|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Zift Ylrhavic Resfear | |||||||
| Percy | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Fish on the Ark? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coragyps Member Posts: 4979 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
And this implies that grasses and flowering plants in general run faster than tree ferns and rhyniophytes? I know that cypress trees have knees, but I don't think they have ankles or feet, or can even run a little bit. But they are fossilized way up above Lepidosigillaria. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
reiverix Member (Idle past 1762 days)  Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
Then how did coral come into existence? There isn't enough calcium in freshwater for reef building. Fossilized reefs are not that uncommon.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 1861 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
The inferance is clear that if all of the water was gathered into one place, that the land likewise was gathered into one place. i.e. one ocean, one landmass. IOW pangia, but this is off topic, if you want we can take the issue to the 'what does the Bible say' thread.
Not true there is plenty of evidence, but off topic.
Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures. Evolutionists have their postulates as to why we find land animals mixed in with marine creatures, and creationist have theirs, this is a matter of interpriting the evidence. The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different. Niether view point will ever be proven as an uncontestable fact becuase the occurance was not observed in the first person by anyone alive today and it cannot be repeated. All we can do on either side of the fence is make assumptions and see how well our assumptions fit with our interpritation of the evidence. Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise, but I don't see evolutionists throwing out their theories just because some of the evidence doesn't fit.
Yes well it is an old list if you didn't notice. It was compiled in 1984 I believe and needs to be revised, I'm fairly certain some more OOP fossils have been found to add to the list to take the place of any that have been relagated to 'reworking'. as for you asertions on Coelacanth: coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species. You are speaking of specication not genus and as my earlier post pointed out evolutionary ideas concerning genus/phyla/family are faulty and is at best a smokescreen for trying to provide proof of evolution.
More observable evidence of a recent catostrophic global flood, and the resultant adaptation of surviving species to the new, greatly altered, environment; as well as the subsiquent extinction of those that could not adapt. This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans, but evolutionary theories want to ignore the possibility that all of these bottleknecks occured as the result of one single event. When you exclude information like this who is the real culprite of misinformation? Evolutionary theories are stuck on the idea that variations within a phyla/genus (IOW speciation) is proof that things have evolved, it is not. It only proves that organisms can and do adapt to a changing environment. If there where another living species of wollemi pine that could add it's genetic information to the one that exists in australia, then a new species would be born. For example the Lion and the Tiger. Evolution would have us believe that since these two creatures are of a different species that they are unrelated in that they inhabit two seperate branches of the evolutionary tree. But these two creatures can mate and produce viable living offspring, that can even themselves reproduce, thus creating a new species call Ligers. The misinformation is that minor changes in skin/coat color, size, eating habits, the loss of certain abilities (like flight etc.) are all proof of evolution, when they are not. They are proof of an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environment. This process does not add any new genetic information, it can only work with what it has and for the most part results in a loss of genetic divercity/variability. So the idea that the wollemi pine is not the same wollemi pine found in fossil records is flawed. The only difference is that the wollemi pine in australia has had @3000 years to adapt to it's new environment. The same can be said of the coelacath. There is no morphological difference, it is still recognizable as a coelacath.
Thogh it is off topic I will make two points. 1. that land does not move even when the water is moving over the top of it and 2. That uprooted plants in a flood can move quite rapidly, and create an enormous amount of devistation. Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised. This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 10083 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
quote: Well it must be pretty new because last I heard there was none at all. When I first came here the creationist focussing on it - and he was better informed than most creationists - was sticking to evidence for ordinary plate tectonics - which, of course, doesn't support the catastrophic element at all. quote: No more than is expected, based on the fact that water is pretty good at burying things. quote: Except for the evidence that the creationists have to ignore. Or misrepresent. quote: I've had this discussion before. One side - the old earth view (which some creationists - such as Hugh Ross - accept) has the bulk of the evidence except for rare anomalies, mostly unreliable. The other side seems to only have rare anomalies - there is no "large amount of observational data" supporting a young earth. Or is this something else so new that almost nobody has heard of it ? quote: I didn't say that an example was "lost". I said that the reference given in the list itself attributed the fossils to reworking. It's not a case of new information turning up - it's information that was used to compile the list in the first place ! quote: So how do you know they've remained unchanged for millions of years ? quote: No, AFAIK they're not even classified as being in the same family. quote: You mean biologist's ideas - going back to Linnaeus.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 132 days)  Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
What is your source? Is it a male tiger and a female lion or vice-versa the alternate is a ligon. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member  Posts: 2204 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 9.8 |
quote: That's "resembling", OK? Not "{doesn't} exhibit any morphological differances" as you said. Got that? As for this nonsense;
Are you saying that all humans are genetically identical? Because that would be retarded. Of course, if all humanity really were descended from Noah an co, we would indeed see a genetic record of a bottleneck. We don't. Mutate and Survive
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
obvious Child Member (Idle past 58 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member  Posts: 8786 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
this is a false conclusion. the oceans today are on contiguous body of water, yet there is land in more than one place.
indeed, but i would imagine that if one is going to defend the bible in a science thread, one should at the very least be accurate in what it says.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 11043 Joined: Member Rating: 8.8 |
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
And this is the Biggest Creationist Lie Of Them All. We are not looking at the same evidence. Scientists look at evidence. Creationists look at made-up nonsense for which they have no evidence. As you have just demonstrated.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 1861 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
Identical in that there is only one race, Human. Which is what the Bible has stated all along. Any apearent diferances are due strictly to speciation, or adaptation to a particular environment. i.e. slight diferances in color variations, distinctive features selected both environmentaly like hight to climat ratios, and socialy like facial features. Like the Bible says there are many tribes, mant tongues, and many nations but only one race decended from adam and eve; man. I do not know if there is curently a thread along these lines of discussion.
Until believers in uniformitarianism can provide evidence of their previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume that the uniformitarian principle is true. I believe that there is a thread on this if you would like to go there and debate it further Obvious Child. There is a conciderable amount of observational data which calls into question the UP. And DrAdiquate down there has just demonstrated the tendancy for evolutionists to arbitrarily discount anything that a creationist says by attempting to deny that we have observable evidence in place of made-up nonsense. However in so doing he has just refuted PaulK concerning water being good at buring things, and natural selection and speciation. BTW I found those figures for ocean salination rates. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/seas.asp As noted in this source and in the material referances this source cites (4,5, and 6); The minimum possible rate in the past (of sodium input), even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. While the maximum possible rate in the past (of sodium output), even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/year. Which gives an absolute maximum age for the earths ocean at 62 million years (Not counting a global flood). PS to PaulK for a general introduction to Catastrophic Plate Techtonics please see Dr. Baumgardner's articles for the CPT forum at these two sites: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html If you want to discuss them further I am sure we can find a better thread in which to do so. Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised. This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
anglagard Member  Posts: 1996 From: Big Spring, TX, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Besides two can play the Gish gallop game Message 2 Pick one out of the 100 cowboy, make a PNT, and lets see how long your (or should I say AIG's) argument survives. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
imageinvisible Member (Idle past 1861 days) Posts: 132 From: Arlington, Texas, US Joined: |
As far as AiG is concerned they have a feedback link; if you have a problem with something that is posted on their site feel free to try and refute it, I'm sure the scientist/s involed would enjoy discussing it with you. 'A servant is not greater thsn his Master.' Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised. This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zucadragon Member (Idle past 1141 days)  Posts: 61 From: Netherlands Joined: |
Wikipedia says:
quote:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 11043 Joined: Member Rating: 8.8 |
But this is not true. I am not "arbitrarily" discounting anything that you say. I am pointing out that certain specific statements that you have made are not true, which is why you have no evidence for them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 10083 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
quote: Even your 'b' option proposes an implausibly low population - and you've only got 2000 years to get any significant variation between the 4 women you mention. We should be seeing signs of a severe genetic bottleneck if you were correct. quote: Astronomy provides pretty good evidence. Indeed the fact that we don't find more inexplicable data in geology is good evidence too. And the idea that the laws of physics just happened to be different in a way that made a global flood look like hundreds of millions of years (or more !) of ordinary geology is not exactly likely. quote: I don't know how you drag natural selection and speciation in here. Even on water we basically agree that there is no excess of water-related fossils - and you aren't providing any reason to think that there is. quote: Much of them is arguing for plate tectonics. There doesn't seem to be much arguing for catastrophic plate tectonics and what I can see that does try doesn't seem that convincing. Further discussion is off-topic but I see no reason to change my assessment.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
