Besides, you don't cite anything yourself that's well known or even credible, particularly the whole dino blood argument which was proven to be a giant lie on your part. I know exactly what you're trying to do anyways. This is not a discussion on evolution, this is a discussion on literal creationism. Plus I actually come up with my own arguments, I don't plagarize like you.

If you do not have any rebuttles, admit it

so basically you have no sources to back up your claim.  Why am I not surprised?

---

so basically you have no sources to back up your claim.  Why am I not surprised?

---

The math is correct, even you don't object to that not to mention they are drawn from actual science. You're a massive hypocrite for attacking me on not posting sources when you never do yourself

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH541.html

Plus it's obvious to everyone that a the mantle's tempeture is hot enough to melt rock. No amount of water will stay in liquid form. Thus AiG's mile deep water source is going to be superheated steam, the kind that kills everything it touches.

So you admit you have no rebuttles to the arguments?

You're never going to respond to a argument because you don't have a rebuttle and neither do your creationist websites you plagarize shamelessly

-------
Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers,
just as long as you say them- Jeffery Sinclair

You mean you were serious when you were challenging me to a debate?  

Okay.

Where did all the water come from?

Genesis 1:6-8 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

 
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.  

The waters came from above the firmament.

What about salt and freshwater fish?

Most species today have both fish that tolerate salt water and those that tolerate freshwater.

many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.

The kidneys of fish can excrete either excess water or excess salt depending on the salinity level.

---

 
You mean you were serious when you were challenging me to a debate?

---

Truly, not really because I know you can't argue.

Where did all the water come from?  

---

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.    

The waters came from above the firmament.

---

Oh that's funny. Your scripture is about Genesis, not the flood.

Not even paying attention to his own scripture. Plus you can't prove that actually happened.  

---

Most species today have both fish that tolerate salt water and those that tolerate freshwater.

---

Relatively, while a few can tolerate major changes like the Bullshark, very, very, very few can tolerate any change in salinity. Plus the change in salinity changes pressure, which would also result in massive dieoffs. Most species only live in specific pressure zones. Not to mention that with such salinity changes also breeds more alaga, and such booms suck out oxygen from the water. You fail like usual.  

---

many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.

---

Over a long period of time yes. Not a mere 40 days or actually 1 day as the rainfall per minute would be 6 inches. That's 720 feet per day on a conservative estimate.  

---

The kidneys of fish can excrete either excess water or excess salt depending on the salinity level.

---

True, when the differences between them and the surrounding are minute. Let's try a experiment shall we? Take a goldfish, drop it into a salt water tank. How long does it last?  

Really, it is better for you to be a coward then smashed pulp.

You still have argument 1-6 to deal with and to make your life a little harder, he's another massive problem.

As the water didn't come from within the planet and didn't rain, it must have come from off planet and left off planet. The problem is 700,000,000 cubic miles of water is roughly 1/2000 of the planet's weight, more then enough to affect its rotation as well as orbit.

1mi =~1.609km
1mi³ =~(1.609km)³ =~4.166km³ (4.16818183km³ according to wikipedia)

7.0E8mi³ × 4.168km³/mi³ = 2917727281km³ =~2.9E9km³

1km = 10000dm
1km³ = (10000dm)³ = 1E12dm³

2.9E9km³ × 1E12dm³/km³ =~2.9E21dm³

1dm³ = 1L
1L H2O =~ 1kg

2.9E21dm³ H2O × 1kg/dm³ = 2.9E21kg

M[E] = ~6.0E24kg, so the mass of the water would increase the mass of the planet by ~1/2000.

Post edited at 1:26 pm on Sep. 12, 2006 by obvious child

-------
Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers,
just as long as you say them- Jeffery Sinclair

As I have stated before, most species have fish that tolerate freshwater and those that tolerate salt water.

Really, it is better for you to be a coward then smashed pulp.

You still have argument 1-6 to deal with and to make your life a little harder, he's another massive problem.

As the water didn't come from within the planet and didn't rain, it must have come from off planet and left off planet. The problem is 700,000,000 cubic miles of water is roughly 1/2000 of the planet's weight, more then enough to affect its rotation as well as orbit.

1mi =~1.609km
1mi³ =~(1.609km)³ =~4.166km³ (4.16818183km³ according to wikipedia)

7.0E8mi³ × 4.168km³/mi³ = 2917727281km³ =~2.9E9km³

1km = 10000dm
1km³ = (10000dm)³ = 1E12dm³

2.9E9km³ × 1E12dm³/km³ =~2.9E21dm³

1dm³ = 1L
1L H2O =~ 1kg

2.9E21dm³ H2O × 1kg/dm³ = 2.9E21kg

M[E] = ~6.0E24kg, so the mass of the water would increase the mass of the planet by ~1/2000.

And you're saying that I plargarized?

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html[/b]

---

As I have stated before, most species have fish that tolerate freshwater and those that tolerate salt water.

---

Do you understand the concepts of time, salinity and pressure?

---

And you're saying that I plargarized?

---

I cited that previously. You're too lazy to notice.  

---

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

---

Thank you for that. I was hoping you'd say that. To compress billions of years of tetonic movement into a 6,000 year period, the amount of energy and associated heat would be ridiculous. Not to mention that such additional heat (at least several hundred times the current mantle temperature) would have melted the crust of the Earth resulting in a lifeless planet. You fail again. You argument requires a movement of 5 feet a year. If we corrolate the current temperature of 100 Celcius and then multiple that out to a excess of 6,000 Celcius for the mantle's tempeture. That's hotter then the surface temperture of the sun (6273.15 K).

You fail once more.

argument 1-7 needs to be addressed and you haven't done shit. I'd love to know where this water came from.

Plate tetonics cannot have occured like you said or the planet would be molten. Therefore Everest must have been at its current height. The secondary problem is it didn't rain and the water didn't come from the Earth. The third problem is that a addition of such water from space would have changed the orbit of the planet and possibly remove it from the solar system over 6,000 years. Fourth, the life issue from the increase of salinity, much less the additional heat of 6 inches a minute for 40 days. And you're ignoring there is no sediment or fossil layer to support the flood.

-------
Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers,
just as long as you say them- Jeffery Sinclair

You fail once more.

argument 1-7 needs to be addressed and you haven't done shit. I'd love to know where this water came from.

Plate tetonics cannot have occured like you said or the planet would be molten. Therefore Everest must have been at its current height. The secondary problem is it didn't rain and the water didn't come from the Earth. The third problem is that a addition of such water from space would have changed the orbit of the planet and possibly remove it from the solar system over 6,000 years. Fourth, the life issue from the increase of salinity, much less the additional heat of 6 inches a minute for 40 days. And you're ignoring there is no sediment or fossil layer to support the flood.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface.

Thus, it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the United States.

The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), as sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

Oh that's funny. Your scripture is about Genesis, not the flood.

Not even paying attention to his own scripture. Plus you can't prove that actually happened.

the passage IS about Genesis but it does mention water above the firmament.

Furthermore, how would you prove that?  Can you actually PROVE the theory of gravity?

---

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface.

---

That doesn't explain the problems of YEC plate tetonics. Nor does it explain where the water came from, much less the amounts and the heat produces from such precipitation

---

Thus, it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the United States.

---

Only if you knew nothing about geology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

---

The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), as sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently.

---

Only if you have no understanding of geology again. Feldspar requires several methods of formation, magma crystalization (NA with Flood), metaphmoric (NA with Flood), and extreme pressure (sedimtary)(NA with Flood). Therefore the conditions that feldspar requires didn't exist with the flood. Sandstone itself requires millions of years of compression as much of it is made of quartz and feldspar. The very rock you discuss disproves YEC.

---

Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay.

---

Do you know what a dry lake bed is? How can clay form when there isn't moisture? Forgot that eh?

---

the passage IS about Genesis but it does mention water above the firmament.

---

Then you admit that is where the water came from yes? You then have to deal with the problems of orbital stability, not to mention heat from such additional water, as well as asteroid/meteor compaction.

---

Furthermore, how would you prove that?  Can you actually PROVE the theory of gravity?

---

You're right, you can't prove genesis. I can 'prove' gravity by measuring the pull two objects have on each other.

7 out of 7 you have failed to argue.

-------
Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers,
just as long as you say them- Jeffery Sinclair

I have already shown where the water has come from, and I have already pointed out that the receding waters of the Flood would've shaped the mountains we see today.  Therefore, there wasn't as much flood water as you've thought there'd be, therefore it wouldn't have caused orbital instability.

Second, salt and freshwater fish.  

I have already pointed out that most species today have both fish that can live in salt and freshwater.  Therefore, even if some fish of a species were wiped out in the flood, others would've survived.  

---

I know you'll never admit defeat so I'll just refute one of your "arguements" first

---

This outta be good.

---

I have already shown where the water has come from, and I have already pointed out that the receding waters of the Flood would've shaped the mountains we see today.

---

Except there is no proof whatsoever of that occuring, and the geological examples you give exist in spite of such weathering.

You ignored the link which stated not only that your argument is geologically bullshit, but that you know nothing as well about geology.

---

Therefore, there wasn't as much flood water as you've thought there'd be, therefore it wouldn't have caused orbital instability.

---

Apparently you now think that the flood happened on the second day on creation. You failed to address the problems of literal plate tetonics.

Explain to me how the crust of the planet wouldn't melt when the mantle directly under it would have hotter then the sun. The crust is currently melting now at a measly 100 celcius. How could it survive over 6,000 celcius? Your argument is completely without fact or science.  Until you deal with that proble, you cannot even hope to deal with the water issue. Prove that plate tetonics were 60 times faster and that the melting temperature didn't effect the crust.

---

Second, salt and freshwater fish.  

---

Arguments via ad naseum do not work. Deal with the salinity, pressure and time issue.

Very, very, very few species can survive a rapid salinity change much less the associated pressure and prey dieoffs.  

---

I have already pointed out that most species today have both fish that can live in salt and freshwater.  Therefore, even if some fish of a species were wiped out in the flood, others would've survived.

---

And you ignored for the fourth time that such species lack the capacity of instantly change their pressure and salinity tolerabiltiy. And you ignored that their prey doesn't survive such changes as well. And you ignored that such die offs would result in decomposition and release of neutrients causing red tide effects stripping the ocean of oxygen.

Deal with the arguments, ignoring parts when they blow gapping holes in your claims does not mean you are right

-------
Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers,
just as long as you say them- Jeffery Sinclair

And it's funny, because you try to disprove the flood using man-made sciences.
Because everyone knows human science has never been flawed, even the slightest.

Can you prove to me that our entire existence isn't a sort of video game of a greater universe/realm? Of course not, science will never reach that level. Same applies to many or most things dealing with our higher power.

If you try to disprove beliefs using science, particularly calculations and estimations, you in fact are in need of a reality check, because science fails more times every day than Yankee has allegedly failed.

-------
Mein Teacher! I will need the Czechoslovakian boy's desk as well...
Free porn? =O
More porn?
Better porn?