***I'm sorry I am ruining this forum for you. But I don't see why you dislike me so much. You wanted good scientific debates, and I'm giving them to you. You may not like the subjects, but that's your problem.***
No you're not. You could care less.
***I don't remember arguing about plants surviving the flood. But I will now. Many plants seeds could survive a one-year period in salt water. After the flood, they would be fine, and would start re-colonizing. Other plants could have been in a floating 'vegetation mat', and then germinated when the flood was done. Here is a link about this:***
Let me quote from talkorigins.org ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html ):
"* 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?"
Again, you are spouting utterly ridiculous ideas and you expect to be taken seriously? Yanniru says you are sincere, I find it hard to believe that someone could be sincere after even thinking about this issue for even 5 minutes.
***"You were recently talking about the dinosaurs carried onto the Ark with Noah. This is pure fantasy. You've watched too many cartoons. From the links that I've even bothered to read, I haven't seen any substance." As I have shown repeatadly, this is an invalid arguement.***
Where do you get this notion that you have 'shown repeatedly' this issue?? All you've shown is that home schooling should probably be banned. If you seriously think that scientists from around the world should accept that a hundreds, which will probably become thousands of species of dinosaurs, not too mention the many animals of the Tertiary, etc, should easily fit on the Ark, then you very delusional.
***If Dinosaurs lived 66 million years ago, and a meteor wiped them out, why were there not many mass extinctions of other species? (Escpecially light-sensative species, since the dust most likely blocked out the sun) There. My question was why were there not thousands of other species that died out as well as the dinosaurs because of this meteor. Got it?***
Why don't you even attempt to read about a subject before you make a challenge? If you read you might know that the dinosaurs were by far the not only victims of the K-T extinction. Shssh. This is why I object to your posts so much. You are ignorant but walk in here like you know something, but you don't.
***Me: "On a related note, I am not so sure dinosaurs are extinct. There are many places on this earth that have not been explored, and many 'sightings' of locals. This is just a thought." You: "You've seen too many Jurassic Park sequels." Actually, I've only seen the first one. But this is not outside of the realm of possibility. Remember coelocanth? Like I said, it was just a thought.***
You are entirely focused on the wrong questions. The dinosaurs are extinct. If there are some remaining descendants (i.e., excluding birds) that we don't know about, then I'll believe it when they discover it. You get so caught up in pseudo-science that you completely miss the importance of legitimate scientific research.
***You: "Sure, radiation is stopped by changes in the climate. Uh huh, sure. Yep, human diseases are all caused by cosmic rays. Medical technology can't do half of what a little climate change can do." I never said all human diseases are caused by radiation. But it is a huge contributer. You can not deny that.***
There's so many facts in this area that it just shocks me that there are people walking around who might believe what you are spouting here. Anthropologists have examined bones going far back into pre-history and all the evidence points to a shorter lifespan. This would all be needed to be accepted by special creationists except that these folks so greatly re-write the history of earth to the extent that evidence of anything becomes meaningless to them. Here's a sampling:
Me: Evidence in anthropology indicates that humans lived shorter lives.
You: That's all post flood bones.
Me: Evidence in paleontology indicates that those humans lived hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago.
You: The dating method is wrong and based on what evolutionists want to believe.
Me: Radiometric dating is cross dated with other elements having different decay rates. The methods are very scientific and controlled and are not based on whim.
You: Yes they are. Evolutionists are prejudiced people who want to preach dogma. I don't preach dogma, I hold to the literal account of the Old Testament.
Me: Well, evidence in geology indicates that layers of rock are laid down over millions of years and fossils are dispersed in those rocks which show a progression of life.
You: All of those rocks were laid down as a result of the flood. All the fossils are either pre-flood animals caught up in the flood or died after the flood.
Me: The cross-referenced radiometric dating shows older dating for what, in most cases, are rock that is underneath the younger dated rocks. This cannot be a coincidence. Also, the fossils in the older rock are more primitive and show a gradual progression of evolution from older dated rocks to newer rocks.
You: There's exceptions. Older rocks have been found on top of the younger rock.
Me: Geological science is complex. Rock formations are moved by the earth and can be pushed on top or inbetween rock layers of different ages. However, the fossils in those rocks when dated show this. Science is always complex, so exceptions can happen, this requires more sophisticated explanation.
You: No, it only shows that science is inventing false explanations.
Me: This facet of science is true for all of science and not just historical science. This is your misunderstanding of how complex science must be in order to address the complexities of the past as well as the non-historical sciences. These explanations, once developed, provide great predictive success. The evolutionary theory is one of the most predictively successful theory of science, and explaining 'exceptions' have only increased our ability to explain. Nevertheless, the fact is that a flood account cannot explain the gradual progression of life in older dated rocks to younger dated rocks. If a flood occurred that washed up the surface and killed animals as you suggested, then life would be mixed in all kinds of rock measuring the same radiometric dating. There would be a large mishmash of fossils all together (dinosaurs buried in rock formations containing squirrels, trilobites buried
in the rock where humans are found, etc). Of course, nothing of the sort occurred.
I could go on and on, but obviously this subject is not about science. It is about your desire to tie up scientific discussions in the ring. Your comments such as "As I have shown repeatadly, this is an invalid arguement" is your lame attempt for Creationism to appear to be in the same ring as a heavyweight fighter (that Science is), and it is of course a big misconception on your part. Like Mike, I don't think you are being entirely sincere. His harsh comments were right on the money.
***There are supposedly 668 dinosaur genera. Only 106 of these were over ten tons, fully grown. None would grow to full size in one year. The absolute fastest (according to evolutionist) a dino could grow to it's full size would be 12-13 years. So, this is obviously not a problem for the flood.***
This is completely delusional. Fossils are rare finds (which is why dinosaurs were not well known until the 18th and 19th century). There are perhaps hundreds if not thousands of species of dinosaurs that we have not yet found. The list grows every year. Combine this with the animals already found in the age of the mammals (e.g., sabertooth, etc) and it is clear that Noah's Ark is not the 10 mile long vessel that you want it to be. You are simply being irrational, and asking that we take you seriously. I find it horrible that a young kid such as yourself can come onto a fine forum and disturb the intellectual discussions taking place here with this kind of baloney. Unlike you, there are many people who really have an interest in truth and understanding exactly what is true. When you come speaking all these false ideas and notions and knowing full well that you are doing it, which in my Bible is not perceived very optimistically, then I have a problem with it.
***Oh look, you have run out of arguments in your post. Better go searching for more!***
***Why do you bother? So far, you have not given me ONE argument I did not show you why you were wrong. I'm not a troll, and I seriosly doubt everyone in this forum thinks so.***
I bother because I care about truth and I do so because I know that truth is important. I know that people like you have absolutely no concern about truth, you are only interested in promoting your beliefs. If your beliefs are not correct, you don't care. You just don't want your beliefs to be usurped. That's it. I can't accept that.