[_ Old Earth _] Walt Brown Ph.D Hydro Plate Theory

[John]

So back on track. i think that this theory is about 90% true, but your right 10 miles would boil everything, the bible says the the great fountains burst open, but who knows how deep the water was under the earth could have been half mile who knows, but it still had to be hot, The bible says that before the flood it never rained, instead a mist rose out of the ground and watered everything, also the world would have been all tropics, and plants would have moist soil every ware to grow,(alot of water heated would case mist ) everything would grow large in these perfect conditions, large enough to feed all the animals (including dinosaurs...they probably ate a lot)

But lets say that the water arose form the ground (as the bible says) if there was enough water under the earth (witch is possible, not now perhaps but then) the earth would have been totally buried and etc etc like the theory states. this water would have been hot but not hot enough to kill Noah and his family and all the "kind" of animals. and the rain would have been cold eventually bringing the water temp down, there would have been a lot of steam arising and then it would condense and rain down (40 days and nights) the waters subsided and some of it went back into the earth, the remainder is still in our oceans.

Japanese scientists have found HUGE under ground water chambers, they estimate that there is more under then on the surface of the earth. source popular science mag in my bath room

I believe there was cold/warmer parts of the world but no barren lands, and vast ice fields. when the water fell and burst from the fountains, the colder water north and far south froze creating "ice ages" and the cold condensed water in the clods made snow. after the flood, mammoths probably adapted slowly (but not millions of years slow) to the cold and some other natural event avalanches or something buried them, that could explain them standing with food in mouths etc , snow can move like sand in some cases and these shifting "snow dunes" would prevent the mammoths from being buried deep deep down in the ice ( unlike the lost squadron ).

All of that is possible. now if you sit back and look at the big picture, holy crap that explains a lot of stuff, stuff like why we find 300+/- foot tall palm trees in antartica, thats why we have massive fossil graveyards, coal oil etc, and the "fossil record" the evolutionists alter call.

if the flood part of genisis is true then the rest of is, so evolution can't happen (aside from Micro) thats why there is no missing links. among other things.

all we have seen is extinctions, things dieing off but nothing new arising.

my 2 cents

 

[Orion]

Regardless of the theories and psuedo-science, . . . these don't address the issue of unbroken history chains of the Chinese and Egyptians (not exclusively them either) that run right through the supposed time of "Noah's Flood".

Another issue is of "God being sorry he made man". This would indicate that God didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Why make humans knowing that you will become sorry that you did, then kill them all, . . .except a few families, . . . ALSO knowing, soon after, that men would, once again, be evil? That mindset makes no sense.

It is fascinating that only 4,400 years would find the HUGE variety of different cultures (skin color, facial features, body size, etc), . . . AND the wide range of various types of species.

It would be highly improbable for 100% of the Ark inhabitants to remain alive AND prosper in a post world wide flood environment that would be in a state of chaos and devastation.

It makes for a good children's story, but falls apart upon scrutiny.

 

[jwu]

All of that is possible.

No. Let's take a look:

this water would have been hot but not hot enough to kill Noah and his family and all the "kind" of animals.

The calculations which i linked to show otherwise, they actually would kill anyone.

and the rain would have been cold eventually bringing the water temp down, there would have been a lot of steam arising and then it would condense and rain down (40 days and nights) the waters subsided and some of it went back into the earth, the remainder is still in our oceans.

The amount of water that the atmosphere can hold is miniscule compared to the amount of water which you actually need...there is no way that it could provide sufficient cooling.

I believe there was cold/warmer parts of the world but no barren lands, and vast ice fields. when the water fell and burst from the fountains, the colder water north and far south froze creating "ice ages" and the cold condensed water in the clods made snow. after the flood, mammoths probably adapted slowly (but not millions of years slow) to the cold and some other natural event avalanches or something buried them, that could explain them standing with food in mouths etc , snow can move like sand in some cases and these shifting "snow dunes" would prevent the mammoths from being buried deep deep down in the ice ( unlike the lost squadron ).

Just wondering...what would the mammoth actually eat right after the flood? Why don't we find the bones of pre-flood mammoths somewhere deep in the cambrian?

holy crap that explains a lot of stuff, stuff like why we find 300+/- foot tall palm trees in antartica,

How so? What would have kept antarctica warm before the flood? Plate tectonics explains it, the noachian flood doesn't.

thats why we have massive fossil graveyards, coal oil etc, and the "fossil record" the evolutionists alter call.

Coal with footprints of live animals in it? By the way, there is waaaaay too much coal and oil on earth to be the result of animals and plants which existed all at once.

if the flood part of genisis is true then the rest of is,

Why would that be so?

so evolution can't happen (aside from Micro) thats why there is no missing links. among other things.

I already have shown you transitionals (do you want the list again?), so please either explain why they are not transitionals or do concede that the "no missing links" claim is false.

 

[John]

The calculations which i linked to show otherwise, they actually would kill anyone.

at 10 miles yes, but what about 1/2 mile +/- ?

The amount of water that the atmosphere can hold is miniscule compared to the amount of water which you actually need...there is no way that it could provide sufficient cooling.

if the water was 10 miles under yes, that was walt browns theory.

Just wondering...what would the mammoth actually eat right after the flood? Why don't we find the bones of pre-flood mammoths somewhere deep in the cambrian?

Do you even know the flood story ? when did Noah know it was save to come out of the ark? the dove with an olive branch, they stayed in the ark for like a year, plenty of time for vegetation to grow and the carnivorous just scavenged off of carcasses

How so? What would have kept antarctica warm before the flood? Plate tectonics explains it, the noachian flood doesn't.

the warm water under the earths crust (it does not have to be 10 miles under) . water leaves it gets cold except by the equator.

Coal with footprints of live animals in it? By the way, there is waaaaay too much coal and oil on earth to be the result of animals and plants which existed all at once.

how do you know? how much animals/humans were on the earth before the flood ?

Why would that be so?

because if the flood was proven why would half of the book lie about something else ? it just does not make sense to me.

I already have shown you transitionals (do you want the list again?), so please either explain why they are not transitionals or do concede that the "no missing links" claim is false

No, you shown me pics of extinct variants of animals and extinct animals, just because they are not alive why must you assume they are transitional?

take the hammer head and great white.

no one argues that these are both variants of shark.

but i bet if no one seen a live hammer head, and dug it up and if they were tainted by humanizim they would claim it to be a transitional animal.
how ever that is an assumption based on a faulty premises.

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Index ... D:_Geology
Ctrl+F CC200: Transitional fossils

 

[jwu]

The calculations which i linked to show otherwise, they actually would kill anyone.

at 10 miles yes, but what about 1/2 mile +/- ?

Morton's calculations were about water from a depth of merely two miles under the surface of the crust.

[quote:adbdc]The amount of water that the atmosphere can hold is miniscule compared to the amount of water which you actually need...there is no way that it could provide sufficient cooling.

if the water was 10 miles under yes, that was walt browns theory. [/quote:adbdc]The physical properties of the atmosphere only allow for a few meters worth of water being included in the air. That's not enough either way, Brown's hypothesis or any other.

[quote:adbdc]Just wondering...what would the mammoth actually eat right after the flood? Why don't we find the bones of pre-flood mammoths somewhere deep in the cambrian?

Do you even know the flood story ? when did Noah know it was save to come out of the ark? the dove with an olive branch, they stayed in the ark for like a year, plenty of time for vegetation to grow and the carnivorous just scavenged off of carcasses [/quote:adbdc]That'd mean that only those plant species should exist now which either were kept on the ark, or whose seeds can survive a long time in water, right?

It would be quite lethal to most species to eat from a year old carcass...if something even is left from it other than bones, that is.

[quote:adbdc]
How so? What would have kept antarctica warm before the flood? Plate tectonics explains it, the noachian flood doesn't.

the warm water under the earths crust (it does not have to be 10 miles under) . water leaves it gets cold except by the equator. [/quote:adbdc]Is there any geological evidence of this? It sounds like pure conjecture.

[quote:adbdc]Coal with footprints of live animals in it? By the way, there is waaaaay too much coal and oil on earth to be the result of animals and plants which existed all at once.

how do you know? how much animals/humans were on the earth before the flood ?[/quote:adbdc]There is a limit how much animals/plants the earth can support.

E.g. there is about 3.4*10^14 cubic meters of natural oil on earth. Currently there is about 1.8*10^12 tons of biomass on earth. If we simplify things a bit to one cubic meter=one ton (this is in your favour as it takes more than one ton of biomass to make one cubic meter of oil).

On other words, there is 188 times as much oil on earth as there currently is biomass.
So at the time of the noachian flood, in order to be responsible for the earth's fossil fuel deposits, there would have to be at least 188+ times as much vegetation and animal life as there is nowadays. That is just impossible.

[quote:adbdc]Why would that be so?

because if the flood was proven why would half of the book lie about something else ? it just does not make sense to me.
[/quote:adbdc]
Why? That happens all the time! There are plenty of texts which are correct about most of what they contain, but still are mistaken about some things.
If you did a math exam consisting of five tasks, and the teacher who evaluates it finds that you solved the first four of them correctly, does that then mean that he can just skip checking if you correctly solved the fifth?

It wouldn't actually have to be a lie. That implies intent. It could be a fable or a myth - neither of these would be called lies just because they are not literally true.

No, you shown me pics of extinct variants of animals and extinct animals, just because they are not alive why must you assume they are transitional?

take the hammer head and great white.

no one argues that these are both variants of shark.

but i bet if no one seen a live hammer head, and dug it up and if they were tainted by humanizim they would claim it to be a transitional animal.
how ever that is an assumption based on a faulty premises.

It doesn't work like that at all. If someone just claimed, "well, eh, that could be a transitional fossil" without any evidence, the paper wouldn't even get published in a scientific journal but it'd go right to the trash can.

One takes a very close look at the fossils. E.g. archaeopteryx is a perfect example. It has both avian and reptilian features - which today are only found on birds and reptiles, respectively. That makes it a transitional between reptiles/dinosaurs and birds. According to creationism no such fossil should ever have been found.

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Index_to_Creationist_Claims#CD:_Geology
Ctrl+F CC200: Transitional fossils

The CreationWiki's own entry on Archaeopteryx concedes that it has both avian and reptilian features.
It then goes on to link a AiG article which claims that Archie was a "true" bird - so it doesn't even get its own story straight.

It also misrepresents the position that it couldn't be a dromaeosaurid by saying that the found dromaeosaur fossils are younger. But there is no problem with this at all; the younger fossil just happens to have given the name to a group of species with common ancestry.

 

[freeway]

Regardless of the theories and psuedo-science, . . . these don't address the issue of unbroken history chains of the Chinese and Egyptians (not exclusively them either) that run right through the supposed time of "Noah's Flood".

sorry, but if you goggle oldest living civilization or any civilization along that line of thinking you can get a very wide variety of answers.

[quote:ad9ea]Another issue is of "God being sorry he made man". This would indicate that God didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Why make humans knowing that you will become sorry that you did, then kill them all, . . .except a few families, . . . ALSO knowing, soon after, that men would, once again, be evil? That mindset makes no sense.

sorry again, just because you are sorry about something does not mean that you are wrong or that you hate that idea or reason.. example I am sorry at times about the things my son or daughter does, but by no means does that mean I'm sorry they where every born. Or if I could do it over I would not have them..

It is fascinating that only 4,400 years would find the HUGE variety of different cultures (skin color, facial features, body size, etc), . . . AND the wide range of various types of species.

Here, I don't see a problem, take the tower of babel, in one second the world was full of "thousands' don't know if that many but alot of different languages. In the same way could not God have directed man. yes faith comes into play here, but do you have a better answer?

It would be highly improbable for 100% of the Ark inhabitants to remain alive AND prosper in a post world wide flood environment that would be in a state of chaos and devastation.

come on.. If God got them to walk there together and live together surely keeping them alive is small potatoes. But you are right to a degree, where's the dragon's as they where called in the bible, we as modern man call the dinosaurs "man that could lead to huge debate"

It makes for a good children's story, but falls apart upon scrutiny

[/quote:ad9ea]

You mean like evolution, talk about a good yarn, man evolving from "lets see is it still monkeys" or did some super human race drop us off on the tiny obscure planet. now that a good children"s story! :-D

 

[freeway]

Regardless of the theories and psuedo-science, . . . these don't address the issue of unbroken history chains of the Chinese and Egyptians (not exclusively them either) that run right through the supposed time of "Noah's Flood".

sorry, but if you goggle oldest living civilization or any civilization along that line of thinking you can get a very wide variety of answers.

Another issue is of "God being sorry he made man". This would indicate that God didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Why make humans knowing that you will become sorry that you did, then kill them all, . . .except a few families, . . . ALSO knowing, soon after, that men would, once again, be evil? That mindset makes no sense.

sorry again, just because you are sorry about something does not mean that you are wrong or that you hate that idea or reason.. example I am sorry at times about the things my son or daughter does, but by no means does that mean I'm sorry they where every born. Or if I could do it over I would not have them..

It is fascinating that only 4,400 years would find the HUGE variety of different cultures (skin color, facial features, body size, etc), . . . AND the wide range of various types of species.

Here, I don't see a problem, take the tower of babel, in one second the world was full of "thousands' don't know if that many but alot of different languages. In the same way could not God have directed man. yes faith comes into play here, but do you have a better answer?

It would be highly improbable for 100% of the Ark inhabitants to remain alive AND prosper in a post world wide flood environment that would be in a state of chaos and devastation.

come on.. If God got them to walk there together and live together surely keeping them alive is small potatoes. But you are right to a degree, where's the dragon's as they where called in the bible, we as modern man call the dinosaurs "man that could lead to huge debate"

It makes for a good children's story, but falls apart upon scrutiny

[/quote]

You mean like evolution, talk about a good yarn, man evolving from "lets see is it still monkeys" or did some super human race drop us off on the tiny obscure planet. now that a good children"s story! :-D

 

[freeway]

sorry about the double post, thought my computer went to bed on me... :crazyeyes:

 

[John]

come on.. If God got them to walk there together and live together surely keeping them alive is small potatoes. But you are right to a degree, where's the dragon's as they where called in the bible, we as modern man call the dinosaurs "man that could lead to huge debate"

Noah was 900+/- years old, i think he was smart enough top bring eggs and baby's on the ark.

Reasons

they take up less space
they will live longer to multiply
some animals go into a hibernating state in bad weather.
they eat less
its already been proven that Noah could hold all the respective "kinds" of animals (please note he did not bring fish or insects)
etc etc

its not much for debate the opponent is just "willingly ignorant" I.e dumb on purpose.

 

[John]

Morton's calculations were about water from a depth of merely two miles under the surface of the crust.

again thats how the earth is now, maybe not then, no one knows for sure. he could have taken his measurements near a hotspot.

The physical properties of the atmosphere only allow for a few meters worth of water being included in the air. That's not enough either way, Brown's hypothesis or any other.

right, but it just rained for 40 days and nights, the majority of the water came when the fountains burst.

That'd mean that only those plant species should exist now which either were kept on the ark, or whose seeds can survive a long time in water, right?

seeds are easily carried by the wind, and on water, its not a problem to have all the trees we have now (and back then)

It would be quite lethal to most species to eat from a year old carcass...if something even is left from it other than bones, that is.

well they obviously found a way to survive its not too complicated.

Is there any geological evidence of this? It sounds like pure conjecture.

it was just my thoughts, and the word "evidence" is really tainted today.

There is a limit how much animals/plants the earth can support.

Yes today only 3% is habitable and there is more ocean then land...after the flood anyway, before that there was a lot more land then water and things were bigger (plants and animals) we have no clue how much animals and plants there were, i am guessing A LOT witch explains massive fossil graveyards and cola and oil, its not hard to make assumptions when you have no clue what the earth was like before the flood.

Why? That happens all the time! There are plenty of texts which are correct about most of what they contain, but still are mistaken about some things.
If you did a math exam consisting of five tasks, and the teacher who evaluates it finds that you solved the first four of them correctly, does that then mean that he can just skip checking if you correctly solved the fifth?

this is not the case with the Bible. you can't pick and choose whats literal and figurative based on your contradicting "evidence" that is full of holes, also based on a humanistic world view, denying what God claims, the whole BB theory, ToE and many other theory's are 100% anti God, if you deny this you are a hypocrite and you should not be speaking.

It wouldn't actually have to be a lie. That implies intent. It could be a fable or a myth - neither of these would be called lies just because they are not literally true.

Hmm, a infinite being claims he did it, how the heck can we comprehend this, just because our "science" tells us other wise. you base your science on a false assumptions and in turn it yields wrong results, i wonder if the Bible was applied to the science field, i bet all the "evidence" would fit, but of course any well respected mad man would not even attempt to do that.

It doesn't work like that at all. If someone just claimed, "well, eh, that could be a transitional fossil" without any evidence, the paper wouldn't even get published in a scientific journal but it'd go right to the trash can.

but you don't have any evidence.

One takes a very close look at the fossils. E.g. archaeopteryx is a perfect example. It has both avian and reptilian features - which today are only found on birds and reptiles, respectively. That makes it a transitional between reptiles/dinosaurs and birds. According to creationism no such fossil should ever have been found.

archaeopteryx has teeth, archaeopteryx has claws.
some humming birds have teeth, some birds have claws on their wings.

archaeopteryx is just a extinct variant of birds.

Fine Feathered Friends and Dinosaurs
Author: Bruce Malone

From magazines to newspapers...from museums to textbooks...the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:
Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

1. Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.
2. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein!
3. Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur."

Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated.

Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever "come alive". An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator.
soucre: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=26

The CreationWiki's own entry on Archaeopteryx concedes that it has both avian and reptilian features.
It then goes on to link a AiG article which claims that Archie was a "true" bird - so it doesn't even get its own story straight.

yes it is a true bird, it has teeth and claws.so what. see above.

It also misrepresents the position that it couldn't be a dromaeosaurid by saying that the found dromaeosaur fossils are younger. But there is no problem with this at all; the younger fossil just happens to have given the name to a group of species with common ancestry.

i already said that your dating methods are all faulty. those animals both probably walked side by side.

 

[jwu]

Morton's calculations were about water from a depth of merely two miles under the surface of the crust.

again thats how the earth is now, maybe not then, no one knows for sure. he could have taken his measurements near a hotspot.

He used the normal geothermal gradient, no special hotspot involved at all.

[quote:2278e]

The physical properties of the atmosphere only allow for a few meters worth of water being included in the air. That's not enough either way, Brown's hypothesis or any other.

right, but it just rained for 40 days and nights, the majority of the water came when the fountains burst.
[/quote:2278e]Exactly my point...very most of the water would have had a temperature of 360+°C / 680°F

[quote:2278e]
That'd mean that only those plant species should exist now which either were kept on the ark, or whose seeds can survive a long time in water, right?

seeds are easily carried by the wind, and on water, its not a problem to have all the trees we have now (and back then)
[/quote:2278e]
So you would accept it as a potential falsification if i find a seed that could not survive in water that long, and couldn't be carried by wind either?

[quote:2278e]
It would be quite lethal to most species to eat from a year old carcass...if something even is left from it other than bones, that is.

well they obviously found a way to survive its not too complicated.
[/quote:2278e]You're begging the question.

[quote:2278e]Is there any geological evidence of this? It sounds like pure conjecture.

it was just my thoughts, and the word "evidence" is really tainted today.
[/quote:2278e]What is wrong with evidence?

[quote:2278e]There is a limit how much animals/plants the earth can support.

Yes today only 3% is habitable and there is more ocean then land...after the flood anyway, before that there was a lot more land then water and things were bigger (plants and animals) we have no clue how much animals and plants there were, i am guessing A LOT witch explains massive fossil graveyards and cola and oil,
[/quote:2278e]Source for the 3% number? Methinks it is rather the percentage of the surface of the earth that currently is inhabited by humans, not the percentage of the earth that bears biomass.

Biomass in the oceans (plankton etc) was included in my above calculation btw.

its not hard to make assumptions when you have no clue what the earth was like before the flood.

Assumptions that are void of any evidence. Analysis of fossils and strata does very well tell us what the earth was like in the past.

[quote:2278e]Why? That happens all the time! There are plenty of texts which are correct about most of what they contain, but still are mistaken about some things.
If you did a math exam consisting of five tasks, and the teacher who evaluates it finds that you solved the first four of them correctly, does that then mean that he can just skip checking if you correctly solved the fifth?

this is not the case with the Bible. you can't pick and choose whats literal and figurative based on your contradicting "evidence" that is full of holes, also based on a humanistic world view, denying what God claims, the whole BB theory, ToE and many other theory's are 100% anti God, if you deny this you are a hypocrite and you should not be speaking.
[/quote:2278e]Are you saying that material evidence is not a valid tool for exegesis?

[quote:2278e]It wouldn't actually have to be a lie. That implies intent. It could be a fable or a myth - neither of these would be called lies just because they are not literally true.

Hmm, a infinite being claims he did it, how the heck can we comprehend this, just because our "science" tells us other wise. you base your science on a false assumptions and in turn it yields wrong results, i wonder if the Bible was applied to the science field, i bet all the "evidence" would fit, but of course any well respected mad man would not even attempt to do that.
[/quote:2278e]In other words, there is nothing which you would accept as a falsification of the noachian flood?

[quote:2278e]It doesn't work like that at all. If someone just claimed, "well, eh, that could be a transitional fossil" without any evidence, the paper wouldn't even get published in a scientific journal but it'd go right to the trash can.

but you don't have any evidence.[/quote:2278e]What would you accept as evidence? Is a list of features which are shared by archaeopteryx which are otherwise typical for only birds and only reptiles respectively not enough?

One takes a very close look at the fossils. E.g. archaeopteryx is a perfect example. It has both avian and reptilian features - which today are only found on birds and reptiles, respectively. That makes it a transitional between reptiles/dinosaurs and birds. According to creationism no such fossil should ever have been found.

archaeopteryx has teeth, archaeopteryx has claws.
some humming birds have teeth, some birds have claws on their wings.

archaeopteryx is just a extinct variant of birds.

Actually, residues of teeth are evidence of common ancestry of birds with other species that do have teeth.

What about these?:

• Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.[/*:m:2278e]
• Trunk region vertebra are free.[/*:m:2278e]
• Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.[/*:m:2278e]
• Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.[/*:m:2278e]

I can list about 15 more details.

1. Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.

I found a couple of articles dealing with exactly that in just a few minutes:
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/cg ... t/29/2/243

2. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein!

That's all nice, but it doesn't make the reptile features go away. It's a red herring. If you want to discuss e.g. the origin of feathers in detail, we can do this in another thread. You'd be surprised how much is known about this.

3. Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years.

E.g. the trunk vertebrae are not fused, unlike in birds. Hence it is not a fully formed bird.

Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

Then he has to make his case with actual arguments, not simple assertions.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Feduccia

Alan Feduccia is a paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds. He is the S. K. Henniger Professor at the University of North Carolina. Feduccia's authored works include The Age of Birds and The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Feduccia is best known for his view that birds have their origin not in the advanced theropods, the most widely-held view, but basally within the archosaurs.

Big deal...such controversies are normal in the scienific community. But he also accepts evolutionary descent of birds from dinosaurs, just by a different pathway.

[quote:2278e]
It also misrepresents the position that it couldn't be a dromaeosaurid by saying that the found dromaeosaur fossils are younger. But there is no problem with this at all; the younger fossil just happens to have given the name to a group of species with common ancestry.

i already said that your dating methods are all faulty. those animals both probably walked side by side.[/quote:2278e]You asserted it but your assertion was demolished by evidence which shows that the premises of radiometric dating are valid and verified, such as supernova 1987A. You haven't even tried yet to refute this.

 

[Orion]

sorry, but if you goggle oldest living civilization or any civilization along that line of thinking you can get a very wide variety of answers.

Hmmm, seems like most are saying that they were constructed around 2,500 bc. :-?

sorry again, just because you are sorry about something does not mean that you are wrong or that you hate that idea or reason.. example I am sorry at times about the things my son or daughter does, but by no means does that mean I'm sorry they where every born. Or if I could do it over I would not have them..

Why do you keep saying "sorry"?

If you are sorry that your son or daughter is doing things you don't like, you aren't going to kill them. Besides, YOU personally don't know that they every WILL do something like that. If you KNEW, without a doubt (BEFORE you had children), that they would all turn out to be rapists, murderers, and "God haters", . . . . . . would you still have children? If you say "yes" to that, then you are being completely selfish.

Here, I don't see a problem, take the tower of babel, in one second the world was full of "thousands' don't know if that many but alot of different languages. In the same way could not God have directed man. yes faith comes into play here, but do you have a better answer?

The convenient "tower of babel". Seems that the writer of that story was really trying hard to understand where all the different races and cultures came from. This would be a HUGE supernatural event, you realize, don't you? Again, another instance where "God was caught off guard". Even so, it makes no sense to mix up their speech or even physical characteristic traits, based off of this event, which they would have never acheived their goal in the first place. AND in the vaste number of people that would have been on the planet at that time, the number of people "trying to reach God" would have been but a fraction.

come on.. If God got them to walk there together and live together surely keeping them alive is small potatoes. But you are right to a degree, where's the dragon's as they where called in the bible, we as modern man call the dinosaurs "man that could lead to huge debate"

Yes, . .. . . . .another monumental miracle, which would have been unnecessary to begin with. If it is MAN that you're disappointed with, there is no reason for the elaborate means of their destruction, that you label as "Noah's flood". If it is MEN that are evil, one thought from God could have ended their life instantly. No reason for there to be a destruction of the earth and animals, which play no role in "human sin".

No debate. Dragons are mythological only. There were no "fire breathing dragons".

You mean like evolution, talk about a good yarn, man evolving from "lets see is it still monkeys" or did some super human race drop us off on the tiny obscure planet. now that a good children"s story! :-D

Again, I'm not a traditional evolutionist. I see the necesity of adaptation. As for "the monkeys", I believe that evolution states that we don't COME from monkeys, but that they and us had a similar ancestor in the past.

I can't say as though I could completely believe that theory, though.

 

[John]

He used the normal geothermal gradient, no special hotspot involved at all.

Thats the way the earth is now, we don't know what it was back i the day.

The physical properties of the atmosphere only allow for a few meters worth of water being included in the air. That's not enough either way, Brown's hypothesis or any other.

see above.

That'd mean that only those plant species should exist now which either were kept on the ark, or whose seeds can survive a long time in water, right?

sure why not.

So you would accept it as a potential falsification if i find a seed that could not survive in water that long, and couldn't be carried by wind either?

Maybe he had some of them non floating seed on the ark.

It would be quite lethal to most species to eat from a year old carcass...if something even is left from it other than bones, that is.

They were all vegetarian before the flood, after wards and after time they eat each other because the environment was different or something.

Source for the 3% number? Methinks it is rather the percentage of the surface of the earth that currently is inhabited by humans, not the percentage of the earth that bears biomass.

Biomass in the oceans (plankton etc) was included in my above calculation btw.

Yes 3% for humans.

Are you saying that material evidence is not a valid tool for exegesis?

We only have material evidence for the Bible account.

It wouldn't actually have to be a lie. That implies intent. It could be a fable or a myth - neither of these would be called lies just because they are not literally true.

opposite of truth is lie there is no in between, it does not have to be intended, just misunderstood.

In other words, there is nothing which you would accept as a falsification of the noachian flood?

I have yet to see any.

What would you accept as evidence? Is a list of features which are shared by archaeopteryx which are otherwise typical for only birds and only reptiles respectively not enough?

archaeopteryx is fully bird.

Actually, residues of teeth are evidence of common ancestry of birds with other species that do have teeth.

your interpretation does not mean its true.



http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Archa ... fully_bird

Then he has to make his case with actual arguments, not simple assertions.

logic does not have ground here then ?

You asserted it but your assertion was demolished by evidence which shows that the premises of radiometric dating are valid and verified, such as supernova 1987A. You haven't even tried yet to refute this.

i don't know what that is enlighten me.

 

[John]

I just found this.

Vertical shaft mines hold the record for being the deepest mines in the world. Most are located in South Africa due to its abundance of diamond and gold deposits. As of 2003 the deepest mine is the East Rand mine at 3585 meters, but as technology improves and the search for natural resources continues many mines are constantly being deepened. In the next few years, the Western Deep mine will reach 5 km

Many problems arise when digging so deep into the Earth. The most obvious is the heat. For example, at 5 km the temperature reaches 70 degrees Celsius and therefore massive cooling equipment is needed to allow workers to survive at such depths. Another problem is the weight of the rock

.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/YefimCavalier.shtml

the water could easily be 5 km under the crust,even more if at 5km its only 70degres then why not 6,7,8,9 km ?
Morton can kiss the fattest part of my ass, the theory still stands, maybe not at 10 miles but 10 KM why not.

EDIT: i was just watching discovery channel there is a tunnel underground at a depth of only 800M and the temperature is 57 degrees Celsius. so, 5 km down is 70 degrees in Africa and 57 degrees at 800m in the alps. it seems the Morton took his measurements near a hot spot . since he olny went down what was it a half mile ?

 

[jwu]

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/YefimCavalier.shtml

the water could easily be 5 km under the crust,even more if at 5km its only 70degres then why not 6,7,8,9 km ?

Because due to the geothermal gradient the temperature increases roughly 16°C with every kilometer, in average. There are local deviations of this around the globe, but nothing which saves the hydroplate hypothesis - since it suggests huge water chambers under pretty much the entire earth, the average gradient is fully applicable there.

Thats the way the earth is now, we don't know what it was back i the day.

What makes you believe that the thermal conductivity of the ground changed during the past?

.

Morton can kiss the fattest part of my ass, the theory still stands, maybe not at 10 miles but 10 KM why not.

That's not Brown's hypothesis then anymore. But there are plenty of other problems...

EDIT: i was just watching discovery channel there is a tunnel underground at a depth of only 800M and the temperature is 57 degrees Celsius. so, 5 km down is 70 degrees in Africa and 57 degrees at 800m in the alps. it seems the Morton took his measurements near a hot spot . since he olny went down what was it a half mile ?

He didn't measure anything here, but he used the average geothermal gradient of the earth.
Besides...if anecdotal evidence were valid, wouldn't the alps case be pretty much a problem for your position?
The africa example is roughly in line with the normal gradient, but you've provided an example with a greatly increased gradient.