Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 332 of 503 (679889)
11-16-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by mindspawn
11-16-2012 5:02 AM


yeah it seemed to stop soon after the flood. who knows who the sons of god are, its sometimes translated as angels, some people see them as aliens (other race-groups in the universe). Others have a simple more practical view that a certain group built a more sophisticated civilization (let's call it Atlantis) and these men because of superior technology were known as gods. Just the fact that the bible is open on the topic, and fairly unclear, makes the biblical view on humans non dependent on a bottleneck situation.
So no-one knows anything about the Sons of God. They might have been aliens, they might have been angels, they might have been products of "a more sophisticated civilization (let's call it Atlantis)". But what we do know for certain is that they used to fuck human women. And then at some point they stopped descending from heaven and fucking our women, 'cos they don't do that any more. Or maybe they still do that, but they do that on the sly? How would I tell if my wife had been fucking around behind my back with one of the sons of God?
I could figure this out better if the Bible told me how many sons God had, but there is nothing in the Bible that tells me that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by mindspawn, posted 11-16-2012 5:02 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by mindspawn, posted 11-16-2012 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 385 of 503 (680550)
11-20-2012 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 5:41 PM


Divide that into 22000 genes ...
No, don't. Because a lot of the genome isn't genes, it's non-coding DNA.
You can't start off with figuring from 3 billion base pairs, which includes all the DNA, and then divide by the number of genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 5:41 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 392 of 503 (680559)
11-20-2012 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 2:26 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Ichthyosaurs aren't "very mammal like". They're plainly reptiles.
How about hiding in a landlocked sea? Suddenly in the Triassic you get ichthyosaurs , warm blooded dolphin looking air breathing, live young bearing "reptiles ...
No, you don't. First you get ichthyopterygians, which unlike "dolphin looking" ichthyosaurs had no tail flukes and no dorsal fins, and otherwise look like ichthysosaurs. Problem solved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:26 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 398 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 393 of 503 (680560)
11-20-2012 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 2:43 AM


Well, here' s apie chart for the human genome.
Now, one question we'd have to ask is, when people are counting the variants of a gene, are they including variants that only appear in the introns? This would make a difference, as you can see. Now if I remember rightly, the things we've been talking about on this thread involved variations in the actual proteins, so the answer might be no. I'm sure a geneticist will turn up soon and tell me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:43 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 395 of 503 (680564)
11-20-2012 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 3:31 AM


Re: Flora/Fauna distribution and the flood.
* coughs *
There are transitional fossils. I just told you about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 3:31 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 401 of 503 (680570)
11-20-2012 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 5:20 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Its not a forerunner to the ichthyosaur, ichthyopterygia is an ichthyosaur ...
According to your own quote, the term ichthyopterygians can include both true ichthyosaurs and their primitive ancestors. The ones was referring you to were primitive, ancestral, and not true ichthyosaurs.
Being primitive, they were intermediate between land reptiles and the dolphin-like forms. Land reptiles have no flippers, no tail flukes, and no dorsal fins, the intermediate forms have flippers but no tail flukes and no dorsal fins; the dolphin-like variety have flippers (the rear pair becoming increasingly rudimentary), dorsal fins, and tail flukes. So yeah, intermediate forms. 'Cos of their forms being intermediate.
There are plenty of fore-runners. What we haven't found yet is a diapsid that comes just before the fully aquatic stage. It would be nice if we'd found everything, but to be sure, we haven't.
But how do you deal with the difficulty of this supposed "sudden appearance"? Only it seems to be graver for your ideas than ours. We would expect the land-bound protoichthyosaurs to be confined to one place, since they were not yet fully marine (as turned out to be the case with whales when paleontologists finally found the fossils) and perhaps we haven't found the place yet. But according to you, all the ichthyosaurs, though perfectly capable of roaming the oceans, must instead have been concealed in an undiscovered location or locations until they came out to play in the Triassic --- which they did in order of how adapted they were to marine life, with the most poorly adapted coming out of hiding first. Are we meant to find your idea more plausible? Why?
---
Viviparous reptiles include various skinks, chameleons, night lizards, boas, vipers, and garter snakes, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as though it was surprising.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:20 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 402 of 503 (680571)
11-20-2012 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 5:31 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
On the contrary these dolphin like Ichthyosaurs are warm blooded and have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all.
Except that biologists, when they're classifying ichthyosaurs, biologically classify them as reptiles. Maybe they know slightly more about biological classification than you do. For example, they are surely aware that it is not part of the definition of a reptile that it does not bear live young. Whereas you do not.
Nor would a biologist classify the leatherback turtle as a mammal (while all the other turtles would stay as reptiles) on the basis of its warm blood. Because that would be silly.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:31 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 404 of 503 (680574)
11-20-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Panda
11-20-2012 6:44 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Yeah, they're completely diskinkt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Panda, posted 11-20-2012 6:44 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 416 of 503 (680680)
11-20-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 7:54 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
For what reason?
Because they're morphologically reptiles. Look at its jaw, its ear, its sclerotic ring, its gastralia. A mammal? You'd have an easier time persuading an anatomist that it was a primitive bird.
Do you think their classification could have been affected by currently accepted thinking that there were no dolphins in the early Triassic?
No.
No-one who'd ever actually looked at a dolphin could take an ichthyosaur for a dolphin even at a great distance, because an ichthyosaur's tail flukes are vertical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:54 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 418 of 503 (680724)
11-20-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Boof
11-20-2012 7:02 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Not that early, the finds back in the 1700s were fragmentary.
But certainly before 1820 Ichthyosaurus had received its name. And what does it mean? "Fish-lizard".
It must have been named by one of those time-traveling evolutionists we hear so little about, because any creationist anatomist would have immediately recognized it as a dolphin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 7:02 PM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 10:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 425 of 503 (680744)
11-21-2012 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 7:52 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Because its a logical progression of what would most likely have occurred.
"Logical". Hmm.
The oceans before the PT boundary were cold, the oceans after the PT boundary were warm.
That's a sweeping statement. Were the oceans always cold before the PT boundary? Were they cold during the Carboniferous? And yet the ichthyosaurs lay low during that period.
Evolution is one way to explain the sudden appearance of new types of marine life after the PT boundary, but the time frames seem too constricted to explain the new forms.
Show your working?
A large inland sea in a warm region ...
A large inland sea ... but apparently not so large that anyone's found it yet. Well, large seas are easy to overlook I guess. I know I'm always losing them.
... would explain how this marine life suddenly appeared in the sea and dominated subsequent to the transgression and regression at the PT boundary.
But, the problem is, they do not in fact all pop up at or even near the PT boundary. What we actually see is a progression from the lizard-shaped ichthyopterygians without dorsal fins or tail-flukes to those with a more fish-like rounded body and having dorsal find and tail flukes --- true ichthyosaurs.
For some reason those ichthyopterygians least adapted to a marine lifestyle managed to spread and flourish before the true ichthyosaurs, which were still hiding in this elusive large sea until the Jurassic. Some of them waited 'til the Cretaceous. Meanwhile, as the later forms turned up, the earlier forms were driven out ... apparently they could all co-exist in a single sea, but the whole of the oceans didn't have enough niches for them. (Maybe you should postulate more large seas that no-one's managed to find yet, in which they were originally segregated.)
If this is what you would call a "logical progression", I wonder what you would find bizarre and counter-intuitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:52 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by mindspawn, posted 01-15-2013 6:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 438 of 503 (681001)
11-22-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Pressie
11-22-2012 12:07 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Take one yellow layer of play clay. Put a red layer of play clay on top of that. Put a green layer of play clay on top of that. Put this sequence on a table. Compress gently from the sides. You get beautiful folds and those layers of play clay certainly don't mix.
So, unlithified layers don't necessarily mix when they get folded.....
Is there play clay in the geological record?
I guess it must have been deposited in the Plasticine Epoch.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:07 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 440 of 503 (681005)
11-22-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Pressie
11-22-2012 12:44 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
I just couldn't resist the pun. I could wait the rest of my life and not get another opportunity like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:44 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 456 of 503 (687664)
01-15-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by mindspawn
01-15-2013 6:31 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Obviously when creationists describe fossils as "early Triassic", "middle Triassic", "late Triassic", etc, they are not just making this up us they go along, it's because they have used geological methods to put dates on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by mindspawn, posted 01-15-2013 6:31 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by mindspawn, posted 01-16-2013 9:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 458 of 503 (687666)
01-15-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by mindspawn
01-15-2013 7:46 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Layering of fossils is the most logical reflection of a series of proliferations (population explosions) according to changing conditions.
Um ... apart from your inability to find any of the populations that supposedly exploded; as set against the ability of paleontologists to find intermediate forms.
It's one thing to think about the box, but you're thinking outside the evidence.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by mindspawn, posted 01-15-2013 7:46 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024