Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 76 of 93 (614965)
05-09-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
05-09-2011 9:47 AM


All in Genesis?
I was merely questioning the target of the flood, only to find that god basically changes his mind at the last minute and selects one human family and a bunch of animals to survive.
God commands Noah to take a pair of ALL flesh though ... so surely he meant Noah to take all those Dino. species with him too. Maybe the Ark wasn't big enough so Noah skipped a few and hoped no-one would notice.
I ... I think I may have wandered off thread there -- sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 9:47 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:09 PM Peter has replied
 Message 79 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 2:00 AM Peter has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 77 of 93 (614967)
05-09-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Peter
05-09-2011 1:01 PM


Noah
I'll let wiki explain.
quote:
In the 19th century Biblical scholars were beginning to examine the origins of the Bible itself. The Noah's Ark story played a central role in the new theories, largely because, using the newly developed tools of source criticism, scholars discovered in the Ark narrative two complete, coherent, parallel stories. It is stated twice over, for example, that God was angered with his creation, but the reasons given in each telling are slightly different; we are told that there was a single pair of each animal aboard, but also that there were seven pairs of the clean animals; that the source of the water was rain, but also that it came from the "windows of Heaven" and the "fountains of the Deep"; that the rains lasted forty days, but that the waters rose for 150. This, they decided, was how the entire Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) had been written: the work of many authors over many centuries, combining separate sources into a single whole
Source
Check out Genesis 6:19-20 and compare it to 7:2-3. Can this be the same story?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Peter, posted 05-09-2011 1:01 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 05-10-2011 9:49 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 78 of 93 (615097)
05-10-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Theodoric
05-09-2011 1:09 PM


Re: Noah
I see what you mean, although I think in the version I just looked chapter 7 says to take the clean animals in sevens (the male and his females) rather than seven pairs, but anyhow not exactly the same as chapter 6.
The same is true of genesis 1 & 2 BTW.
Maybe it's like the radio news: they run through the highlights then go over the same stories again with a little more detail
From my PoV it is perfectly acceptable to consider that he bible is an amalgamation of different stories handed down in different tribes before finally being written down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:09 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 79 of 93 (615285)
05-12-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Peter
05-09-2011 1:01 PM


Peter writes:
All in Genesis?
I was merely questioning the target of the flood, only to find that god basically changes his mind at the last minute and selects one human family and a bunch of animals to survive.
God commands Noah to take a pair of ALL flesh though ... so surely he meant Noah to take all those Dino. species with him too. Maybe the Ark wasn't big enough so Noah skipped a few and hoped no-one would notice.
I ... I think I may have wandered off thread there -- sorry.
Yes all creatures on the dry land were taken. The clean by seven pairs and the unclean by one pair. After the flood one of the pair of the clean were sacrificed.
So the world was populated by the six clean and one unclean.
A line of reasoning.
Did this ratio represent the pre-flood world.
Was the pre-flood world dominated by the clean animals or was it 50/50 or was it the opposite with a unclean domination.
In fact this question could of been asked at any time in history.
Therefore only the chance to examine the pre-flood world could answer this question.
We can do that today.
The fossil record shows from the flood, as we see it, that the pre-flood world was a unclean dominance. It included the dinos in this.
After the flood it became a clean dominance.
I'm presuming "mammals' are largely clean.
In fact the reason for the ratio can be speculated to have included at least a design to make the post flood world very different in fauna.
After the flood the unclean kinds didn't survive ,largely, on land or sea.
Every fits fine with biblical creationist models.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Peter, posted 05-09-2011 1:01 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 05-12-2011 7:14 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 80 of 93 (615286)
05-12-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:15 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Then it must be remembered that it was only post flood diversity that brought the modern type of creatures as is. before the flood there was no rabbits but simply the rabbit was of a kind that isn't recognized or found in the record. And so on.
Robert, I’m confused. Is your position that animal diversity can change the appearance of animals to the point they’re unrecognizable with their ancestors? If so, it would seem you’re some breed of Darwinian-creo?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:15 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 4:00 AM Trae has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 81 of 93 (615288)
05-12-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Trae
05-12-2011 2:05 AM


Trae writes:
Robert Byers writes:
Then it must be remembered that it was only post flood diversity that brought the modern type of creatures as is. before the flood there was no rabbits but simply the rabbit was of a kind that isn't recognized or found in the record. And so on.
Robert, I’m confused. Is your position that animal diversity can change the appearance of animals to the point they’re unrecognizable with their ancestors? If so, it would seem you’re some breed of Darwinian-creo?
The evidence is clear that creatures have changed from original looks.
To us the original look was a kind.
Yet at the fall the kinds changed greatly. The example in the bible is the snake. It lost its legs and probably was a tall beautiful creature.
After the fall and the flood creatures can change to some extent but i guess would be recognizable if one knew the original look.
For example i'm confident bats are only post flood rodent creatures that found a empty sky. They have wings but still look like rodents.
I say seals are just bears. They look alike somewhat but there is a difference.
Diversity is fine and welcome as long as it stays within kinds.
Its possible one would not recognize anything in the world before the FALL however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Trae, posted 05-12-2011 2:05 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by frako, posted 05-12-2011 4:53 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 83 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 4:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 85 by Trae, posted 05-12-2011 7:12 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 82 of 93 (615290)
05-12-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 4:00 AM


Ok firstly what are kinds some definition please
Lets say cats are a kind do they include tigers, pumas, lions ... or only the small cats, does this kind incloude its distant cousin dogs or are they anoter kind.
In the same respect are the human kind only humans or do they include apes too what about monkeys ?
I say seals are just bears.
umm so this
belongs to the same kind as
umm what then are the boundaries of a kind ?
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 4:00 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2011 6:52 AM frako has not replied
 Message 88 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 2:43 AM frako has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 83 of 93 (615291)
05-12-2011 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 4:00 AM


Byres writes:
I say seals are just bears. They look alike somewhat but there is a difference.
That is the one of the most far out things I have heard in long time, one for the peanut gallery.
Would you like to provide any evidence of this, what you think means absolutely nothing.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 4:00 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 93 (615299)
05-12-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by frako
05-12-2011 4:53 AM


Byers and bears
frako writes:
umm what then are the boundaries of a kind ?
The Bible lists a few animals as kinds. Other than that and the absolute prohibition against the man kind as including any thing non-man, there are no boundaries.
Presumably that there are few enough kinds to fit on a big boat, but a large enough quantity of kinds to explain the current genetic diversity.
I would not presume that Byers has any special ability to interpret the Bible. What he's good at is denying that evolution happens while some kind of goofy quick adaption (e.g., seal to bear) does happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by frako, posted 05-12-2011 4:53 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Trae, posted 05-12-2011 7:23 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 85 of 93 (615303)
05-12-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 4:00 AM


Robert,
Thanks for the explanation. I was just surprised to see anyone use kind in a way that allowed the appearance of an animal to change to the point that it wouldn’t be recognizable in the fossil record. I don’t really have any other questions since it seems there really isn’t any framework that would be objective. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 4:00 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 86 of 93 (615304)
05-12-2011 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 2:00 AM


Clean and Unclean Animals ...
Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on?
If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more).
Your post suggest you are happy with the fossil record as a source of chronology of species, in which case why are there no human remains alongside dinos if they co-existed? Some dinos were about man-sized so hydro-dynamic sorting won't wash there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 2:00 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:21 AM Peter has replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2011 2:56 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 87 of 93 (615309)
05-12-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by NoNukes
05-12-2011 6:52 AM


Re: Byers and bears
NoNukes writes:
Other than that and the absolute prohibition against the man kind as including any thing non-man, there are no boundaries.
Which is good or some would be looking for the fossil for:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2011 6:52 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 88 of 93 (615896)
05-18-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by frako
05-12-2011 4:53 AM


The research on boundaries would be a lot.
Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide.
It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise.
Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by frako, posted 05-12-2011 4:53 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by anglagard, posted 05-18-2011 3:24 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 89 of 93 (615897)
05-18-2011 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peter
05-12-2011 7:14 AM


Re: Clean and Unclean Animals ...
Peter writes:
Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on?
If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more).
Your post suggest you are happy with the fossil record as a source of chronology of species, in which case why are there no human remains alongside dinos if they co-existed? Some dinos were about man-sized so hydro-dynamic sorting won't wash there.
Nothing to do with kosher.
The fossil record simply indicates the creatures living at the time that area with its sediment/life within was fossilized.
The areas that have fossils need only be seen as special segments of the world at that time. so just the wilderness areas and not close to humans. likewise the humans lived in areas overcome and changed by the sediment loads or separation of the continents.
I never expect or want to find humans living with these great assemblages of creatures. Dino fossils are from the wilderness areas on the old earth.
For the record i don't accept there are dinos. Rather there are just kinds and some kinds had like features. they just define the creatures by the few like features. Just as their are no such groups as mammals or reptiles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 05-12-2011 7:14 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 6:39 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 92 by Admin, posted 05-18-2011 8:16 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 90 of 93 (615898)
05-18-2011 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Robert Byers
05-18-2011 2:43 AM


Precision in Definitions is Important in Medicine and Science
Robert Byers writes:
The research on boundaries would be a lot.
Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide.
It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise.
Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in.
The research on boundaries would be a lot.
Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide.
It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise.
Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in.
How would you like it if your physician's definition of disease was 'well it's sorta like smallpox and it's sorta like cholera so I will treat you for both or neither, your call.' How would you like it if some unknown engineer said 'well it's sorta like Newton but it's sorta like harmonically vibrating so it will be OK.' How would you like it if some preacher said 'well it's not actually in the Bible but you have to believe in it because it sounds good to you and my personal desires.'
Well, perhaps it is time to tell the truth, to yourself as well as others.
Edited by anglagard, : title misspeling

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 2:43 AM Robert Byers 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