Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

Thank you SO much for offering me a chance to refer directly to the BIBLE. This is a rare occurrance as far as the extent of interaction with me goes...You Wrote:

quote:

---

"
You know,
To all of the skeptics out there, and I say that in a good way because I think it is a good thing to question, I would like to say that I am a Christian who believes the flood account of Genesis was localized to mesopotamia. I absolutely agree that a global flood is not possible and is not Biblical. The ammount of water needed to fill the earth to its highest peaks would be four times as the ammount on the earth. The Bible said God sent a wind to disperse the water. If it were global this would make no sense as God's using the water cycle would not get rid of the water but only recycle it. Keep in mind when you debate Christians on this forum that not all of us are young earth creationists. I'm a Christian who believes in an old earth. The major differences I see between you and myself is primarily that I happen to believe that biological macroevolution is not necessarily the mechanism God used to create. Most everything else I think is absolutely true."

---

and yet you provided us with a NARROWER view of EARTH than I had hoped would become implicated by refering to "astronauts". That really IS OK .1)when you say biological macroevolution is not necessarily the mechanism God used to create you mean what? creation??2)I have never *felt* I was ever "debating" anyone here but still I would like to know again what you meant by "difference" between you and me. I am not an astronaut.3)I have never seen in creation literature some work that takes Morris' position and updates it with NEW GREEK SCHOLARSHIP about the hydraulic details of water flow and applies Pascal's work IN Galelio's utility which in terms of landscape ecology COULD indeed be a mechanism but indeed perhaps NOT the one you mentioned is different between us. I just cant judge if you are not more specific.4) as to GOD using the "water-cycle" I have not *ever* quoted directly from Genesis to my understanding which I will later if necessary but I HAVE mentioned (and I will look thru the list of my posts to try to find the most relevant place to continue this) Gould's about face in reading DAYS OF CREATION. I simply have not taken my reading ALL THE WAY BACK to the Book Of Genesis I have already read.5)I may indeed be persuded to read it differntly yet again. I tend to read more evolution than creation literature anyway but the wind doing it will matter more for the abiological variable than the one I have most in mind. My interest in Genesis is admittedly quite a bit later verse wise than then what causes discussion of the GAP.6)Infinite divisibility is not necessarily the same for biology and physics. Infinite componentability may however be. This is a crucial difference which I have written before within the sentence "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because Brownian motion is not mutually reciprocally indpendent of gravity fall".7)I tried to think about the idea that the Flood was local but the Science behind this claim still was not enough to have me re-write all what I have already WRITTEN so short of an unknown hermenutic arising from within my own diction the possibility of some naturalistic probablity trumping my own guess is unlikely even in my most objective mind set. Fell free to disagree. Thanks again.

Nowhere in any reply on this thread will you see any explanation refuting the simple fact that the world's biogeography can't possibily be explained if all the land animals on earth are claimed to be descended from eithe 2, 7 or 14 ancestors who came off a boat together in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. Biogeopraphy is a falsification of the flood that can't be answered by YECs and Brad's incoherant attempts at obfuscation clearly fail as do all other YEC attempts to explain biogeography.Randy

You said "if", I did not. LOL No professor at Cornell ever answered me how to count organsims. I know HOW i count them and you know how you can count. That is good. God Bless. Will Provine also said "if" to me. That was his mistake as well. There are no hard feelings on my side but to speak for some third party of me, that well... let me stay positive. Have a good evening. I was not trying to "obfuscate" I only try not to say more than can be reasonably discussed at a time but it is true I sometimes go the other way around. Sorry for all the words but I did not write them all.and Randy in looking back rather quickly over the thread, what you NAMED as 'obfuscation' for me, seems to be that I have managned to be able to refer to the concept of "vicarnce" quite a bit more simply(eg. the entry that differentiated Actual Infinity (my writing before this relied more hopefully more on potential infinity but that is harder to make the same point with as it is less delimitable in way that acutal infinity could or can be). It just doesnt seem that way to you. Best.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-03-2003]

If you are not claiming that all land animals or at least all vertebrates are descended from ancestors you came of the ark in the Middle East a few thousand years ago then you are not supporting the YEC myth. If you are then biogeography falsifies what you are supporting and you have done nothing to show otherwise.Randy

I KNOW THIS is what you are saying. I am sorry I have failed to persuade you otherwise. I had spent 9 teen age years, 4+ Cornell years, numerous Internet years trying to do and be a biogeographer. That is something I know and know it probably better than some professionals so as far as my Support for YEC interms of ecology relevant in biogeography is not clear to you in terms of ancestoral relics I am sorry again. A relic area and an area's relic are not the same. I am fully in support of the idea that panbiogeography ITSELF could be a part of standard YEC bioegoraphy vis a v your issue as to how the ancestral continuty is enumerated AND counted (one needs both) but my guess is that this postion on creation and biology is part and parcel for me not getting as far on ICR disucsion forum than here but I do not want to second guess standard YEC or what indeed may be more standarizable. I was prevented by CORNELL from acquiring an undergraduate which is required to be a student at ICR and yet my learning has quite extripated these finishing schools. I will be happy to explain how FROM THE BIBLE I hold these views but I keep geting the feeling you wish some issue in statistics to be uppermost. Tell me If I misread your contents. Why for instance do you say "at least all vertebrates"? My conversation with Henry Morris extended all the way to bacteria. And when you say "biogeography falsifies" I presume you are using some kind of "philosophy...etc" to say so such as came out of UK years ago. I DO divide theory and expt in biogeography but this is likely what may be tripping"" you up. I dont know.Theory has to do with HOW DATA IS ENCODED but expts contain the information (and in biogeography it is nature not man that does "the expts") It would take me quite some time to show how in detail my position on MacArthur's infinite phenotype differs in the lack of hortzianism in Island Biogeography. My first contribution in biogeogrpahy was not published in MainStream Journals but by E-mail to John Grehna who as 'snuck " back here to Buffalo NY about the lack of constraint in the ANY** discussion of panbiogeography (pro or con) of the WIDTH of a "track" even if some other term theoretically substites. John said he wanted to see this in a journal article. I have not yet done so. The same applies THEORETICALLY to YEC biogeography but the application may alter certainly as to data exploration by newer electronic visualization means. I hope this clarifies it for you . Best and Good Day. Brad.

First of all,
I am a Christian that will openly say forget John and Henry Morris. Those guys and the so-called scientists like them give Christianity a bad name. I guess my main point of the post was really just to show that not all Chrisians believe as they do. I'm sure you know this however it seems like YEC is the only perspective being representated for Christianity here.If you want better creation literature to read, I recommend anything by Dr. Hugh Ross. His best are "The Genesis Question" and "Creation and Time."As for God using wind to disperse water, (i.e. water cycle) refer to Genesis 8:1 for confirmaton on that.I don't know if any of this helps but I wrote this on another forum about the possibility of genesis referring to a local flood,"we have to remember that in the time of the Bible, people did not think of things globally the way we do today. When we are told the flood covered the whole earth we must realize it is written by Moses from Noah's perspective. To Noah, everything under the stars and what he could see was the whole world. Also when the Bible tells us that water filled the highest peaks/mountains, the hebrew words for mountains are kol heharim and hugebohim. These can be used to mean hill, mountain, or hill country."

quote:

---

First of all,
I am a Christian that will openly say forget John and Henry Morris. Those guys and the so-called scientists like them give

---

Randy and admins- I will move all non-thread relevant topics off this subject line after this post for now I thought a line by line entry may be more informative but I recognize Randy's point and defer to raising the level of conversation. I have had my way. D-THAT WOULD BE A MISTAKE. TRADITION HAS TO BE MAINTAINED SOMEHOW. I READ THEIR MISSION AS AN EXTENSION OF THE CRITICISM OF RUSSIAN NONMENDELISM even if ICR should hold itself out also on a larger secular base regardless of its Christian Intent. I just need to think of the Elder Morris in Western Texas while my Grandfather was in Western NY. I dont have much of an opnion on how ICR may have chagned after his son, but I was not able to find any error in the landscape knowledge of central Texas he presented.

quote:

---

Christianity a bad name. I guess my main point of the post was really just to show that not all Chrisians believe as they do. I'm sure you know this however it seems like YEC is the only perspective being representated for Christianity here.

---

YA KN,ow I never really looked into trying to categorize EvC posters WITHIN creationist thought I simply, if I have a choice, tend to if not always respond to what I think is incorrect evolutionary understanding. I made some videos where I was a bit fairer but then again then I was the PRODUCER and acutally had some say in what the DIRECTOR was doing. I also had control on live TV of all of the content- here I have had to post thru the topic divisions. That I have done. point well taken.

quote:

---

If you want better creation literature to read, I recommend anything by Dr. Hugh Ross. His best are "The Genesis Question" and "Creation and Time."

---

I tried Ross independent of ICR's assertions when ID was taking even Janent Partial's America by storm but I found his physical intution MUCH TOO restrictive for my biological plenum thinking (there are also physicists such even as Wheeler or Bohm I will rarely if ever read but my use IN physics is much less than biology sensu scripto)

quote:

---

As for God using wind to disperse water, (i.e. water cycle) refer to Genesis 8:1 for confirmaton on that.

---

THANK YOU!!! that is what I was trying to get Randy to READ thru to. That is all I was trying to say immediately above but it did indeed extend what I had written earlier in this thread but I do not want to annoy Randy any further. randy took me on long enough.

quote:

---

I don't know if any of this helps but I wrote this on another forum about the possibility of genesis referring to a local flood,
"we have to remember that in the time of the Bible, people did not think of things globally the way we do today. When we are told the flood covered the whole earth we must realize it is written by Moses from Noah's perspective. To Noah, everything under the stars and what he could see was the whole world. Also when the Bible tells us that water filled the highest peaks/mountains, the hebrew words for mountains are kol heharim and hugebohim. These can be used to mean hill, mountain, or hill country."

---

Yes this probably helps but being in Pagan Ithaca with a liberal Church where I got into a theological difference about what the Morris' COULD have meant by "first cause" I do not have a good enough Bible knowledge to gain say what you offered. When I think of Moses I first get back to thinking about the strucutre of the tent and never the ark even with the help you offered. But that could be my spiritual problem and not a materialism. I dont know, thanks again.

quote:

---

The major differences I see between you and myself is primarily that I happen to believe that biological macroevolution is not necessarily the mechanism God used to create.

---

So, does this mean that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, or what?I'm a little confused by what you wrote.

My opening post on this thread gives a small part of the problem that biogeography presents for the myth of a worldwide flood. Nowhere on this thread have there been any answers to the questions raised in the OP because there are none. Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood and no amount of obfuscation can cover that that fact. Nice try but no cigar.Randy

Randy, you would have been better off answering Schrafinator for I am still confused about the same subset quoted out of this thread that Schraf has been kind enough to requote but was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I have choice but to open the thread head again and go thru some details.You wrote:

quote:

---

While this isn’t exactly geology I think it belongs under the flood discussion. I don’t see an explicit discussion of it elsewhere on the board.
When creationists attempt to explain the world's biogeography they often greatly underestimate the magnitude of the problem it presents for the worldwide flood. I consider it a falsification of the flood account, along with several others of course.
There are particularly insoluble problems with the fauna of Australia/New Zealand/New Guinea and the Americas. According to the ark story marsupials and the other un over the Bering Sea to get to their current habitats?
Randy

---

.I really DO need an aswer to Schrafinators post because it does matter whether one orients or reads bioeography from north to south or south to north and which one one perfers will depend on the graphical representaion used in data analysis of any track one uses between any collection points and yet the kangas as a taxon *may* provide a diffent orientation even if one uses A FINITE #BASELINES as the New Zeleanders have advocated. I tend to an infinite representation but aside from just knowing that the track width remained undefined panbiography only helped me to read other biology not yet to write it.Now you want to discuss the "magnitude of the problem" and I believe that we have come across %that% in this thread with the view being expressed that perhaps a LOCAL FLOOD was by cause with you maintaing that no one has really actually addressed the opening post. OK lets address that quite explicitly. I leave what ever "others" are aside with accepting some philosophy of "falsification" and you assert therefore that IT is falisfied by bioegeography first and foremost... OK lets see what came out of what you actually said in the first instance. You enter the data on Aus/US/NZ/America/NG. Great that is all I need. I will go on ad panbiogeographic if need be to inform you from something I basically tried to establish is NOT YEC yet I think could/should be topographically but so far has been really only in evolutionary literature so we will be able to avoid between you and I any difference that is wholly attitudinal c/e and stick to the facts of the biogeography of a line that joins collection localites in these regions CIRCUMPACIFIC.In the Manual of Phytogeography, Croizat's first major work he made much connection about this ocean which the NZ crew later broke with AMNH on the baselining of such that Nelson attempted in SYS ZOO to even repudiate Croizat's ACTUAL USE of this notion he quite adroitly kept so connected since the Manual pulication in 48 all the way up thru the early 70s and beyond. I have not followed croizat into his non-english extensions which he initiated so that when the English shall fail his philosopy others continental might find the same landscape represented...and as for me I will just talk about the tailed frog if you really want to dispute TO THE FORM rather than in the space to which I tried to start off and was willing to leave off from.So do you really want me to continue within your thread head on this or would you prefer to answer Schrafinator directly...we would need perhaps a primer on Croizat's use of "local mobile zones" that go thru the mideast from Africa on one side to the Caribean and NZ NG on the other, the track being focused not on the Pacific but from Galapagoes etc. I hate to introduce my own reading of Croizat for I know that others are available if one concentrates differently on differnt taxa. I looked at herps. so it takes a lot of taxa to just talk biogeogarphy but it is possible and the NZs know better than cladists.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-04-2003]

schrafinator,The answer is yes. Although I believe in Microevolution as I think everyone regardless of overall belief does, I don't buy into macroevolution as the necessary cause of what we witness today. That's what I mean by the main difference between myself and mainstream science. It was siimply a comment to distance myself from The young earth creationism, nothing more. Although I don't personally believe in macroevolution I don't rule it out completely. I know of theistic evolutionists who are in fact Christians. They simply believe that the first hominids to become human were Adam and Eve or they believe that genesis is primarily metaphorical. Either way, even if i don't agree I can still respect that position. In fact I do more so than the YEC. Sorry, but I seem to have taken this off topic.

quote:

---

Now you want to discuss the "magnitude of the problem" and I believe that we have come across %that% in this thread with the view being expressed that perhaps a LOCAL FLOOD was by cause with you maintaing that no one has really actually addressed the opening post. OK lets address that quite explicitly. I leave what ever "others" are aside with accepting some philosophy of "falsification" and you assert therefore that IT is falisfied by bioegeography first and foremost... OK lets see what came out of what you actually said in the first instance. You enter the data on Aus/US/NZ/America/NG. Great that is all I need. I will go on ad panbiogeographic if need be to inform you from something I basically tried to establish is NOT YEC yet I think could/should be topographically but so far has been really only in evolutionary literature so we will be able to avoid between you and I any difference that is wholly attitudinal c/e and stick to the facts of the biogeography of a line that joins collection localites in these regions CIRCUMPACIFIC.

---

Great. Now explain how thirteen families of marsupials and the only monotremes on earth are descended from ancestors who happened to come off a boat in the Middle East in the company of the ancestors of all the placental mammals on earth and yet made it to Australia and New Guinea with out the company of those placental mammals. Explain how they just happened to go back to the only place one earth that has a fossil record of modern marsupials. Explain how the marsupial mole, platypus and koala were able to make this trip while zebras, wildebeest, lions, tigers, antelope, and zillions of other placental mammals were not. Explain how the flightless kiwi made it to New Zealand where ratite birds have a fossil record, with no mammals of any kind for company. That should do for a start but try to do it using rationaly constructed English sentences without multiple obscure references if possible.I will be out of the country for the next 10 days so it may be a while before I post on this subject again.Randy

Randdy I would be very happy to do this or attempt to do so so much as it would remand me to re-read Croizat in a beneficial way. I have not the time to dedicate ALL of my work to one poster as I have NEVER found this advantageous. If you really want to communicate this kind of stuff with me write me at my email account or look up my phone.I asked you earlier about why you said "vertebrate" and now you say nothing of this question but ask agains and instead about 13 families of marsupials and the onlye monotremes are descended from" but if you had only said pouch kinds I would not be able to answer in the boat I AM ACUTALLY IN BUT ONLY HYPOTHEITCIALLY and That would have taken to be up to my usual standard actual research on my part which I have been increasingly reluctant to do specially for someone when som many simple points get left behind but in this case as you made aht pouch descend without the outher warmbloods but include the monotremes I will take the easy way out (but please contanct me if you are seriously interested in panbiogeography and other issues biogeographic) that is that contra Gould I AM in a greement with St Hilliare on the need of a different PERSPECTIVE about the playtpus etc. These creatures MADE me THINK of herps and Richard Lewontin when talking about snakes made me think of fish. Obviously there is something wrong here but I know it is not me but I also know that Lewontin is not a monotreme. If you wish to really engage my biological intution you are given free access but it will NOT be possible to give you a measure of track width if we can not agree to how tracks are oriented. At this point you would be doing publishable biogeography and yet instead you asked not in general but in the translation in space and form making while you really needed to stick with the translation irrespective of every truism that live and earth evolve together. Darwin prefers organisms but I can not tell if that is what you meant by including the birds without answering my earlier question about vertebrates. It is true by southern hemisphere bioeography is a bit weak as I left off my 'altercation" with Darlington but then I would begin to be "irrational" to you.The point is that if we are discussing polyphyltetically we may not be able to be as rational than if you simply asked without regard to forma making and just stuck to this issue you raised about to and fro from perhpas the place LInneaus thought this place may have actually been.I know this is not satisfactory to you but I like you would need more time if this is what you really wanted to know. perhaps I would not succeed but I doubt it. The last time I REALLY looked into this specific question you raised I was reading Gould on Burnett and I noticed how GOULD THOUGHT the creatures could have gotten back to one space. Gould then made some reasoning from this position which in answer to you really NEED to be c/e generalized which is how I justify that I have not actually left this behind becuase Gould himself has left more of a mess by NOT simply passing certain problems on. I know that is not an excuse but I am not the watchdog for ALL that Is not happening in biology. I am only one guy.

I asked the following.

quote:

---

Great. Now explain how thirteen families of marsupials and the only monotremes on earth are descended from ancestors who happened to come off a boat in the Middle East in the company of the ancestors of all the placental mammals on earth and yet made it to Australia and New Guinea with out the company of those placental mammals. Explain how they just happened to go back to the only place one earth that has a fossil record of modern marsupials. Explain how the marsupial mole, platypus and koala were able to make this trip while zebras, wildebeest, lions, tigers, antelope, and zillions of other placental mammals were not. Explain how the flightless kiwi made it to New Zealand where ratite birds have a fossil record, with no mammals of any kind for company. That should do for a start but try to do it using rationaly constructed English sentences without multiple obscure references if possible.

---

From your post above it seems the answer is no as I expected since there is no worldwide flood based answer to the biogeography problem and all you can do is obfuscate with convoluted sentences full of obscure references which is of course par for the course for you.Randy

If by this you mean have I been able to explain all creation and evoltution in any ebXML potential token of the difference of existence, which is WHY (you post), and frequency then even If I would like it to be yes it IS no for you seem to require something rather heroic and superhuman from me.If you really need a DECLARITIVE sentence linking the Noahic Flood and Biogeography I will supply it this time so perhaps you will have a field day trying to link my postings to the history of creationism of local floods and global ones but I warn you to do so as you seemed to have for making a return at this time to my post frequency that exists as we both admit is more than I even have thought. I didnt answer you before because aka Natural Kinds (Kripke (which is not an obscure reference) the H2O whether in the void or on the Earth remands some intelligence on Matchette's (obscure to you? BUT NOT TO ME) "Beneath the quantitatively described and measured interactions of specified regions of the relative world there is a causal and determining structure productive of that interaction and process. The causal substratum is preciesly the realationship of Polarity and thre relative world is disclosed as an enormous totality of manifestations fo this basic fundamental 'category'. Our explication of the Polar relationship entails the prior development of a concept compeltely fudnamental to our theory. The history of Western philosophy originates in the pre-Socratic , Milesian quest for the ultimate physical substratum of the universe. The various answers given to this profound question could provide the basis for an entire hisory of physical chemistry. From the "water" of Thales the founder of the Milesian school"...or the word "ritam" for the ltter 'n'.The answer to your qeustion lies in the DIFFERNCE of Major and Minor Polarity but as we do not know how to avoid not understanding the telic character of parents in the genetic sense DURING a biogeography return point parentally we can not form the natural kind of this water and offspring to know for sure even if the materialism of the natural kind was rejected in the relation of ONLY the Major despite differences in the Minor. The Metaphysics for this was developed by Franklin J. Matchette in a little work titled OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS THE ABSOLUTE - RELATIVE THEORY. 1949 The Philosophical LibraryMatchette has a quite instructive passage relative to your instance that I admit there is NO global Flood evidence in biogeography where he wrote "Suppose our given fragment to have been a part of New York State. Would not our reconstructed New York demand a further, wider reconstruction which sould set it in the context of the United States, and this again in North America,a nd the Western Hemisphere, the Earth , the Solar System,a nd so on infinitely? For every such inferential reconstruction will itself be a map and every such map is in this sense incomplete and referential, itself but alink in a vast and infinite chain of reference to wider and more inclusive settings. Every such map ends in torn and jagged edges, every such map demands a further inferential completion."I hold that the reading of the global flood refers IF it refers at all to THIS paragarph of Matchettes where one can get no concept of a local flood short of the global flood being "torn". That I assert is nonsensical in terms of the metaphysical force introduced by this reading of post quantum mechanics.In order to imperatively answer your question I would need to analyze creation literature since the 40s for any possible truth of the PHYSICAL FORCE from ZeroAtomUnits which would make me the most influential creationist alive today to whom I am not nor particularly stiving to be so I shall simply make the declaration instead. Part of the reason for avoiding the harder request at this time is that one must be quite certain how one "seeks ends for processes IN the relative is to embark again on an infinte regress A>B>C>D>>>>M>>>> in the inverse direction to that which we have already encounterd in the causal chain." I suppose your rationality despite it not being incumbant on you to answer the more simple questions I asked you in this post will be evidential to some causal chain which is clearly readble in this metaphyiscs say as interpreteing Hume's journey to this edge etc. This sustains at first blush I think any issue of a "local" flood where Matchette said, "The entire panorama of relative existence presents what might be called a vast matrix of Minor Polarities; for between any relative entity of divergence n, and for between any relative entites of divergence n, there exists a vast set of Minor Polarites associated with these differences in divergence."the "trick" is to get the noneuclidean infinite metric DIFFERNCE out of this (which Matchette explictly identified) and into a data base for use in inductive biogeography. At this function we can make the imperative relative to such things as the landbridge etc. but because matter of biological change (biogeographic outlines filled in with acutal tissue from actual taxogeny) is not inanimate in the sense of life from non-life but is as viruses GAVE evidence in support Davenports evolution over MILLIONS OF YEARS molecular complexity we go UPWARD in this S E R I E S not downward as was already DONE relatively. And as this is absolute there IS NOT standing bioegeographic reasons not for the global flood reading of both the science and nature. These sentences are not "in" Matchette but you have pressed me for something of this sort. That is what the answer ?could? look like. I just dont know. If you are still reading this as a form of Kantianism you may make the same mistake a psychiatrist did of asserting that this is a "contradiction in terms". It is not but we would need more than a thread probaly to come to some common understanding. If you went ""downward you would probably have run out of water first.You see Matchette wrote, "Entities, or more generally, relative states draw together, combine because of their inherent energy, - their divergence from the Absolute. It is in this sense that the entire activity and processional character of the relative world is the release of energy, the degradation of energy by the transition of energy from one form to another. To put it differently,the nature of the Zero-Atom Unit as energy-divergence striving for reduction of this energy-divergence, is the source of all the activity in the relative world- this is that we call the influence and effect of MAJOR POLARITY."I have only not said how I did NOT use Millions of years. I think (in other words I did not think with that much time in mind)that my own reading of this metaphysics does not require that some time fram must be wound up to start talking about these things you asked of life. When Matchtte wonders if he as denoted the photon I wonder if he would do better to read Cantor's fundamental series. That physical chemistry difference however will effect the calculation of the energy if this is how you would determine the amount of water in a local vs a global flood. There may be stuff to do here physically but I do not know that it has any relation to biology and locomotion BECUSE in thehistory of science IT WAS THOUGHT that repulsion was a function of conduction and (now you would have to take seriously my many posts...)and you need to think this stuff as well as soon as you must account for any kind difference of hydrogen and oxygen.