Summations Only

That makes perfect sense, and I should have thought about that. Coding DNA is only about 1.5 % of the genome, so my figure should have been 105 000 not 7 million. That is a huge difference, but even so that is a lot of alleles that have been recently introduced into each gene location. So its not possible to use the "number of alleles" argument to refute the Noah story.

I would love to get into that discussion, unfortunately I only have the time for this thread, and bluegene's DNA thread at the moment. As soon as I have the time, I will tackle that.

We can't say what animals would have been on the ark. We need complete DNA analysis of prehistoric fossils to even start guessing which were on the ark or which have speciated since. And we have as much chance of getting that DNA as having video footage of the ark. So many aspects of this discussion are in the realm of guesswork. Including all the claims of evolutionists that the predators would have eaten the others, or there was not enough space on the ark. If anyone dares to claim there was not enough space on ark, they should cite some references. Or not even bother to make such remarks on this thread. The first to state their case should back it up. I'm tired of hearing that claim without any evidence.

lol - if they're pre-historic then they wouldn't be around during the recorded history of the Flood.Its so obvious that you're just making up bullshit off the cuff.

This is a science thread. We don't stop at guesswork.As I have suggested more than once, you need to be proposing experiments to test your guesses, not just pretending that one guess is as good as the next.The "evolutionists" have mentioned the experiments that have already been done. Your only counter has been to guess that the experiments are wrong. Gotcha again: You have to propose experiments to show that the other experiments are wrong.Science is an infinite loop. There's no escape.

Well I went, in Message 205, so far as to link him to this grade school level science project that he could even do in his own home.He didn't even reply so I don't have much hope for him actually going out and finding his own experiments.

I am not on this thread to prove the ark story.I am on this thread to refute confident claims of evolutionists that the ark story is impossible. So far statements made concerning the impossibility of the ark story have had no convincing evidence. Whoever makes a claim should back up the claim in a science thread. You are all waiting for evidence from me to prove the flood, when I said I cannot prove it. So I am not making confident claims here, yet many on this thread are, so the onus is on the ones making the claims to back up their claims.If anyone would like to make these claims, then they should be backing it up with evidence or it just sounds like unscientific hot air:
1) No vegetation could grow after a seawater flood.
2) The predators would eat most of the others when let out the ark
3) DNA analysis disproves the flood story
4) A flood of biblical proportions is impossible.Referring to point 4, we need evidence of a high water mark at the P-T boundary, or evidence of a site on the planet showing an unbroken continuation of terrestrial geology across the P-T boundary that shows no sign of flooding. Or any other convincing evidence.

I agree. Please see the post below. If participants of this thread cannot refute the flood, why make confident claims based on guesswork?

Here's a little experiment you can perform with your children:Science Project: How Does Salt Affect Seed Germination?Science Project: How Does Salt Affect Seed Germination? - OwlcationBut just in case you can't be arsed to do it, here's the results: Raddish seeds aren't of course ALL seeds. But I'm willing to bet my house that you'd get the same result from grass seeds - grass, as you may know is what cows, camels, deer, rabbits, horses etc eat.But salt is the least of your problems. what would you expect the result to be of covering our grass seeds with several thousand feet of brackish water to be for over a year?Then we have the problem that in order to grow at all the seeds need to be at the correct depth in the soil. Grass seeds must be either on or no more than a few millimetres below the soil if they are to germinate.Now we have the problem that all the top soil has been stripped away and has been replaced by sediments. Very wet sediments.Where are your seeds? Any that floated sank after water logging and rotted along with all other vegetable matter. If any survived this, they're buried below the sediment. Any that aren't buried and/or rotted have to grow in saline conditions. Not only that, they have to grow quick enough and in quantities large enough to feed a quantity of herbivores.No chance. Do you really need proof that carnivores eat other animals?(Reminder: this is the guy that claims that mountains are hills and that the flood didn't require a miracle. Possibly a double standard here?)

But all of you points you try to make are irrelevant and frankly, not really honest.The topic of the thread is "Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?"The answer to that is really simple.Every animal alive today must show that it went through a bottleneck 4500 years ago.If even one species of animal does not show that bottleneck signature then the Ark story is refuted.Humans do not show a bottleneck 4500 years ago.Goats do not show a bottleneck signature at 4500 years ago.Chimpanzees do not show a bottleneck signature at 4500 years ago.That means that the Biblical Flood Stories are false and impossible.It does not matter if you want to pretend that the Flood happened at the PT boundary or the KT boundary or any other time.The Biblical Flood stories are myth.The Ark story is impossible. And that is not just confident, it is fact.

You mean there is nothing other than evidence for dating that contradicts the Bible that you cannot ignore or make excuses for. As long as you accept high rates of macroevolution and then claim that there is no time for evolution at normal rates, you can pretend to have made a case.Are you going to explain how "adapted" traits are passed to the next generation without genes? Your logic is pretty well trashed in the thread. You don't need me doing more of it.

He's already stated that he can deny or make excuses for the results of radiometric dating. I'd sure like to see him try!

But you are making a positive claim, i.e. you are making the claim that the Flood was a real event and that it took place at the PT boundary.To which we naturally respond "Oh yeah? Prove it!".Now I realise that you are not claiming that you can absolutely prove that the Flood happened. I understand that you are not stating your case that strongly. The problem is that in order to make such a case at all, you need to have some decent evidence. It's not up to others to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove yourself right.Where I do agree with you is in the notion that anyone who claims to have evidence that falsifies your claim ought to produce that evidence. That's only fair. But the fact remains that if you want to claim that the Flood really happened, you need to start with soem compelling evidence in favour. That still applies no matter how tentatively you make your claim.Just to show you that I'm not singling you out here, take a look at this wiki article on the Burden of Proof;

quote:

---

Philosophic burden of proof

​

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

​

Holder of the burden

​

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

---

In a science thread that means you need to show empirical evidence for any claim, no matter how tentatively held. That burden of proof is on you. To shift that burden to your critics is unreasonable.Having said all that... Jeez, is that all? Here ya go;

quote:

---

High-Resolution Terrestrial Permian—Triassic Eventostratigraphic Boundary in Western Guizhou and Eastern Yunnan, Southwestern China

​

Abstract
The adjoining area of western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan Provinces in southwest China is an ideal place to investigate the feasibility of correlating marine and nonmarine Permian—Triassic boundary (PTB) sequences, as it contains outcrop sections of shallow marine, marginal marine (or paralic), and terrestrial PTB sections, all in close geographic proximity. This paper documents for the first time multiple stratigraphic data from several well-preserved terrestrial PTB sections in the area and attempts to use these data to define, locate, and correlate the PTB in the area. A study of the spores and pollen and vegetation types across the terrestrial PTB sections in the study area suggests three distinct evolutionary stages across the boundary: Stage 1 (Xuanwei Formation) is characterised by Late Permian or Paleozoic-type ferns and pteridosperms (85.0%), with a few gymnosperms (15.0%); stage 2 is marked by an abrupt drop of sporopollen elements of Late Permian aspects, coupled with the appearance of fungal spores and limited Early Triassic palynomorphs; stage 3 (top Xuanwei Formation and Kayitou Formation) is dominated by gymnosperm pollen (58.8%) of clearly Early Triassic aspect, although still retaining limited ferns and pteridosperms. The three biotic stages seem to well correspond with the changing trend of the δ13C_org curves from the same sections, which is characterized by a sharp drop just before the PTB, followed by a short term partial recovery across the boundary, and then succeeded by a gradual decline after the PTB in the Early Triassic. Combining evidence from eventostratigraphic (i.e., the succession of boundary clay beds), biostratigraphic (using both macroplants and palynomorphs), and chemostratigraphic (i.e., organic carbon isotope excursion signals), we propose that a high-resolution PTB succession, closely correlatable to its marine counterpart at the Meishan section in eastern China, is recognisable at the terrestrial PTB sections in the western Guizhou—eastern Yunnan area in Southwest China.

---

Full TextSo there you go; the Xuanwei Formation is a terrestrial layer that spans the PTB. No big flood. A sharp drop off in plant life, yes, but no corresponding flood layer. Took about a minute find and that only because I type slow. So case closed right?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

You underestimate the power and ease of denial as a strategy. If three monkeys can do it, surely mindspawn can too.And stir in a healthy heaping handful of making stuff up and denying even the words in Genesis and you've got a posting strategy that can survive thread after thread of convincing evidence.

I disagree somewhat. Plenty of people are claiming that the possibility that the Flood happened has been conclusively ruled out. All that should necessary to debate such a claim is a plausible sequence of events that is not countered by the evidence.In my opinion, mindspawn has been successful at challenging at least some of the assumptions people have made. He has scored some points. But he only needs to lose on a single issue in order to lose the argument, and he's made some pretty weak arguments on a number of issues.