The Wazooloo Response to the Ham/Nye Debate

Ian Juby did a better job of breaking down the debate than I ever could have! I wish Ian had been up there with Ham or at least mic'd into Ham's ear! As Nye requested in the debate, Ian gives actual examples of critters swimming up through multiple rock layers (layers were mud at the time) leaving tunnels behind. This episode is chalk full of good responses to some of Nye's unanswered assertions and refutes or better explains his supposed evidence. 
If only this commentary could be viewed by the 5 million people that watched the debate! Watch, like and share this episode of Genesis Week! 
Watch the video here! And subscribe to wazooloo, Ian's YouTube channel.

Nye vs. Ham Debate Dissected

Most estimate that at least 5 million people viewed the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate on Feb 4. Over 2.5 million people clicked the "play" button on YouTube from 190 different countries all interested to hear what the men had to say. This figure was significantly more than those who did the same for the President's recent State of the Union Address which also streamed on YouTube. Many of the 2.5 million viewers were not alone when they watched; there were many church gatherings, college events, and gatherings of family and friends across the nation. The debate trended number one on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. There was a lot of interest in the debate, to put it mildly. The origins debate is far from over in this nation. 

Why did this debate take place?

As I previously stated on my blog, both men had a message they wanted to get across to their target audience in order to work towards their respective goals. Bottom line up front (BLUF): both men succeeded. Nye's message was that science is a beautiful and exciting field to study. That we need young people to embrace future challenges and produce solutions with science. His target audience was Christians, voters in particular, who might be on the fence on the evolution topic. Ham had three target audiences with differing goals for each: young earth creationists--encouraging them to be "comfortable with science", old earth or theistic evolutionists who are believers--encouraging them to trust the Bible over secular science, and lastly he targeted people "on the outside" (as Nye put it) and encouraging them to seek answers in the Bible. I strongly believe that Ham was at a strategic disadvantage because he had to appeal to Bible believing Christians that sided with Nye as well as his other targets. This forced him to spend less time dealing with science and more time on what the Bible actually says and why we trust it. . Now, I am not trying to say that it is wrong for believers to side with Bill Nye the "Humanist Guy" on this topic, but I am sure it must be a little disconcerting for those believers to oppose and ridicule the one preaching the gospel and support the one representing humanism.
Obviously neither men were going to change the others mind on these issues. They were appealing to their target audiences and Ken Ham's target happened to be everyone.

What Ham did well:

• Within the first few minutes of the debate Ham completely refuted Nye's notion that creationists cannot do good science. Before and throughout the debate Nye claimed that creationism is dangerous to our nation's scientific future. Ham used several video clips of creationists who practice science in the secular world. The strongest perhaps was Dr. Raymond Damadian, the co-inventor of the MRI machine who very emphatically expressed his belief in a 6,000 year old universe. Strangely, even after testimony from Dr. Damadian and other creationist scientists, Nye still continued to claim that creationists cannot do good science work. I suppose this is because this was Nye's primary point in the debate. After refuting this claim, Ham chose not to readdress it again.
• A primary point of emphasis by Ham was to display, through describing historical vs observational science, that there is a belief aspect to Nye's evolutionary thinking. Ham said, "There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past. Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can't prove either way observationally, because all we've got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews."
  “There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
  “There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
  “There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
• Ham out-did Nye with his presentation slides and media. The bumbling, science denying idiot, as many refer to Ham, presented a very modern, hi-tech display of his position. Nye's was effective as well, but as Michael Schulson from the Daily Beast stated, "He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class. Ham, seemingly aware that debate is a form of entertainment, and that entertainment thrives on human stories, presented testimonial videos from engineers and biology PhDs who hold creationist views." Michael's article is very entertaining and I suggest you read it as well. He observed that the clearly smarter guy on stage was "oddly" the one claiming the earth is 6000 years old. 
• In my mind, he who presents the gospel wins the debate every time. I know this is not true in many other people's minds, but allow me to summarize what Ham said after the debate. He said that nowhere is it stated that man's word will not return to him void, but it says that God's word will not return to Him void and that his gospel is the power of God unto salvation. As a Christian, I completely agree with him. Few wanted to hear a couple guys spout off scientific facts alone for 2 hours, anyway, so it was good that Ham presented the whole story.
• Ham had answers to Nye's wild curiosity over the origin of matter and the origin of human consciousness. Nye did a good job making his lack of answers sound exciting and romantic I believe people enjoy that type of attitude--to a degree. However, those two questions are loaded with repercussions: Why am I here? What is my purpose? Who/what am I? The two most memorable points in the debate came back-to-back after Nye had expressed his excited yet clueless wonder to these core questions. "Well, Bill, I have to tell you, there is a book out there, that does document where consciousness/matter came from." I believe evolution and atheism provide little to no hope to the human condition and reveals nothing to the purpose of life, and I thought Ham did a good job using subtle humor to contrast the two perspectives.  

What Ham should have done better:

• Ken Ham's presentation had smatterings of scientific evidence of the bible being an accurate document. He explained how if the Bible were true, there are certain predictions that can be made and tested. He stated there should be evidence of a global flood, evidence of the Tower of Babel, one human race, and that creatures should produce after their own kind rather than produce new kinds. This type of information took up about 1% of his presentation time. Even after Nye challenged him to provide scientific evidence or predictions with his creation model, Ham did not oblige. Just 5 more minutes spent outlining a couple of the predictions and evidences he had listed on a slide he flashed occasionally, would have added significantly to his argument. He encouraged people to investigate and research the topics on the list for themselves--a great idea--but it seemed like he did not prepare to speak to any of the topics. This disappointed many creationists, myself included, and reinforced the skeptics perspective that "there is no scientific evidence for creation."
• At one point in the debate he tried to explain how a certain bacteria had not evolved a new metabolic capability as evolutionists claimed, but rather, already had the capability hardwired into their DNA. He stumbled over his words and seemed very uncomfortable speaking to the specifics of the study. I was not surprised by this as Ham typically leaves the science lectures and research to his PhD staff members and focuses more on the biblical aspects when he speaks to his typically Christian audience.      

What Nye did well:

• Nye was very enthusiastic and did a good job of sounding open to new ideas creationists could provide evidence for. He stated that is we could give them just one fish that had managed to swim up from it's supposed sedimentary layer into another, evolution would fall apart and scientists would essentially throw him a parade out of gratitude for his amazing contribution. Ham should have obliged and presented him with the coelacanth and scheduled his parade. The coelacanth (pronounced SEEL-uh-kanth) was long believed to be the missing link between fish and land animals because of its fleshy fins and because it supposedly lived 410 million years ago. When I recently approached a living coelecanth off the coast of Africa for interview it declined to comment. The half leg half fins must have given the fish the ability to swim through all the layers. Contrary to what Nye said, evolution wouldn't fall apart with an out of order fossil or even thousands of out of order fossils. Evolution is not good science since it cannot be disproved. This is because the "theory" just rolls with the punches, saying, "Wow, who knew! Apparently this fossil had nothing to do with the origin of land dwellers." Or, "Wow, it is incredible that these fish have survived unchanged for millions of years in this tiny little colony while the rest of them sprouted legs and walked off." You see, Nye knew that whatever Ham threw his way, he could explain away. The evolution model requires belief and creativity in far greater quantity than evidence.  
• Nye used a very good debate tactic in that he steam-rolled Ham. When one can quickly provide numerous objections, each of which requiring a long drawn out response, you will not get a response. He did this with numerous topics such as tree ages, distant starlight, and ice cores. These are issues that require long, technical papers to properly discuss. Some may view this tactic as cheap, but I don't believe it had any malicious intent behind it. He was merely naming off data as evidence of the universe being old. Ham should have done the same with young earth evidences such as the Grand Canyon, ocean salinity levels, the receding lunar orbit, planetary magnetic fields or any of the topics listed on his evidence slide.
• Nye did a good job pushing his agenda: more funding for science. I strongly support this goal as well. However, if Nye has it his way, there will be continued censorship of one side of the origins debate (obviously intelligent design is the censored side). This would not be good science, but state funded religious conquest. Luckily Ken Ham is right; we can disagree on matters of the past and still work together using science in the present.
• Nye did a good job of pointing out that Ham did not present good scientific evidence for a young earth.

What Nye did poorly:

• Perhaps this belongs in the category of what he did well: Nye did a good job of insulting the intelligence of Kentuckians. He basically said they preferred to have a cute little creation museum rather than a center for nuclear medicine. This claim was actually fact checked to be false anyway. He was already at odd with most people in the audience and he should not have alienated them more.
• I am still not sure on the point of his skull slide. He presented a slide with dozens of drawings of ape skulls and one that he claimed was human. He seemed to want the crowd of non-experts on skeletons to try to identify the human one. I believe his idea was to have people use their incredible human intellect to discover they were no different than animals. At least that non- experts would find that their heads are indistinguishable from apes on a screen 20-50 meters in distance. If Nye had an ape use his brain to pick out the human skull I would have been impressed.
• He was demeaning to Ham. Again, this may fall in the category of what he did well, depending on your perspective. In a debate that was very cordial and respectful, Nye's frequent "Ham's story, Ham's Flood" labeling of the biblical account was intentionally rude. He was not going to win points with those on Ham's side. He also kept referring to mainstream scientists as "those of us on the outside", an obvious attempt to make creationists sound like cultists. Though this is tame compared to the digs creationists are accustomed to receiving, I felt like they stuck out in this spirited by cordial debate.
• He did not do a good job of presenting the whole story about tiktaalik. He explained that based off the evolutionary model they made a prediction that they would find a fish growing legs in a certain rock layer. They found tiktaalik, a fish with boney, fleshy fins in the rock layer they searched. Nye did not mention that they have since found tracks laid down by land animals with fully formed toes "millions of years" before tiktaalik. This makes his claim invalid. Ham should have been prepared to call him out on this topic.

In perhaps the most compelling moment of the debate, Nye and Ham were confronted with the question. “How did consciousness come from matter?”
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99

Final Thoughts

Scientists should not try to censor or shun creationist ideas and contributions. Two conflicting models or view points when compared to each other can only help to refine them. 
Although I thought Ham did an ok job of presenting creation as a viable model of origins, judging by the responses I have heard, he must not have done a good job. Ham did however present the gospel message and as Mark Spence from the daily YouTube show "The Comfort Zone" put it, "It's sad to see that people (Christians) will try to argue point by point or evidence for evidence, forgetting about the gospel. And that the gospel is the power of God onto salvation."
      
Perhaps in the future we will see a more scientific debate between say Ian Juby and an evolutionist. However, it is highly unlikely that any debate in the near future will generate this much publicity and viewership. This was the creationist's golden ticket. Ham made some strong arguments and showed that the Bible has answers to all of the pressing questions in regards to origins and the human condition. However, diepite a few great moments and points by Ham, the idea that was reinforced for most of creation's skeptics was that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. Now there were over 250,000 hits on the Answers in Genesis web site immediately following the debate, so perhaps those that were curious, took Ham's invitation to investigate the evidence for themselves. As For everyone else, I know I am even more determined to present them with evidence for creation and against evolution.

     

Creation Debate Tonight

Very cool article about the debate tonight! It is expected to draw well over a million viewers. Learn more

Watch live

The Great Debate

Some are calling it "the debate of the decade". Others believe it is the worst idea of the decade. Bill Nye "the Science Guy" has agreed to debate renown creationist and Answers in Genesis President and CEO Ken Ham. The debate has garnered massive attention in the creation/evolution realm as well as from the mainstream media. The debate begins at 7:30 ET on Tuesday, February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky with the topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era? 

Why would Nye make the supposed terrible mistake of sharing a stage with someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old? What does he have to gain from debating Ham? Renown atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists on the grounds that it gives the public the idea that there still is an origins debate and and that it puts creationism on the same scientific platform as "real science". Atheists around the world and many evolutionists believe Nye is making a horrible blunder. But why is Nye doing this?
Bill Nye the Science Guy was a show geared towards teens and preteens in the 1990s that had a very catchy theme song, interesting facts, experiments, and plenty of evolutionary thinking. Nye has also come out more recently with a viral video titled, "Creationism is not Appropriate for Children", that reveals a lot about what motivates him. He suggests that "denial of evolution is unique to the United States" And he points out that “We are the world’s most advanced technological… I mean you could say Japan, but generally the United States is where most of the innovation still happens.” He then appeals to parents:“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution, and live in your [waves hands around] world that is inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that, uh– we need engineers! People who can build stuff, solve problems.”  
Nye's agenda is obviously to convince people, especially young people, to become "believers" in evolution for the betterment of our society. He certainly did not use sound logic in his video which probably has some anti-creationists a little worried. Certainly the US has significant numbers of creationists, with over a third of our population believing in creation. If we are the global leaders in innovation and science, perhaps this isn't the crippling situation Nye suggests. Origins science has nothing to do with engineering. Besides, science thrives when people with differing views examine the same evidence and falsify one another's hypothesises. Good scientists should welcome other views, not silence them.

Ham has always focused on the young people in his ministry efforts. Answers in Genesis has a curriculum for homeschoolers and private schools that re-enforce the Christian worldview. He wrote the book "Already Gone" which appeals to parents to instill this worldview and biblical thinking in their kids so they don't stray from their faith when they are exposed to secular thinking. Although Ham is not the most scientifically qualified AIG representative, he is very persuasive and has a strong supporting cast of PhD representatives from various fields in his corner.

There are sure to be plenty of entertaining moments, good one-liners, and substantive debate to be seen on Tuesday. So gather your kids around, watch the live streaming event and listen to what these men have to say in defense of what they believe.

I had hoped to be in attendance for the debate, but the 800 tickets were sold within the first 2 minutes of availability. Instead, my wife and I plan to watch the debate at home with some friends. I will write all about it here on my blog.

Flood Legends

In my last post I alluded to flood legends from around the world. Check out this paper that documents these stories! Very hard to explain how these stories could be so prevalent without a recent global flood! 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html 

Tags: Noah flood Genesis ark Ararat creationist Christian Bible anthropology origins debate 

The Great Flood

The Genesis flood account is a very interesting and controversial subject even among Bible-believing Christians. The story itself fascinates people; having been passed down through the generations in hundreds of cultures from every continent on the planet. The event is sacred and recent enough to have the primary components preserved in many of these legends.
Where is the source of the controversy?
Many Christians will tell you the controversy comes from the Genesis account itself. They will claim that the text is allegory, or that mankind was all gathered into one area and the flood destroyed them, but not the entire world. Do they get this idea from the scriptures? I do not see how they could.

I believe this is an important topic for Christians and I write about this in love, trying to encourage others in their faith in God and in His inerrant Word.

Why is this Important?

This issue is an important one for Christians. When defending our faith and giving the reason for why we believe, it is not a strong witness to those who do not find the Bible credible to take a controversial story like this and obviously try to "cover for it". Most Christians are tolerant of other Christians who don't believe in the flood or creation story, so long as they do believe the core doctrines (as we should be). However, those on the outside who are familiar with the Bible lose patience with these believers because they can practically make the Bible say anything, rendering any logical, theological debate fruitless.
This is a very slippery slope as well. If we can twist a passage like the flood account and make it fit in with mainstream science, we can make other passages fit in with mainstream culture. We have all seen this happen with church leaders today. The Bible teaches us that wide is the road that leads to destruction, so we should not be bothered if majorities oppose what the Bible teaches. I would also like to add that there is very strong evidence of a global flood, so we can also have added confidence in the truth of this passage.
There are some concepts contained in the first chapters of Genesis that are very essential to the understanding of the rest of the Bible. These topics include death (man and animals), the fall (man's spiritual death), our separation from God due to sin, and God's judgment for sinful behavior. If we let these teachings crumble, how can we expect others to find God's Word to be credible? These are very important topics contained in the first chapters of the first book; we should be confident in them.
We should also find hope in Genesis. If God created the living creatures by means of death, disease and survival of the fittest (aka evolution)--and called it "very good"-- why should we be hopeful for this heaven he has planned for us?  

The Flood

What does the Bible say about the flood? For a minute, let's let go of all the scientific evidence and just look at what the Bible actually says. In my experience, the Christians that don't believe in a literal world-wide flood have not read or thought much about the Genesis flood account.

A local flood covering the highest mountains by 20 feet would be more difficult than a global flood covering them by 20 feet. © 2013 Answers in Genesis (www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

 Check it out for yourself and judge whether this passage is about a global flood, or a localized flood with Noah saving his farm animals or maybe some of the local critters. I have italicized words with global implications (and added notes inside parenthesis) since that is my view and this is my blog. ;-)
Ok, fine, I will likewise underline the words with localized implications.

Genesis 6

New International Version (NIV)

⁵ The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. ⁶ The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. ⁷ So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” ⁸ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
⁹ This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. ¹⁰ Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

¹¹ Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. ¹² God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. ¹³ So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. ¹⁴ So make yourself an ark of cypress^[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. ¹⁵ This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.^[d] (A massive boat! with space for over 100,000 sheep-sized animals and their food (1)) ¹⁶ Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit^[e] high all around.^[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. ¹⁷ I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. ¹⁸ But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. ¹⁹ You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. ²⁰ Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. ²¹ You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”
²² Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

Ch 7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. ² Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, ³ and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. (a lot of birds for a localized flood that they could have easily escaped) ⁴ Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

⁵ And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him.
⁶ Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. ⁷ And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. ⁸ Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, ⁹ male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. ¹⁰ And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. ¹² And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
¹³ On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. ¹⁴ They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. ¹⁵ Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. ¹⁶ The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.
¹⁷ For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. ¹⁸ The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. ¹⁹ They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ²⁰ The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. (impossible to have been local, there would have been spillage and the water could never have risen 15 cubits over the mountains containing them) ²¹ Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. ²² Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. ²³ Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
²⁴ The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Chapter 8 begins by explaining that the flood waters remained on the earth for just over a year before Noah came out.

 ¹⁷ Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.”

¹⁸ So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives. ¹⁹ All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on land—came out of the ark, one kind after another.
²⁰ Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. ²¹ The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though^[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done (if this was a local flood, this has obviously happened since then) .

Chapter 8 wraps up with Noah sacrificing and 9 begins with God telling Noah's sons to multiply and fill the earth. It also speaks of God establishing a new order: man can eat meat, animals have the dread of man, and for anyone who takes a man's life, his life will be demanded. This seems pretty drastic for a post-local flood debrief. 
  
⁸ Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: ⁹ “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you ¹⁰ and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. ¹¹ I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
¹² And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: ¹³ I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. ¹⁴ Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, ¹⁵ I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. ¹⁶ Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
¹⁷ So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

Let's think about this logically:
-God gave Noah 120 years notice before sending the flood waters. That is obviously plenty of time to relocate, including the animals, to a safe place (if the flood we local).
-Genesis says that ALL living creatures (not on the ark) died, but if it were local, don't you think just one bird might have flown over a ridge and survived? This would make vs 21-23 in chapter 7 false.
-The boat was massive. Containing three decks with roughly the square footage of a football field each, there was a lot of space; almost 600 railroad cars worth of cargo space. At the time of this passage's writing, it is very doubtful that the author could have even close to an idea of the number of animals that would need to go on the ark. Yet the amount of space is sufficient for the known animal kingdom. There have been some very good studies done to see how feasible it would be to fit the animals on, as well as the logistical challenges Noah and his family would have encountered.

-The boat was very sea-worthy. The ark's length to width ratio is seen in many modern cargo vessels (even the battleship Oregon) because of the outstanding performance it provides in open seas. This massive boat was thousands of years ahead of it's time, which makes sense when we consider that Genesis says God gave him the dimensions.
-Jesus seemed to believe it was global. He used the flood as an example of how the end of the world will be: swift, surprising (to those not seeking the Lord), and global. Matthew 24:37-39.
-Peter said in the last days people would scoff at and deliberately forget the second coming, the fact that God created everything, and the flood that destroyed the ancient world.  
-If this were a local flood, every time we see the rainbow in the sky, wouldn't we be reminded of the fact that God has broken his covenant throughout the ages?

God's word is good. It can be trusted. I can see how some people could have a hard time believing this as a true story. But I don't see how Bible-believing Christians don't believe it. The story is incredible! But isn't the rest of the book incredible as well? If we can explain away this account as a local flood, we can explain away the rest of the Bible if need be. If we truly believe that God's word is true, why would we let fallible men who don't believe in God, sway our trust in it? Christians seem to believe that scientists have proven that the flood never happened and that all of this was impossible. I have researched this subject a lot and I've come to find that the global flood explains a lot (almost everything) geologically. I have found the actual scientific support of the Genesis global flood to be much more persuading than anything secular scientists have offered for evolution or long ages. The actual evidence is another topic that I hope to cover soon.

For those who believe that the flood account is allegory, based off the Hebrew and the writing style, would you still maintain that view if there were overwhelming scientific consensus in support of a global flood? How convinced by the actual text itself are you? Are you trying to make God's perfect word fit in with fallible man's "facts"? I am equally convinced by the Bible and science that the flood was global. I plan to provide you with good scientific and geological evidence to support what the Bible says, sometime in the near future.
Thanks for reading, and God bless.

Related Posts:
5 Evidences of Noah's Flood -- #5: Geologic Evidence
5 Evidences of Noah's Flood--Evidence #4: Bent Rock Layers and Polystrate Fossils
Flood Legends From Around the World


(1) It has been calculated that a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925 cubic feet could store 125,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving over 1.5 million cubic feet of free space for food, water and other supplies. (see - http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html)

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html#ixzz2r8RZkSas
This article is meant for educational purposes.

Dinosaurs of a Feather

At first glance, "feathered dinosaurs" can seem like a major piece of evidence supporting evolution. They are claimed as fact and if they are fact, they have major implications in the origins debate. What are the facts surrounding this topic?  

One of the vital leaps in the evolutionary theory is that from dinosaur to bird. Birds are very different from other creatures we see today, and currently the leading scenario being considered in evolution is that they descended from theropod dinosaurs. The reason for this belief is that birds and dinosaurs have somewhat similar body structures and some theropods are believed to have "protofeathers". These supposed feathers are organic artifacts found in fossil specimens that have been interpreted by scientists as the precursor to feathers. The vast majority, if not all of the supposed feathered dinosaur fossils come from the Lioaning region in China where volcanic sediment has helped preserve the fossils very well. However, the evidence shows that these are not feathers or even pre-feathers, but rather, exceptionally well preserved partially decomposed skin (or skin ridges in some cases). Plenty of feathers have been found fossilized on birds, but only "protofeathers", or "dino fuzz", are found on dinosaurs. In fact, these "protofeathers" are found on many different types of dinosaurs that are not even considered to be ancestral to birds. Not only this, but they are found on dinosaurs long after the evolutionary "arrival" of birds. Suppose these dinosaurs did have feathers, it would not prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs, since birds were already on the scene. Amusingly, even the T. rex is now thought by many to have been lightly feathered, thanks to these artifacts. So what do we make of these "feathers"? Even if dinosaurs suddenly evolved feathers would that signal their arrival to the avian ranks? What are the other differences? How does the creation/flood model interpret the bird and dinosaur fossil record?  

 Feathers in Amber

Scientists have also found exceptionally well-preserved feathers in amber found in rock they date to the time of the dinosaurs. These feathers are not in any way attached to dinosaur remains, and they "bear striking resemblance to modern bird feathers"! Feathers stuck in tree sap from the time of the dinosaurs: logical evidence of birds and dinosaurs coexisting as the Bible suggests, not dinosaurs evolving into birds. When evolution is assumed to be true, it gets in the way of good science. The amber containing the feathers is still transparent. If it actually were as old as they say it is, it should have oxidized long ago and turned much darker. Also, consider Archeopteryx, a true bird, is dated (using evolutionary dating methods) to be roughly twice as old as these amber-trapped feathers. One can't claim this as evidence of dinosaur-to-bird evolution if you have already had birds for 70 million years. More on Acheopteryx later in this post.

Problems for Dino-to-Bird Evolution:

There are many major leaps needed to go from dinosaur to bird, including:

-The breast-bone-- The breast-bone is needed to attach the massive muscles required to power flight. This is nothing like our sternum, but more like the massive keel of a ship-- very deep and strong. Birds have this, dinosaurs did not.
The wishbone--without this bone, the muscles would crush and close off the birds respiratory system. Many birds, including Archeopteryx had one, while dinosaurs did not. 
-The respiratory system itself-- We and other land dwelling creatures, including the dinosaurs, breath(ed) completely differently than birds do. While we fill and empty a sack with each breath, birds have vented lungs where the air flow is unidirectional and the gas exchange takes place within the lung wall in tubes. This and multiple breathing sacks enable them to sustain prolonged aerobic activity very efficiently. The change from one type of respiratory system to the other must be done all at once or else the creature will die, let alone survive because they are the most fit. More details on bird respiratory systems
- Bone structure-- Birds have hallow bones that are needed for flight, and while some dinosaurs seem to have had some hollow bones, they appear to be present for different reasons. For example, many of the long-necked dinos had hollow neck bones to lessen the weight of their necks. This is good design and the only possible way to allow for such a long, tall structure. Some smaller dinosaurs may have had hollow bones to allow them to move faster, but they also had heavy tails that would have made flight impossible. One key trait of bird bones is that these hollow bones are actually connected to the respiratory system which enables the bird to use air to regulate body temperature through the bones.
- Bird flight feathers-- These are extremely strong for their weight, making them ideal for flight. As anyone knows who has examined a feather, the barbs interlock, like velcro, enabling them to propel and maintain flight. This is a far cry from a scale, which is basically a tough fold of skin that serves to protect the creature. The two don't even originate from the same dermal layer.
- Different digits-- Bird wings and feet have digits 2-3-4, while theropods had digits 1-2-3.
- Ability to fly-- Darwinists do not believe that birds evolved from pterosaurs (such as Pterodactyl) , so they also need to account for the bird's ability to fly. Developing wings would begin as arms and eventually get longer, stronger and more feathered. The in order for natural selection to be effective, the evolving creature must have an advantage over other animals at every point in evolution. This includes the millions of years before the wings could actually support flying or even gliding. It is hard to image a scenario where having feathers would give a dinosaur an advantage over others. 
- Wulst-- A key component for flight is the extra brain function needed to control flight. In proportion to their body, birds have a large cranial cavity to provide room for the large frontal lobe (called the wulst) needed for flight control. An interesting article in Live Science claims that the wulst evolved in dinosaurs before the first bird came to be. The example they use is Archeopteryx, a supposed half dinosaur, half bird with a fully developed wulst. Again, more on Archy later in the post.
- Hips-- Theropods are a part of the Order Saurischian which are considered to be "lizard-hipped", while Order Ornithischian dinosaurs are "bird-hipped". Since evolutionists believe that birds descended from the lizard-hipped dinos, they also need to account for birds developing a completely different hip structure. I've heard it said that the "bird hip" gene came from a mutual ancestor of Saurischian and Ornithischian and was merely "switched off" in the Saurischians and was turned back on almost literally overnight when the bird arose. First of all, there is no evidence for such an occurrence. Secondly, if things like this were plausible, why wouldn't scientists excitedly check every newly hatched chicken for scales? You never know what old dino gene might suddenly switch back on! All jest aside, this is an assumption that is not based upon the fossil record, but one that is necessitated by the theory. This is backward science.
- Muscle proportions-- If you were told that you had T. rex arms, you would likely be offended since it was obviously meant that you have a scrawny upper body. I enjoy bird hunting, and when I actually succeed, commonly the only significant portion of meat is the breast (which are massive muscles providing power to the wings for flight). This is true with birds with limited flight capability such as chickens and pheasants as well as very capable flyers such as doves and pigeons. The leap from having all power in the lower body (as these dinosaurs had) to all power in the upper body is very hard to explain during the millions of years prior to achieving flight. Without the required power for flight, even if the dino suddenly sprouted feathers, it would be of no use. Everything must come together at once in order for there to be an advantage over other species. 

Interestingly, there have been many controversial and fraudulent "feathered dinosaur" fossils "found" in China. Check out this link for more details. 

Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx fossils, supposedly 150 million years old, are found in southern Germany, with a total of 8 being found plus a fully developed feather. If the Archeopteryx were seen alive today, it would undoubtedly be classified as a bird. It was completely feathered, fully capable of flight, had claws on it's wings like the ostrich today, had hollow bones, a breast bone and a wishbone. Unlike birds we see alive today it also had teeth, which isn't a problem for classifying it as a bird. We classify the platypus as a mammal even though it doesn't have mammary glands, it lays eggs and has a bill. The only reason Archeopteryx is classified as a dinosaur is that it was found in the Jurassic rock layer and birds were not supposed to have evolved yet. However, there are clear fossil tracks of wading birds in Carboniferous rocks (supposedly twice as old as Archeopteryx) that suggest, using evolutionary time scale, birds actually predated all dinosaurs. These tracks are of course controversial, not because of the actual specimens, but because it contradicts the evolutionary assumptions. There is other evidence of birds "predating" dinosaurs, such as Protoavis (first bird) which supposedly predates Archeopteryx by 75 million years.

Sidebar: 

For over a decade it was believed that a bird-like dinosaur had left tracks all over a Triassic (pre-Jurassic) sand bed. After catching flak for a decade, the authors of the original paper published in "Nature", retracted their paper explaining that further radiometric testing showed that the sand bed was actually Eocene. The "bird-like" dinosaur tracks immediately became bird tracks.

 These "bird-like dinosaur tracks in Triassic 

rock" became "bird tracks in Eocene" overnight (1)  

 This shows that the tracks themselves were not used to identify the track maker, but rather, evolutionary assumptions were used. This is not good science. I do applaud the scientists for publishing their original paper, since it certainly took courage to challenge the status quo.    

Design

The act of flight is a very remarkable feat. It took man (a very intelligent designer) thousands of years to figure it out. We expend a lot of time and energy to develop, design, build, maintain and learn to fly an aircraft. We see an aircraft and we know it was designed. Why don't we see a bird (of whose design we copy for our own use) and know that it too was designed?

Beautifully designed B-2 Spirit, aka the Stealth Bomber shown

 with a hawk (which had no designer, of course) (2)

 
Not only can a bird do all this, but it can also reproduce and make more birds! You say "well aircraft are mechanical creations while birds are biological. That's how we can explain birds arriving without a designer." Living creatures are composed of very complex mechanical parts working in unison, from an individual cell up to the wings themselves. The complexity of a living bird is staggering when all mechanical components are considered. Man cannot even fully comprehend these components, much less make creations out of them. Why should we think a bird has no designer when our own creations scream to us that there was a designer?

Flood Model

If birds and dinosaurs lived together, why don't we see tons of bird fossils intermixed with the dinosaurs? If they all lived together, we should see all fossils in all layers, right? Rather than piecing the evidence together using the evolutionary model of deep time, let's examine the evidence and see how it fits with the biblical creation and flood model. Genesis says that birds and land animals (including dinosaurs) were created within one day of each other. They coexisted. They likely have lived in the same habitats alongside one another until the flood began. This is a better explanation of why bird feathers are found trapped in amber in a dinosaur-filled habitat. We also see bird tracks in these layers (and supposedly much older layers). We see dinosaurs that have just eaten birds (3). We see a bird, in Archeopteryx, that is not expected to be a strong flyer (much like a pheasant). But we don't see many actual bird fossils mixed with dinosaur fossils. It is thought that much of the initial flooding would have been from massive tidal waves as the moon caused the swelling seas to race across land (forming many layers). Creatures would be sorted by body weight, mobility and intelligence. With the ability to fly (or even swim in some cases), even in heavy rain, birds would be able to escape in-coming waters much better than dinosaurs or mammals. Even if they couldn't all fly longer distances to higher ground in the rain, they could get onto floating debris and survive the initial days or weeks of the flood. And suppose some birds were caught up in the same waters as the dinosaurs, their low body density would keep them afloat longer. This might result in reduced numbers of fossilized birds and the ones that did fossilize would be buried higher than the heavier dinosaurs. Heavier birds like Archeopteryx that weren't as mobile or light would be buried with the other land animals. Based off of this model, I predict that other birds such as pheasants will some day be discovered with dinosaurs. 


This topic along with many others, is a very good example of how, depending on your model, very different conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence. However, when you begin to look at this issue as a whole: the major differences between birds and dinos, the birds that predate supposed protofeathers, and bird feathers in tree sap in dinosaur habitats, the evolutionary model crumbles while the biblical model still stands strong. 
Thanks for reading!



(1) http://www.geotimes.org/june02/WebExtra0627.html
(2) http://wordlesstech.com/2013/03/25/stealth-bomber-inspired-by-hawk/
(3) August, 2012 in the open-access on-line biology journal, PLOS: Biology, Lida Xing and colleagues wrote an article titled “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012)

Read more at http://creationrevolution.com/2012/10/science-can-no-longer-stomach-dinosaurs-to-birds-theory/#HwDlvUpoDllr2edX.99

August, 2012 in the open-access on-line biology journal, PLOS: Biology, Lida Xing and colleagues wrote an article titled “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012)
Read more at http://creationrevolution.com/2012/10/science-can-no-longer-stomach-dinosaurs-to-birds-theory/#HwDlvUpoDllr2edX.99

Interesting article on feathered dinosaurs: http://www.icr.org/article/6782/