior to the flood was ''smaller'' than now, not larger.  We don't know how much water was added to the oceans, but likely a lot of salt was added at the same time, and has been added since (salt entering the oceans exceeds the quantity leaving).  Also, the ice age (see below) would have reduced the water content, concentrating the salt a bit in the remaining water.

::::::::::::If the fish did not have the same or similar sensitivity as today that is quite the evolutionary advancement, lol.  There are other factors as well such as pressure changes due to the upheaval that would have killed many of the deep species we find in the ocean today as well as the turbity issue in the water due to the massive land changes, most gill systems can not tolerate particle counts over 2 to 3 ppm over their normal environment.  Not to mention the differences between fresh and salt and fresh water fish.  Yes, Ichthyologists will admit there are several species of fish that can go between fresh and salt waters as long as the ppm change is slight and that the progression into the differing waters is done slowly.  With the flood this would not have happened as slowly nor do all fish species have this ability.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::If the fish did not have the same or similar sensitivity as today that is quite the evolutionary advancement, lol.  There are other factors as well such as pressure changes due to the upheaval that would have killed many of the deep species we find in the ocean today as well as the turbity issue in the water due to the massive land changes, most gill systems can not tolerate particle counts over 2 to 3 ppm over their normal environment.  Not to mention the differences between fresh and salt and fresh water fish.  Yes, Ichthyologists will admit there are several species of fish that can go between fresh and salt waters as long as the ppm change is slight and that the progression into the differing waters is done slowly.  With the flood this would not have happened as slowly nor do all fish species have this ability.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::3. —

:::::::::3. —

::::::::::::Yes, I loved the caver story but it still does not change the observed geology in the formation of stalactites, not to mention that most of the caves are run by independent owners that put what they will to attract tourists.  You should see Seneca caverns or smoke hole caverns in the eastern US and you will see what I am talking about.  The erosion difference between the mountain ranges shows a 200 million year time passing.  For the erosion to happen in a shorter time the environment would have been unlivable by the animal and plant life there today, not to mention that the weather conditions that would have eroded the Appalachian Mountains would have been noticed by the civilizations that were on the Americas.  The difference between the two mountain ranges in terms of erosion to their current states would have been by time or very severe isolated weather conditions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Yes, I loved the caver story but it still does not change the observed geology in the formation of stalactites, not to mention that most of the caves are run by independent owners that put what they will to attract tourists.  You should see Seneca caverns or smoke hole caverns in the eastern US and you will see what I am talking about.  The erosion difference between the mountain ranges shows a 200 million year time passing.  For the erosion to happen in a shorter time the environment would have been unlivable by the animal and plant life there today, not to mention that the weather conditions that would have eroded the Appalachian Mountains would have been noticed by the civilizations that were on the Americas.  The difference between the two mountain ranges in terms of erosion to their current states would have been by time or very severe isolated weather conditions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::5. An ice age could occur in the several hundred years after the flood.  Lower temperatures globally would not produce an ice age, because of the lower evaporation hence lower precipitation.  Higher temperatures globally would not produce an ice age because the precipitation would be rain, not snow.  However, lower land temperatures with still-warm oceans following the flood ''would'' produce an ice age.  The flood is the best (only?) mechanism that could produce one.  Despite it not being as drastic as you indicate, civilisation did notice; Job makes reference to the vast storehouses of ice in the north.

:::::::::5. An ice age could occur in the several hundred years after the flood.  Lower temperatures globally would not produce an ice age, because of the lower evaporation hence lower precipitation.  Higher temperatures globally would not produce an ice age because the precipitation would be rain, not snow.  However, lower land temperatures with still-warm oceans following the flood ''would'' produce an ice age.  The flood is the best (only?) mechanism that could produce one.  Despite it not being as drastic as you indicate, civilisation did notice; Job makes reference to the vast storehouses of ice in the north.

:::::::::::The physics of heat loss and specific gravity of water explain why the water would return as rain instead of snow.  Ice core dating is pretty sound, the determination of the age of layers is not done by the microcrystal structure but also the residue found in the layers.  Each year the jet stream drops above the Sahara and causes great dust clouds to be lifted into the atmosphere, this has been observed by satellite as well in dust composition found around the Gulf of Mexico.  This is an annual even caused by the tilt of the earth forcing a change in warm zones on the planet.  The ice cores can be read due to similar events being deposited on to the ice in layers.  The only way this would be misleading is if the earth had and extremely unstable wobble that could cause massive shifts in temperature to affect deposition of materials.  If this were the case there would be greater issues that would have resulted and affected life on the planet due to unstable seasonal changes.  I suggest looking into how ice core data is extrapililated.  Its reliability is often better than radio dating.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::The physics of heat loss and specific gravity of water explain why the water would return as rain instead of snow.  Ice core dating is pretty sound, the determination of the age of layers is not done by the microcrystal structure but also the residue found in the layers.  Each year the jet stream drops above the Sahara and causes great dust clouds to be lifted into the atmosphere, this has been observed by satellite as well in dust composition found around the Gulf of Mexico.  This is an annual even caused by the tilt of the earth forcing a change in warm zones on the planet.  The ice cores can be read due to similar events being deposited on to the ice in layers.  The only way this would be misleading is if the earth had and extremely unstable wobble that could cause massive shifts in temperature to affect deposition of materials.  If this were the case there would be greater issues that would have resulted and affected life on the planet due to unstable seasonal changes.  I suggest looking into how ice core data is extrapililated.  Its reliability is often better than radio dating.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::6. —

:::::::::6. —

::::::::::::It would depend on which flood model you were referencing.  I am using the hydroplate theory by Walt Brown.  If you are using a different model please let me know.  All of the science I have used has been based on Walt Brown's assumptions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::It would depend on which flood model you were referencing.  I am using the hydroplate theory by Walt Brown.  If you are using a different model please let me know.  All of the science I have used has been based on Walt Brown's assumptions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::8. I wasn't sure if the book talked much about the structural strength of the ark, but that or something like that has been studied by Korean naval architects.

:::::::::8. I wasn't sure if the book talked much about the structural strength of the ark, but that or something like that has been studied by Korean naval architects.

::::::::::::I must say I like the way your phrased the above, it was very thoughtful.  Only issue is in reference to what we know about Satan.  Outside of the bible there is no evidence of Satan.  So if we were to live in a village in the Amazon and had never read nor hear of Satan would we come to the same conclusion?  Chances are unlikely, however if the event was scientific then no mater the situation the conclusions would be similar if not the same through the reductionism effort applied to understand the event.  That is one of the reasons why the supernatural is not a plausible explanation when it comes to scientific reasoning.  What we know about the world around us in scientific terms comes from observation, what I observer here with the weather from the clouds would be the same that a person in the Amazon would see.  Over time as the scientific method was applied we would come to the same conclusion, independent of our world views.  This is not possible is the supernatural is assumed.  It has been recorded in many cultures that those who took a logical view of the world around them had similar conclusions no matter their background.  It would be just a matter of time and refining of the idea to come to the same conclusion.  Evolution follows this same setup due to multiple cultures and background when using a logical observed mindset have come to similar conclusions.  The premise of the supernatural is that the entity must be understood or part of the world view of the culture for it to apply to the event whereas the naturalist would only use what was observed, thus something independent of a worldview, to make conclusions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::I must say I like the way your phrased the above, it was very thoughtful.  Only issue is in reference to what we know about Satan.  Outside of the bible there is no evidence of Satan.  So if we were to live in a village in the Amazon and had never read nor hear of Satan would we come to the same conclusion?  Chances are unlikely, however if the event was scientific then no mater the situation the conclusions would be similar if not the same through the reductionism effort applied to understand the event.  That is one of the reasons why the supernatural is not a plausible explanation when it comes to scientific reasoning.  What we know about the world around us in scientific terms comes from observation, what I observer here with the weather from the clouds would be the same that a person in the Amazon would see.  Over time as the scientific method was applied we would come to the same conclusion, independent of our world views.  This is not possible is the supernatural is assumed.  It has been recorded in many cultures that those who took a logical view of the world around them had similar conclusions no matter their background.  It would be just a matter of time and refining of the idea to come to the same conclusion.  Evolution follows this same setup due to multiple cultures and background when using a logical observed mindset have come to similar conclusions.  The premise of the supernatural is that the entity must be understood or part of the world view of the culture for it to apply to the event whereas the naturalist would only use what was observed, thus something independent of a worldview, to make conclusions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Evidence does not really speak for itself.  We understand (interpret) the evidence within our worldview or paradigm.

::::::::: Evidence does not really speak for itself.  We understand (interpret) the evidence within our worldview or paradigm.