Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 665 of 991 (707079)
09-22-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by mindspawn
09-22-2013 4:05 PM


Re: Wrong still again... assumptions re age are wrong.
I am pretty sure most people understood what I meant.
Yes, what you meant is that you don't understand the differences between biology and geology or physics, apparently under a delusion that it is all part of a vast conspiracy.
This is what fundamentalists that don't understand science usually mean (altho they often use "darwinist" instead of "evolutionist" the meaning is still clear: they think evolution is an enemy of truth).
What you really should say is "scientifically validated by multiple sources measurements of age and time frames."
For a discussion of the interactive validation of various methods by the scientific process, I direct you once again to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Patiently waiting for you to tackle this concept of correlations between the various dating methodologies, while noting that all of your sturm und drang on this thread is totally pointless due to your erroneous prima faci assumptions regarding mailable ages and questionable dates:
It doesn't matter how much you squeal and wiggle around the arguments given to you showing that you are wrong ...
... any argument based on a false assumption is de facto invalid and not worth consideration.
The earth is old, according to vast mountains of objective, correlated, consilient, congruent evidence -- get used to it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : "

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by mindspawn, posted 09-22-2013 4:05 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 676 of 991 (707099)
09-23-2013 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Granny Magda
09-22-2013 10:39 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
Hi Granny Magda, nice posts.
Of course it can't be a marine Flood, there are no marine fossils present. This entire formation is fossiliferous. None of the fossils are marine. thus it cannot be a marine incursion. This is so blindingly obvious that I shouldn't need to explain it.
Another point to make is what marine fossils look like and where they occur, and more to the point - how they help disprove a world wide flood event: when we see marine fossil layers there is just too much of them for a one year flood.
Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?:
quote:
Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.
Logically, then, what you need is evidence of a one year incursion of marine ecology over terrestrial deposits -- a layer with first year brachiopod shells for instance.
Brachiopods spend a year as a floating larva that settles on the bottom, where they attach to the bottom with a stalk. They have growth rings in their shells.
You would need to find a bed of brachiopods that floated in as larvae during the flood, attached to the bottom, but never lived long enough to form a second growth ring.
There would also need to be marine plant growth of similar age.
The marine incursion that Mindspawn points to suffers from this problem: the deposits left by the incursion show a marine ecology much older than a one year event.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2013 10:39 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 991 of 991 (710686)
11-08-2013 8:59 PM


So choose - evidence or delusion?
Discussion on this thread has traveled far and wide with YEC proponents trying a number of arguments. I'll touch on three of them:
  1. the age of the earth, reliability of dating methods etc: problem is that the earth is old, according to the objective empirical evidence the earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Further discussion of this fact can be taken to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
  2. fossils of marine animals show flooding: what the fossils show is that the land at the time of the fossils was underwater, not that water covered the whole world, and the fossils found show evidence of decades if not centuries of generation after generation of marine life in that particular spot, whether flat land or the top of Mt Everest -- a duration of life that is completely incompatible with the purported flood. Further discussion of this fact can be taken to Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? (if reopened) or a new thread on this topic.
  3. but the genetic bottleneck argument presented by Jar is, imho, the most devastating to the concept that a world wide flood occurred and that as a result all living species descend from a handful of individuals -- a genetic bottleneck that should show up in every single species on earth. This is truly objective empirical evidence that there was no such event.
The choice is simple:
  1. the objective empirical evidence shows the earth is extremely old and that there was no species wide bottleneck event, and thus believing in a young earth and a global thread can only be sustained by the other choice,
    or
  2. all evidence is illusion, fabricated by a joker god that wants to delude you, either with stories or with facts.
So choose - evidence or delusion?
Enjoy
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024