William Lane Craig debates Lawrence Krauss in Melbourne, Australia: Does God Exist?

Here is the video from the third debate from Dr. William Lane Craig’s speaking tour in Australia.

Format:

  • William Lane Craig (15 min)
  • Lawrence Krauss (15 min, but was actually 21:40)
  • Moderated discussion
  • Question and answer

Dr. Graham Oppy, the moderator, is a well-known atheist philosopher. He let Dr. Krauss speak for 21 minutes and 40 seconds, which is why my summary of Krauss is so long.

The video:

Summary

After careful consideration, I decided not to be snarky at all in this summary. What you read below is what happened. There may be some small mistakes, but I will fix those if people tell me about them. I also included some quotes and timestamps for the more striking things that Dr. Krauss said.

The debate itself starts at 4:50 with Dr. Craig’s opening speech. He does use slides to show the structure of his arguments.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech. (4:50)

  1. The kalam cosmological argument:
    • God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe
    • The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem supports the absolute beginning of the universe
    • Even if our universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse itself would have to have an absolute beginning
    • Speculative cosmologies try to challenge the Big Bang theory, but none of them – even if true – can establish that the past is eternal
    • Only two types of things could explain the origin of spece, time, matter and energy – either abstract objects or minds
    • Abstract objects do not cause effects, but minds do cause effects (we do it ourselves)
    • A mind is the best explanation for the origin of the universe
  2. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:
    • The underlying structure of nature is mathematical – mathematics is applicable to nature
    • Mathematical objects can either be abstract objects or useful fiction
    • Either way, there is no reason to expect that nature should be linked to abstract objects or fictions
    • But a divine mind that wants humans to understand nature is a better explanation for what we see
  3. The cosmic fine-tuning for the existence of intelligent life
    • There are two kinds of finely-tuned initial conditions: 1) cosmological constants and 2) quantities
    • These constants and quantities have to be set within a narrow range in order to permit intelligent life
    • There are three explanations for this observation: law, chance or design
    • Law is rejected because they are put in at the beginning or matter – they don’t emerge from matter
    • Chance must be rejected, because they odds are just too long unless you appeal to a world-ensemble
    • We do not observe what the world ensemble hypothesis predicts that we should observe
    • Design is the best explanation for finely-tuned constants and quantities
  4. The existence of objective moral values and duties
    • Our experience of morality (values and duties) is that it is objectively real and incumbent on us
    • When someone goes into a classroom and shoots at innocent children, that is objectively wrong
    • On naturalism, moral values and moral duties do not exist – they are conventional and variable by time and place
    • The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is that God exists
  5. The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus
    • There are three widely-accepted facts that are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis
    • 1) the empty tomb, 2) the post-mortem appearances, 3) the early church’s belief in the resurrection
    • Naturalistic attempts to explain these 3 boilerplate facts fail
    • The best explanation of the 3 minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead
  6. The immediate experience of God
    • Belief in God is a “properly basic” belief – rational even without arguments because of experience of God

Dr. Krauss’ opening speech. (21:12)

Slides: (1234567891011121314)

  1. Religious pluralism I
    • There have been lots of different gods created by people through history
    • We’ve gotten rid of all of them by understanding how the universe works by doing science
    • Religion is just stories, and the stories are inconsistent with how the universe works
  2. Progress of naturalistic science I
    • Newtonian physics refutes the idea that angels push planets around
    • Darwinian evolution refutes design arguments, including the one that Dr. Craig presented (24:10)
    • Biochemistry hasn’t explained how life originated, but we will have the solution soon
    • Physics shows us that matter can be created and destroyed without need a God
    • Physics shows us that universes can be created and destroyed “no problem”
  3. Religious pluralism II
    • Since we have been able to disprove all the gods we’ve invented, why hang on to the last one
    • It’s unlikely that the God that Dr. Craig presented exists, because we disproved all the others he didn’t present
  4. Hiddenness of God
    • There is a complete lack of evidence for the other 999 gods, so how likely is it that the God Dr. Craig presented exists
  5. Religious pluralism III
    • There are inconsistencies between various religions, so therefore there can be no religion that is right
  6. Progress of naturalistic science II
    • Peasants had a very low level of knowledge about the world and they believed in God
    • But our level of knowledge has increased over time, so we shouldn’t believe in God now
    • Peasants thought that the Earth orbited the Sun, but this is now known to be false
    • The Scriptures said that the Earth orbited the Sun, but now we know that’s false from science
  7. Christianity plagiarizes from other religions I
    • There is nothing new or special about Jesus
    • He’s just as unpleasant as all the other gods
    • Everything particular to Jesus occurs in other religions
  8. Catholics are inconsistent about what they believe
    • I’ll bet most Catholics don’t really believe in transubstantiation
    • I’ll bet most Catholics don’t really believe in the virgin birth
  9. The resurrection is copied from many other religions
    • Dionysus, Osiris, etc.
  10. There is no evidence for the resurrection
    • The stories about Jesus were written “decades or hundreds of years after the fact”
    • The stories are inconsistent with each other
    • Dr. Craig tells me that historical Jesus scholars all accept that the resurrection happened
    • That’s like saying that all alien abductions experts agree that alien abductions happened
    • It’s unreasonable to think that the resurrection happened because no one saw it happen
    • I accept that people reported on appearances, but hallucination theory can explain that
  11. The timeline for the creation and incarnation are all wrong
    • The creation, planet formation, hominids, incarnation, etc. all take place in the wrong times
    • If God knew what he was doing, he would done everything at better times to be more efficient
  12. David Hume’s argument against miracles is sound
    • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – nothing wrong with this argument
    • Miracles are really just coincidences
    • Catholic apparitions at Lourdes disprove the historical argument that Dr. Craig made for the resurrection
  13. God is petty and jealous
    • God shouldn’t demand that we trust him, esteem him and consider his character when we make decisions
    • The atoning death of Jesus for the sins of the world also makes no sense
  14. Belief is based on geography
    • What you believe is clearly correlated with where you are born
    • There is even an Islamic clone of Dr. Craig who “uses the exact same arguments” that he does to prove Islam
    • Belief in God is decreasing in the Internet-accessible world
  15. Science can develop morals without God
    • Reason is able to guide our actions to be moral
    • Morality evolves over time, so there is no objective morality
    • Catholicism teaches things that are immoral
    • Some things are prohibited by biological revulsion, such as incest
    • But if a brother and sister have sex using condoms “is that morally wrong? I can’t say it is frankly” (37:24)
  16. Dr. Craig is irrational
    • “I came here convinced based on my past interactions and his writing that Dr. Craig was a dishonest Charlatan”
    • “Any argument that validates God is reasonable to him”
    • “And any argument against it is not only unreasonable but wrong and worth distorting”
    • “Because it must be wrong – he’s decided the answer in advance”
  17. Dr. Craig is immoral
    • Dr. Craig thinks it is OK for God to command that Canaanite children are killed
    • “So in fact if they were Canaanite children in that schoolroom that he talked about then it would be OK”
    • It’s not reasonable to justify genocide in that way, but Dr. Craig is willing to go to those lengths
  18. The cause of the origin of the space time universe need not be God
    • Dr. Craig says that if there is an explanation for the origin or space, time, matter and energy it must be God
    • But it could just as easily be turtles or Zeus
  19. Dr. Craig misrepresents the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem
    • Alexander Vilenkin wrote me an e-mail that says that the theorem doesn’t work in all cases
    • “Dr. Craig is so convinced that these arguments must be true that he won’t listen to the fact that they’re not”
  20. Darwinian evolution explains the fine-tuning
    • “Life was fine tuned – we got rid of it with Darwin”
    • Mutation and natural selection explain the cosmic fine-tuning argument that Dr. Craig presented
  21. Suboptimal design disproves the fine-tuning argument
    • “We get back aches” therefore “This argument that [the universe] is fine-tuned for life is nonsense”
  22. William Lane Craig can be proven to exhibit homosexual behavior using logical arguments
    • Look, you can construct arguments that are clearly wrong
    • Premise 1: “All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior”
    • Premise 2: “William Lane Craig is a mammal”
    • Seems to be saying that logical arguments can prove false things “it’s nonsense”
  23. Dr. Craig distorted a podcast that some group made on pain receptors
    • Dr. Craig’s faith is so strong that it causes him to distort what this group said

Discussion: (44:35)

I will not be summarizing everything that was said, just a few main points.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

  • Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning
  • Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion
  • Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed
  • Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for
  • (as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)
  • Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)
  • Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty
  • Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have
  • Craig: And you  agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)
  • Moderator: One at a time
  • Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…
  • (I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…
  • Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!
  • Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want
  • Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”
  • Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”
  • Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”
  • Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this:  (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’
  • Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”
  • Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”
  • Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown
  • (Craig turns away and looks through his papers)
  • Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”
  • Krauss: “No”
  • Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”
  • Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”
  • Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”
  • Craig: “Right”

I noticed that a huge number of atheist web sites are taking the Vilenkin quote that Krauss used out of context, like this one and this one. There are probably a lot more of them like that, which I think is interesting. That’s why we have these debates, I guess. To set the record straight about who accuses people of being dishonest, and who is actually dishonest.

Fine-tuning:

  • Krauss tried to argue that he had explained the fine-tuning with the Higgs particle, but Dr. Craig said that only applied to the cosmological constant, not all the other examples of fine-tuning. Krauss said that it wasn’t impressive that this universe permitted life and that “It would have been much more surprising if we evolved in a universe in which we couldn’t live”. Krauss argued the fine-tuning was only for “Life like us”. But Dr. Craig explained that the fine-tuning is what allows us to have the basics of any kind of life, like slow-burning stars, chemical diversity, etc. – things that are required for basic minimal life functions in any living system. Craig said that he was working with the current physical laws of this universe (F = ma, etc.) and that he was looking at what changed if we changed those even slightly. Krauss tried to say that if he changed things like the mass of particles then the strength of forces would change. (But the forces aren’t laws!) Krauss argued that the cosmological constant would be even better for life if it was zero, and Craig said that the life permitting range did include zero, but that the range of life-permitting values was narrow.

Jesus’ existence:

  • Craig reponded to the mystery religions charge, the charge that the evidence for the minimal facts is too late/too weak, the charge that grief visions explained the evidence better, and Hume’s argument against miracles. Craig brought up the early creed from 1 Cor 15:3-7 and explained to Krauss that it was 5 years after the events, and that Jewish standards of oral transmission were strong enough to ensure that the creed was reliable, and most of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

Audience Q and A: (1:21:09)

The first topic is the grounding of morality. Krauss agrees that there is no objective morality and no objective moral oughts. He also said that that standards of behavior are arbitrary, and that they change over time and they are adopted for promoting social order. Dr. Craig pressed the point that science itself would collapse without ethical values. It assumes them, but cannot ground them.

The next topic was free will. Krauss is a determinist. Craig asked him how he could reconcile moral responsibility with determinism.

The next topic was the effectiveness of mathematics. Krauss didn’t have an explanation for it and didn’t think it needed one. Then they got into whether the Genesis has been verified by science and whether it is meant to be taken literally.

The next topic was whether philosophy makes any progress. Craig gave the example of verificationism being rejected as too narrow, and self-refuting. Krauss: “I’m going to come to the defense of philosophy for the first time”. Craig: “That’s amazing!” Krauss said that science provides new knowledge. Craig said there were some things that could be known apart from science.

6 thoughts on “William Lane Craig debates Lawrence Krauss in Melbourne, Australia: Does God Exist?”

  1. There are many thing that come to peoples mind with what they know about science and the events of the bible. Like dinosaurs for example, scientists say they existed 65 million years ago the bible says god created the earth all animals on it but there is no mention of dinosaurs. Then there is noah and only his family was saved by god while he killed everyone else then 2 of every animal was on the ark but when the waters died down what did the animals eat? Lions ,tigers and other carnivores eat meat. Gazelles and girrafes eat trees abd plants and stuff. So within 40 days and nights of the earth being drenched in water plant life was safe to eat? And if they are only two of each animal the carnivores would have eaten the gazelles and stuff which means those animals wouldnt have been able to reproduce. Also where there insects on the ark like ants or bees ,grasshoppers etc. ? If not then how did they along with marine life survive? I doubt sharks,octopuses,gators etc could survive those kind of waters especially since some live in saltwater and others like in nonsalty water like lakes and rivers.

    Does the bible explain this? Also the plagues of egypt is another big thing and there are many others events in the bible that doesnt make any logical sense especially if some of these events affectted the whole world then why is inly some cultures like rome and greek the only sources that i’ve seen christians use to cite that jesus actually existed? Rome was rather a large empire that conquered many places im sure the countries who they had under there control who have been aware if a man who was known as the messsiah

    Like

    1. CoRa,

      You mentioned a lot of tired old objections to the Bible that have been answered many many times over and over again:

      “Like dinosaurs for example, scientists say they existed 65 million years ago the bible says god created the earth all animals on it but there is no mention of dinosaurs.”

      Try Job 40:15-24. Behemoth is a dinosaur. Further so is Leviathan – see Job 41, the entire chapter.

      Next, “Then there is noah and only his family was saved by god while he killed everyone else then 2 of every animal was on the ark but when the waters died down what did the animals eat? Lions ,tigers and other carnivores eat meat. Gazelles and girrafes eat trees abd plants and stuff. So within 40 days and nights of the earth being drenched in water plant life was safe to eat?” First off, while the rain and sub-terranian water flow continued for 40 days and nights, the water did not begin to recede for another 110 days, making the duration of the flood from its beginning to the point at which it began to recede (Genesis 8:3). It was approximately another 2 1/2 months before the water had receded enough to see the tops of mountains surrounding the place where the ark had settled (Genesis 8:5). According to Genesis 7:11 the flood began during Noah’s 600th year of life on the 17th day of the second month of that year. And according to Genesis 8:14, it was not until 1 year and 10 days later that Noah and all the occupants of the ark ventured outside its doors because the earth had fully “dried out” at that time. So, there was considerable time (months) for the vegetation to reestablish itself before the animals were released to depend upon it for sustenance. second, earlier in the episode, while Noah was waiting for the waters to fully recede, he had released a dove that had returned to him with an olive leaf in its mouth indicating that at least some vegetation had ridden atop the floodwaters or possible had even survived the waters (the verse says the leaf was “freshly picked) at a higher elevation and was potentially available for consumption (Genesis 8:11). Second, not much vegetation would be needed immediately to sustain the small group of animal pairs that emerged from the ark. As they began to multiply and repopulate the earth, plenty of time would have been available for wide-scale vegetation to be restored. Third, the pairs of animals that were taken into the ark were not likely mature adults. Being small and young they would have been able to survive on a herbivorous diet (dogs are carnivores, too, but a lot of dog food on the market is meatless) and would not have even had opportunity to exercise their carnivorous behavior until some time passed and they had become more mature, and this would have been long after the pairs had scattered into far different directions.

      Next, “Also where there insects on the ark like ants or bees ,grasshoppers etc. ? If not then how did they along with marine life survive?” No insects were not taken onto the ark. They likely survived through the floatation of their eggs on plant matter or through burrowing beneath the ground. Genesis 7:15 limits the ark creatures to those that “breath” – “have the breath of life”. Insects do not breath or have lungs, nostrils, etc. Marine life would have been perfectly safe beneath the water’s surface where there would have been much more calm places, in a very similar way that a submarine may avoid a storm by diving deeply into the waters beneath it. The problem of salt vs fresh water animals is likely something that only developed AFTER the flood. We do not know the salinity of the sea prior to the flood. As the flood waters receded, and certain areas (the oceans) became more saline than other areas (lakes), marine life that could best cope with the new conditions found in each area established themselves in one or the other.

      Finally, “Rome was rather a large empire that conquered many places im sure the countries who they had under there control who have been aware if a man who was known as the messiah.” Not really, there isn’t even a lot of information in those peripheral areas about the Emperors of Rome itself, let alone an executed son of a carpenter in a small backwater place like Judea. Please before you go tossing around wild accusations of false claims by the Bible, would you please make some effort to make sure your claims have some validity first? If you can use Google and a mouse, you can do it. JMG

      Like

      1. I brought this up because there are many things that dont make sense. Like on a different post Wintery Knight I brought up about how science and the bible differ on creation mostly being adam and eve. Science says creation began in africa and from their we as mankind migrated to different parts of the word and our various differences such as skin color also changed as well over time. The bible has mankind start in the garden of eden which no one knows its location but a majority of bible believers believe its somewhere around the middle east and majority of binles that i have seen always have a map inside of the locations mentioned in the bible which just shows the middle east and i believe the upper half of egypt.

        Also it not a wild accusation its curiousity, me asking questions which i thought was perfectly normal but apparently according to you and other christians it wild accusations and im just a stupid non-believer.

        Like

        1. ChildofRa, I think he’s more frustrated than trying to be rude (though I could wish for a more gentle tone of posting), but you have nonetheless brought up objections that have been answered over and over and those answers are available to anyone who searches for them. It really does get tiresome when every last person who does not believe brings up the same objections and it does wear on the patience even when we know we are supposed to be patient. I’m not trying to lay on a guilt trip or make you feel bad but to help you understand why we sometimes react this way.

          For my part, I’m fascinated that you think the issues of the flood would be a problem for any being with the kind of power that God has. A God who is truly God would have no problem making it so that even mature carnivorous animals in the ark could eat grass. In Isaiah it prophesies that God will cause the lion to eat straw like the ox on His holy mountain in eternity. Or He could have put them all to sleep for the duration. Or they were awake and mature, bred and had offspring while on the ark, etc, and Noah brought huge stores of food for them to eat which lasted because, not needing to spend energy hunting, they didn’t need to eat as much. God could also easily take care of the saltwater/freshwater problem (if it existed at all) just by speaking the words. All of the things JMG brought up are conjectures on how He might have done it, but in reality, we do not know because the Bible does not say, and the Bible does not say because the how is not important in the grand scheme of things. All that matters is that God made it happen. It may be as simple as God said so, but then the whole reason we have a world to live on is because God said so. God will not do things against His nature (that is, He won’t stop loving humans, He won’t break his word, etc) and He cannot do logically contradictory things (no square circles or other such things), but otherwise He can do ANYTHING. He created light out of nothing just by speaking. A being with that kind of power would find the Flood a small thing indeed.

          As to the dinosaurs – Christians are split into an Old Earth camp and a Young Earth camp. If the Old Earth conjecture is correct (based among other things on the fact that the Hebrew translated as day in the creation account means a period of time and not necessarily a literal day) then dinosaurs lived in antiquity and probably all died in antiquity. If the Young Earth conjecture is correct (based among other things on the fact that when God gives the command and reasoning for the day of rest, He compares it to His creation using the Hebrew word for a literal day), then dinosaurs lived alongside man and likely died in the flood. I believe Wintery is Old Earth and Lindsay Harold is Young Earth on this site, JMG appears to be Young Earth (if I mispoke that, my apologies) while I kind of vacillate between them while leaning towards the young earth side in general. There is also the subset of old earth people who think the creation account is literal, but there is a gap between when the world itself came into being and some specific creative works God did in the Middle Eastern area ~8-10000 years ago. In reality this, as with the Flood questions you brought up, is something that is very hard to know for sure, as among other things we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were around before they fell – if their ages as given in Genesis are counted from their creation, or if the count of years began with the fall, as before that they had eternal lives and bodies and time didn’t matter much to them. God has given us what we need to know about it – that there was nothing and God made everything from it, including the construct of time.

          As for the location of Adam and Eve…you are right, we don’t know exactly where Eden was. That is, the conjecture is somewhere in the fertile crescent, maybe even Israel itself (it would explain why God seems to have staked a claim to that particular plot of ground). But then, Adam and Eve didn’t stay there. They were forced out. Where did they go when they left? We don’t know. We also have no idea of what antediluvian geography was like. Maybe they did settle into what is now northern Africa. Or maybe they went east into the Babylonian plains. Or north towards Turkey. If the Mediterranean didn’t exist (it could have been a result of the Flood), maybe they go west a ways. Who knows? I find the claims of science on that score a bit outlandish – they have absolutely no way of knowing where exactly. It’s a fair guess, probably, but then people and tribes have a way of moving about over time, particularly in the ancient past. We know that even into the ancient past people sometimes went vast distances, so even if we found the bones of the real Adam and Eve, that wouldn’t tell us where they were from, only where they died. I think most learned people would agree that not only with Adam and Eve but with Noah and his family as well that they were dark-skinned. Unless God intervened in genetics to make it otherwise, you have to have dark skinned people in order to get all the rest of the colors of skin.

          I’ve no doubt that into eternity God will reveal some of the workings out of creation and the flood and the rest of the things we wonder about, but I seriously doubt humans will ever understand the fullness of it. The thing about an eternal, omniscient omnipotent being is that He is also infinite, and we can never fully know a being of that sort. It’s one of the reasons eternity will never be boring – we will never run out of new things to do, because God will never run out of new things to draw us into.

          Like

    2. ChildofRa,

      There are a lot of questions in your post. I can’t answer all of them here in detail since that would take nearly a book. However, I can tell you that these concerns have answers (or potential answers) that have been discussed at length elsewhere. I suggest taking a look at http://www.creation.com (maybe do a search for specific topics) to get an idea of what young earth creationists are saying about these questions.

      I will point out that the Genesis Flood was NOT merely 40 days of rain. It was a global cataclysm that lasted about a year. 40 days was just the time it rained. And the rain wasn’t the only source of water, ether. The Bible says the “fountains of the deep” broke forth (although there is debate about what that means). It does suggest significant geological activity, however, and there is reason to believe that the entire surface of the earth was significantly altered. After the rain stopped, it was months before the water went down and Noah and the animals stayed in the ark for over a year.

      There are several theories about how the animals survived inside the ark. It is possible that they were in a state of hibernation. Of course, they would still have needed to eat periodically (many hibernating animals wake from time to time to eat and few animals can go a year without eating, even in a state of hibernation), but the building and preparation of the ark took around 100 years, so it’s quite possible for quite a bit of food to be preserved and stored during that time.

      Also, the number of animals needed on the ark was far, far smaller than the number of modern species. God created animals in “kinds” that have speciated into many, many species over time. So God didn’t need a dingo and a wolf and a fox and a coyote on the ark. He just needed two of the dog kind. In addition to that, there was no need for aquatic animals to be on the ark. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals needed that protection. So the number of animals needed on the ark is actually fairly small and not impossible to handle.

      As for fresh and salt water, we have those different ecosystems today, but I suspect that originally, all water was freshwater and that salt-water organisms have adapted to it over time. The Flood was almost certainly freshwater with salt gradually being added to the oceans by erosion and evaporation cycles since then. The relatively low level of salt in the sea actually forms a good argument for a young earth.

      Like

  2. I guess I shall have to watch this. Did Krauss REALLY say that man can violate the Law of Conservation of Matter?!?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s