Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 781 of 991 (708461)
10-10-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by mindspawn
10-10-2013 4:15 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
The earliest large varieties of mammals are found in the Egypt/Ethiopia region along with the earliest humans, as expected by the flood model. ...
So I am not saying that the fossil record proves a biblical flood, but it is certainly consistent with one.
The earliest humans come some 250 million years after your imagined flood.
Try as you might, you can't get around that one simple fact.
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:15 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 782 of 991 (708462)
10-10-2013 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 768 by mindspawn
10-10-2013 4:40 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
The mainstream error is mainly due to evolutionary assumptions and carbon dating calibration, and is affected by an uneven exponential factor beyond 2000 years ago. So any scientific dates in the 5000-15000 year period I see as irrelevant to ark times, the ark would be from the (mainstream dates) 130 000 to 65 000 period, that entire period being very compressed into a few years. The cheetah being from the mainstream 10000 ye
You really should stop inflicting your delusions about carbon dating on us until you can go to the thread I started for you about two months ago and document your claims.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:40 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 783 of 991 (708466)
10-10-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 779 by PaulK
10-10-2013 10:43 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
You're missing a bigger point. If the Bible story, as mindspawn interprets it, is true the Triassic layers shouldn't exist. How can we get so much geology in mere thousands of years?
Time compression! Which means that, since the the continents were in Pangea-form beforehand, there would have been crustal displacements that occurred so rapidly that there would have been enough energy to boil all the water off the planet.
His narrative is utterly ridiculous and simply laughable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 10:43 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by mindspawn, posted 10-11-2013 8:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 784 of 991 (708520)
10-10-2013 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 768 by mindspawn
10-10-2013 4:40 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
the ark would be from the (mainstream dates) 130 000 to 65 000 period, that entire period being very compressed into a few years
Do you understand that as far as the date of the flood is concerned, that the P-T boundary is still a factor of 2,000 beyond the compressed dates you think correspond to the flood? Want to try this one again?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:40 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 7:50 AM NoNukes has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 785 of 991 (708538)
10-10-2013 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 769 by mindspawn
10-10-2013 4:58 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
I believe through errors in carbon dating calibration and evolutionary assumptions concerning how evolution needs time, the mainstream dating is out by exponential factors.
And this belief is based upon your heartfelt desire that, somehow, some way, any way, your personal interpretation of the bible be correct.
You couldn't possibly know.
You have no idea how carbon dating or potassium-argon dating or argon-argon dating are nor how they work, nor how we know they are accurate in what they tell us about deep time. You just assume they have to be wrong since they destroy your biblical fantasy.
You also assume that deep time measures have to be rigged to correspond with time estimates for evolution to work when, in fact, if you bothered to look at the history, you would know that deep time was already known before evolution hit the scene. It was deep time that gave evolution impetus not the other way around.
Why do creationists insist on being so wrong about so much?
Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. We already know why.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:58 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 794 by mindspawn, posted 10-11-2013 8:10 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 786 of 991 (708542)
10-10-2013 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 769 by mindspawn
10-10-2013 4:58 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
I have the compressed timeframes view. ie I believe through errors in carbon dating calibration and evolutionary assumptions concerning how evolution needs time, the mainstream dating is out by exponential factors.
And you also believe that:
Haha I'm not ignoring geologists, I'm embracing geology.
As a matter of fact, both your beliefs are false, but surely even you can see that at least one of them must be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:58 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 793 by mindspawn, posted 10-11-2013 8:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 787 of 991 (708562)
10-11-2013 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 773 by Admin
10-10-2013 8:52 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
What you're observing is the common frustration that emerges in response to someone who ignores pretty much everything that is said while persisting in silliness and nonsense.
If you can kindly point to specific posts or points that I have ignored, I would appreciate that. I could have easily missed something.
You haven't paid any attention to my requests, either. Stop making ridiculous interpretations of technical articles, start understanding the false logic surrounding your view that, "If you can't prove there wasn't a flood, therefore there was," and just in general start making sense and responding constructively to what people say, and I in turn will make sure participants respond constructively to you. Which most of them are doing anyway.
I am not claiming a lack of evidence against the flood proves it. I am not proving the flood.
I just think its interesting that from a geological perspective no-one can find a spot on earth that cannot be geologically interpreted as a PT boundary flood. I have repeatedly stated that I cannot prove a flood, and so you are misrepresenting me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by Admin, posted 10-10-2013 8:52 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 798 by Admin, posted 10-11-2013 9:10 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 788 of 991 (708565)
10-11-2013 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 774 by jar
10-10-2013 9:28 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
Genesis 6:
7 So the Lord said, I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdand with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundfor I regret that I have made them.
13 So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the arkyou and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.
Note in this myth the God is again very specific, He is going to commit total genocide. Also only two of every critter not seven of the clean critters as in the other myth.
There is no loop hole for the God character, no "Oh and I won't kill any that just sneak in.
I don't see the relevance of a few extra mice to this thread, unless you feel mice have been specifically proven to have no bottleneck. Have you got evidence for this?
And anyway you don't need any loophole, my view is consistent with the wording of the bible. There's two possibilities, maybe more , and we have to be careful not to add or take anything from the bible:
1) And if any other animals and birds find their way onto the ark other than those I specifically bring, destroy them because I will only allow two pairs or 14 pairs. So even if there are extra mice on board, you must track them down.
2) And if any other animals sneak onto the ark, don't waste your time tracking them down, you have more important things to do. The important thing is for some animals to survive the flood, the small numbers are only because of the restricted space on the ark and have no great religious significance.
My point is to refrain from adding wording to the bible if its not clear. ie we have to leave our options open, or we would be incorrectly adding specifics to the bible when the bible is not specific.
Oh one more thing. Genesis 6 & 7 are also yet another example of contradictions in the Bible. According to Genesis 6 the Noah found in Gen 7 would have been dead for 477 years by the time the orders from God were given.
Is this a bible debate?
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by jar, posted 10-10-2013 9:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 797 by jar, posted 10-11-2013 9:04 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 789 of 991 (708566)
10-11-2013 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 771 by NoNukes
10-10-2013 8:30 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
Many? Really? Which ones?
I am referring to mammal bottlenecks between the period of 65 000 ya and 130 000 ya according to mainstream timeframes. The Toba eruption was in this period.
Population bottleneck - Wikipedia
During the Toba eruption, bottlenecks had existed amongst humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, cheetahs, rhesus macaques, orangutans and tigers.
The human bottleneck was erroneously attributed to the Toba eruption, it is known the bottleneck occurred, what caused it is unknown:
Toba super-volcano catastrophe idea 'dismissed' - BBC News
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 771 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2013 8:30 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 790 of 991 (708569)
10-11-2013 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 772 by NoNukes
10-10-2013 8:51 AM


Re: God Didn't Know?
Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth (with poor accuracy) in about 230 BC. At that time, at least, it was known that earth was a planet. I don't believe you can time compress that history into the last couple hundred years, but who knows what you'll try. But let's not confuse a belief in a geocentric universe with not knowing that earth is a planet.
Not confusing this at all. I am referring to words and their meaning.
The fact is that none of the translations of the Bible we're likely to use in this thread date to a time when the earth was not known to be a planet. The translation issue is that there is no information in the text to work with. To change the text so that the author of Genesis knew what he apparently did not would be to lie.
Yes, I agree with your point about how the word earth was used in the Bible. But that error does bring into question exactly what the author knew about the Flood, because clearly the author was not present at the time the event is supposed to have happened.
True.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 772 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2013 8:51 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 791 of 991 (708570)
10-11-2013 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 775 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
Then your beliefs are unevidenced, false, ridiculous and occasionally meaningless ("out by exponential factors" does not in fact mean anything). Or to put it another way, you're a creationist.
Yes I'm a creationist.
It appears that the main argument expressed in this thread relates to timeframes, and this is a good argument because there is science behind the mainstream dating methods. I believe the science is in fact incorrect. I will be dealing with this soon in the dates forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 775 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2013 10:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 792 of 991 (708572)
10-11-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2013 10:12 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
By the same token, you make less sense than a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier, something which is obviously proved by the fact that they really do upset people, whereas your brand of self-satisfied ignorance is merely mildly irritating.
Lol, well at least I'm enjoying myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2013 10:12 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 793 of 991 (708573)
10-11-2013 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 786 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2013 11:18 PM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
And you also believe that:
"Haha I'm not ignoring geologists, I'm embracing geology."
As a matter of fact, both your beliefs are false, but surely even you can see that at least one of them must be.
I do embrace geology, but obviously not the timeframes. I am sure you know my position by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2013 11:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2013 10:48 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 794 of 991 (708574)
10-11-2013 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by AZPaul3
10-10-2013 9:05 PM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
And this belief is based upon your heartfelt desire that, somehow, some way, any way, your personal interpretation of the bible be correct.
You couldn't possibly know.
You have no idea how carbon dating or potassium-argon dating or argon-argon dating are nor how they work, nor how we know they are accurate in what they tell us about deep time. You just assume they have to be wrong since they destroy your biblical fantasy.
You also assume that deep time measures have to be rigged to correspond with time estimates for evolution to work when, in fact, if you bothered to look at the history, you would know that deep time was already known before evolution hit the scene. It was deep time that gave evolution impetus not the other way around.
Why do creationists insist on being so wrong about so much?
Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. We already know why.
I am nearly ready for the dates forum, we can discuss dating rocks there. It appears to be the main argument against a flood at the PT boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by AZPaul3, posted 10-10-2013 9:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by AZPaul3, posted 10-11-2013 10:04 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 801 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2013 10:34 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 803 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2013 10:49 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 795 of 991 (708576)
10-11-2013 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 783 by New Cat's Eye
10-10-2013 11:25 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
Time compression! Which means that, since the the continents were in Pangea-form beforehand, there would have been crustal displacements that occurred so rapidly that there would have been enough energy to boil all the water off the planet.
His narrative is utterly ridiculous and simply laughabl
Sweeping statements! Are you seriously stating that all the water would boil off the planet without any links or maths to back it up?
In the Japanese Tsunami the plates moved 50M in a matter of hours with little effect. Its only in mountain building tectonic movements that the friction is high. If you think of two dinner plates clashing, compared to one dinner plate sliding smoothly over another one, the effects will of course differ. You need to quantify your estimates if you wish to contribute significantly towards this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2013 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by herebedragons, posted 10-11-2013 8:42 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 804 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2013 11:56 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