Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote: No, from that aspect, I think it's OK. I accept some fast adaptations of creation, because it seems there is evidence for some evolving or adapting. For example the recent article that all cats came from the one ancestor! Why not have just the one ancestor on the ark!?

There is no way to determine after the fact if what appears to be adaptation to an environment is infact design for an environment, in my opinion. I have seen these claims about single ancestor's, but I am not convinced by them. People can study and conclude all they want, but I don't believe there is a way to know that. If it is possible to know that I have never read anything except empty claims.

Also at some point you have to say why so few animals on such an enormous vessel.

Yes, but heat is a problem for all of them that hypothesize a physical only world like the present.

Again I have seen this claim, but have seen no evidence as too why they make these assumptions about how much heat would be preoduced in a largely unknown process. If the plates are moving on a molten viscous substance I'm not sure that what they are claiming for frictional heat would be as much as what empty claims propose.

AS Walt Brown pointed out, a better fit exists when we look at the mid ocean ridges as the starting point, rather than the continents fitting with each other. Where I differ with him is that he envisioned the seperation as a result of the water coming up, and reducing the friction of the sliding. I feel that the merged past better explains this, because how much friction does merged matter have? What properties that changed at the atomic level may have caused some ease of sliding? We don't really know, but we do know some materials take on superconductive properties, and strange properties under extreme conditions right here and now. Imagine in the merged world!

I'm not too sure what effect the spiritual world has on the materials and properties of the physical world, so I don't really know how I feel about that.

I think that if one interprets that "pangea" broke apart 100-125 years after the flood, than I might be inclined to agree with the assumption that ridges are in fact speration points. IT is largely an unknown process that is nearly non existent today. I don't know though because topography suggests that only a certian portion of the sea floor is a result of processes at ocean ridges.

The friction would have to equal the force moving the continents. The force accelerating them to several feet per year, would then have to be dissipated as heat, when they were decelerated by whatever force. Thermodynamics will not be violated.

One way out of the Ark problem was suggested by John Woodmorappe:
http://www.rae.org/noah.html

To be fair, this is a critique by former YE creationist Glenn Morton, who got his master's degree from the Institute of Creation Research.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

There are a number of rebuttals, and cross-rebuttals on the web between these two. Worth reading.

Thanks to GPS instruments, it's now possible to directly measure the velocity of the continents. It is currently in centimeters per year, and seems to have always been that way. This is consistent with the point that a much faster rate would have cooked the oceans.

Has anyone done the buoyancy calculations for the Ark? With 16,000 animals, and the Ark's own weight, plus the amount of food on board, was it possible that the Ark could float?

Some basic parameters would be the average weight of the animals. If they were on average the size of sheep, they should also on average weight same, in the region of 150 to 200 lbs. The amount of wood needed, plus some ballast to keep it upright would add to the weight, and then one needs to consider that every animal, needed about it's own bodyweight in food at least every 7 days.

I would be interested to see calculations in this regard.

August wrote:Has anyone done the buoyancy calculations for the Ark? With 16,000 animals, and the Ark's own weight, plus the amount of food on board, was it possible that the Ark could float?

I am afraid that this is one of those questions which is best answered by your existing beliefs. Do you believe in a literal Noah's Ark and a worldwide flood ? If so, then there are many websites, books, and other resources which will prove that there are no problems with this event. E.g., see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html. [If I sound a little jaded it is because I am realizing that the gulf between positions on this forum are so large that it is seldom possible to have fruitful discussions.]

Here is one quote from the above link:
Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed.

[Added in edit] Go back to middle of first page of this thread, Jbuza has most of the information you asked for.

Jbuza wrote: There is no way to determine after the fact if what appears to be adaptation to an environment is infact design for an environment, in my opinion.

From a bible standpoint, I can see that. From an evidence perspective, does it not seem to be the case, however? Why not fit both if we can? Now, if it was one or the other, I'm with you. But I don't think it says there were many types of cats created in creation week.

I have seen these claims about single ancestor's, but I am not convinced by them. People can study and conclude all they want, but I don't believe there is a way to know that. If it is possible to know that I have never read anything except empty claims.

They claim the dna traces back that way.

Also at some point you have to say why so few animals on such an enormous vessel.

There are still a lot of kinds left! Why squish them in too tight? Birds, were there to.

Again I have seen this claim, but have seen no evidence as too why they make these assumptions about how much heat would be preoduced in a largely unknown process.

Really? Some I chatted with had some convincing arguements. (Based on present physics)

If the plates are moving on a molten viscous substance I'm not sure that what they are claiming for frictional heat would be as much as what empty claims propose.

OK, interesting.

sandy_mcd wrote:...[If I sound a little jaded it is because I am realizing that the gulf between positions on this forum are so large that it is seldom possible to have fruitful discussions.]

Only one winner is possible one side is very wrong.

The Barbarian wrote:The friction would have to equal the force moving the continents. The force accelerating them to several feet per year, would then have to be dissipated as heat, when they were decelerated by whatever force. Thermodynamics will not be violated.

Walt Brown has it, I believe, at a few thousand miles all in the same day.

To be fair, this is a critique by former YE creationist Glenn Morton, who got his master's degree from the Institute of Creation Research.

He seems to be good at attacking positions of creation belief that are based on flood geology. In other words, that the flood was responsible for most of the fossil record. I, for one, as a YEer, do not think it was. I feel the biggest factor was the pre flood world, which was spiritual and physical, rather than like the present, that is, just physical. Big difference. That is why I can credit most of the record to pre split.

Thanks to GPS instruments, it's now possible to directly measure the velocity of the continents. It is currently in centimeters per year, and seems to have always been that way. This is consistent with the point that a much faster rate would have cooked the oceans.

Only in a world that was as the present is, which is the big assumption, based on nothing.

The Barbarian wrote:The friction would have to equal the force moving the continents. The force accelerating them to several feet per year, would then have to be dissipated as heat, when they were decelerated by whatever force. Thermodynamics will not be violated.

Thanks to GPS instruments, it's now possible to directly measure the velocity of the continents. It is currently in centimeters per year, and seems to have always been that way. This is consistent with the point that a much faster rate would have cooked the oceans.

Why would the friction have to equal the force moving it? This doesn't seem to make much sense. If I pushed a rock with five pounds of force and their were five pounds of drag the object wouldn't move. Perhaps all of the energy would'nt have been released by friction yet, since the plates are still moving.

All you have done is make a similar claim that says such and such about heat, but you haven't demonstrated how this is so, or by what mechanism they move. Can you more specifically show how you come to this conclusion that heat is a problem with rapid continental drift?

GPS instrumental determination of rates of movement do not make it seem like they have always been moving that speed.

thereal wrote:
Even if I kid myself for a second and picture a scenario where dinosaurs and man coexisted...juveniles of many dinosaurs species were still as large or larger than elephants, and it's not like there were only a dozen species. We're talking thousands (based on fossil records) to millions (based on fact that not every species becomes a fossil) of species here. Also, how are the juveniles fed while on the ark, if their care-giving parents are absent?

I think there were few if any dinos on the ark. They had already gone extinct, most of them, apparently.

And back to the aquatic dinosaurs....again, we're talking thousands of species that disappeared, not just a few! And how were terrestrial bacteria, viruses, etc. maintained on the ark?

God never told Noah to gather the bacteria. Noah's job was tha animals, God saw to the rest, He is the Missing Link here.

Conclusion - What a stretch! For as much as everyone complains how evolution relies on too many "what ifs", I think this explanation of the flood takes the cake for reliance on "what ifs"

Hyper evolution explains all these things.

sandy_mcd wrote:I am afraid that this is one of those questions which is best answered by your existing beliefs. Do you believe in a literal Noah's Ark and a worldwide flood ? If so, then there are many websites, books, and other resources which will prove that there are no problems with this event. E.g., see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html. [If I sound a little jaded it is because I am realizing that the gulf between positions on this forum are so large that it is seldom possible to have fruitful discussions.]

Here is one quote from the above link:
Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed.

[Added in edit] Go back to middle of first page of this thread, Jbuza has most of the information you asked for.

I saw those numbers, thanks Sandy. IMO, there is no way that the ark would have floated using those assumptions and calculating the buoyancy, even if it was such a large vessel. The total weight is between 3 and 4 times more than the displaced water volume. I was hoping that someone else had done the calculations too, I don't see much on the net that makes sense. The few calculations I saw ignored most of the variables.

As for the gulf between positions being big, you are right. Our beliefs are dictated by our presuppositions, and unless those change, there is no chance of changing positions.

Noah's Ark: Was It Possible?
Atheists, agnostics, unbelievers and liberal scholars have all scoffed at the biblical account of Noah's ark and the Flood. But their criticisms rest on some mistaken assumptions.
by Arnold Mendez
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/noahsark.htm

Jbuza wrote:Noah's Ark: Was It Possible?
Atheists, agnostics, unbelievers and liberal scholars have all scoffed at the biblical account of Noah's ark and the Flood. But their criticisms rest on some mistaken assumptions.
by Arnold Mendez
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/noahsark.htm

That's all well and good, and he's welcome to his beliefs, but the first flood story, as I stated in an earlier post, belongs to the Mesopotamians, 800-1200 earlier than the Biblical record, and the predecessor story maintains the essential components. As I said, the triform tablet still exists today, which makes this story parable, not fact, and although a flood could have occurred, it was likely in an isolted area, not global.

Nice claim, now demonstrate how you know the age of the flood stories. Careful don't tell another story full of more empty claims as proof of the first.

Demonstrate with sound scientific methodlogy and abundant emperical support all those writings more ancient than the Torah.

Jbuza wrote:Nice claim, now demonstrate how you know the age of the flood stories. Careful don't tell another story full of more empty claims as proof of the first.

Demonstrate with sound scientific methodlogy and abundant emperical support all those writings more ancient than the Torah.

Quite simple really: Cuneiform/Triform. A cryptic language used before any of the others in that region of the world, close to being one of the first "written" language forms.

Oldest surviving story of the flood dates between 3300 - 3000(Sumerian cuneiform). The exact writing of Pentatuech/Torah/OT is not known, best estimates range from 1500 - 500, given the age of the papryi, and similiar texts of same date range.

Sumerian predates Armaic as language, known fact. The first writing of the Bible was done in Armaic, possible contention is that it may have been Akkadian, which is a relative dialect.

In summary: Known by factors of other materials from the same age, the languages available, the written language used, the region it comes from, the city in question Uruk, it can be argued but to little avail. The Flood story is neither original to the Bible, nor Semites, as it is found in different regions of world, by entirely different cultures, including the Polouse Indians of Northwest America.

Jbuza wrote:I have had to take a bit off from this topic because I was getting frustrated by claims that every observation is evidence for a paticular interpretation

Only soliciting how your particular theory can explain observations.

Jbuza wrote:Shoreline erosion is a very big problem and oceans could grow by this mechanism.

You're making a very simplistic assumption that shoreline erosion is constant and unbalanced.

It simply is not.
If you would like to discuss more start a new thread.