Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2018 10:10 AM
197 online now:
Coragyps, CosmicChimp, edge, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Stile (7 members, 190 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,284 Year: 17,107/29,783 Month: 1,095/1,956 Week: 92/506 Day: 28/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
188189
190
191192193Next
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2836 of 2887 (832679)
05-07-2018 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2834 by Percy
05-07-2018 9:20 PM


Re: trilobite species
I switched to using Kind in this discussion where I sometimes used to use species because I realized species has meanings I don't intend. Kind is meant to define a creature that may vary greatly but only within its own genome. Where you use "species" I would probably usually use "subspecies."

I usually don't try to define Kind at all because it seems futile but in some cases it seems clear enough to define it for a particular creature. Hence what I've said about dogs and cats and trilobites, attempting to define them by their "basic shape." It doesn't seem ambiguous to me. No other mammal has the same skeleton as the dog, or the cat. I included wolves with coyotes with dogs as a Kind for that reason, that their skeletons are so similar; and defined trilobites as sharing the three-lobed structure with the side lobes made up of spines that can be lengthened or shortened etc. which includes an enormous variety, many of which are different enough to be hard to recognize. I have one consistent idea in my mind about all these things so I'm not sure how I've given you the impression I have different definitions.

This attempt to define a few Kinds by their morphology is a different subject from my argument that "evolution defeats evolution" by "using up" genetic diversity.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2834 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 9:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2878 by Percy, posted 05-09-2018 7:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4421
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2837 of 2887 (832681)
05-08-2018 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2833 by Faith
05-07-2018 8:59 PM


Re: Strata: Straightness, flatness, homogeneity, extensiveness etc
Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia, Geological Formations, that is about the connection between the strata and the time periods.

"Usefulness of formations[edit]
...Formations were at first described as the essential geologic time markers, based on their relative ages and the law of superposition. The divisions of the geological time scale were described and put in chronological order by the geologists and stratigraphers of the 18th and 19th centuries."

You do understand what the phrase "at first" means do you not?

And what is meant by "Usefulness of formations"?

Words have meaning, Faith.

Without the strata there would be no Geological Time Scale. How convenient that each time period has at least one such rock.

Since they are the original data, I would say, of course.

The following are descriptions and some photos of some of the formations in the Colorado Plateau, from top to bottom, to show, first, how extensive they are, covering far more area than any pseudo"flat" landscape you can come up with, and certainly making it impossible for the dinosaurs to live there at that time; second, how recognizably different they are from each other, which is really the point of my calling them "single sediment."

Okay so why is the Navajo not as extensive as the Tapeats?

And if the strata are so flat and extensive why does its thickness range from zero to 270 feet in the Grand Canyon?

Why is the Temple Butte Formation not found everywhere in the Grand Canyon?

What makes you think that the depositional environment of the Navajo Formation was the same as, say, the Grand River Formation of Michigan?

Why should marine deposits have a "landscape"?

Why do the Navajo Sandstone and the underlying Kayenta 'interfinger' at their contact if the contacts are sharp and "single sediment"?

They don't have to be literally single sediments to be homogeneous enough to be recognizable, unlike your ordinary earth surface mixtures.

Most sedimentary rocks are mixtures of various sediment types.

And third, examples of very straight flat layers such as the Entrada formation with tight contact between Entrada and Curtis formations; and the Navajo as straight, flat and tight as I could find it with the Entrada above it etc. The clear differences between all of these formations in color and composition certainly don't suggest any normal earth surface landscape to me, but I know you'll pretend it is.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. This is an issue that does not exist. There is clearly some discontinuity of deposition reflected in source material, or other environment of deposition.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2833 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 8:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2839 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 6:18 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4421
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2838 of 2887 (832682)
05-08-2018 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2829 by Faith
05-07-2018 12:47 PM


Re: the strata again
This idea that "flat" land of the sort you are always showing photos could ever become a rock like those in the geo/strat columns needs to be answered but I don't think any answer will do it for you. I don't know how anyone could possibly be convinced of such an idea but of course you'll remind me that incredulity is not an argument. Too bad, it really should be in a case as obvious as this.

There is no landscape of the sort you illustrate with photos that is anywhere near the extent of the rock formations you think could come from such land. I got descriptions of the Navajo formation and the formations above it, and they all cover from four to six or seven BIG current states of the USA. I also found one photo showing the straightness and flatness with knife-edge contact and was about to track down the others when I moved to another page without saving the post and lost it. None of your "flat" landscapes could ever form a knife-edge straight contact with another, let alone cover even a hundredth of the territory the rocks actually cover. If you can't see it I despair of ever getting anything across at all.


Again, to all appearances, you conflate terrestrial deposits with marine deposits. The eolian sandstones of the Jurassic do not have nearly the extent of formations such as the Tapeats or the great Paleozoic limetstones of North America. That is because they are terrestrial.

Same thing with the Claron where I spent much of the last two days. It is not continental in scale. And neither are many of the formations that Percy has provided to you from the lower peninsula of Michigan. They are smaller in extent and do preserve landscapes that you are so hung up on. Some, such as the Hell Creek Formation contain abundant dinosaur fauna.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2829 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 12:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2840 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 6:43 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2839 of 2887 (832689)
05-08-2018 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2837 by edge
05-08-2018 12:17 AM


Re: Strata: Straightness, flatness, homogeneity, extensiveness etc
Yes, I noticed the "at first, but didn't see anything that contradicted it. I guess I should have commented on it.

Here's the Wikipedia article for reference:
GEOLOGICAL FORMATION

Okay so why is the Navajo not as extensive as the Tapeats?

The Flood was running out of sand by then? Well, I think it's a real possibility since there's a lot of the Navajo that is found in odd pieces, lumps and whirls and so on, rather than in layers.

However, many of the strata are continued under other names and sometimes by other sediments too, but the articles I was reading didn't comment on that.

Why do the Navajo Sandstone and the underlying Kayenta 'interfinger' at their contact if the contacts are sharp and "single sediment"?

There is no problem on the Flood explanation with any sediments interfingering; that really ought to be a problem for the time scale interpretation.

I didn't claim in this post that ALL the contacts are sharp or that the layers are single sediment either (rather that they are recognizably homogeneous in contrast with normal earth surface.

Most sedimentary rocks are mixtures of various sediment types.

But not anywhere to the degree of ordinary earth surface, and also they are layered and sorted unlike ordinary earth surface.

[Lost your quote about flatness, but here's my answer:]
When I use the term "flatness" I'm not talking about thickness. I'm talking about the appearance of... flatness. Tabularity as you call it. As opposed to lumpiness or irregular surface. I suppose I need another term.

the Temple Butte Formation not found everywhere in the Grand Canyon?

Not enough of those particular limestone ingredients I would suppose.

What makes you think that the depositional environment of the Navajo Formation was the same as, say, the Grand River Formation of Michigan?

No idea what you are talking about. I don't think the concept of depositional environment describes anything real at all, I think it's a total fabrication.

Why should marine deposits have a "landscape"?

None of these are marine. But the point is that there was never any environment of any kind in which anything lived at the "time" designated by the strata of the geo column/strat column. and the marine "time periods" have the same kinds of rocks representing them as the land periods, flat straight extensive sedimentary rocks. Why is that?

And third, examples of very straight flat layers such as the Entrada formation with tight contact between Entrada and Curtis formations; and the Navajo as straight, flat and tight as I could find it with the Entrada above it etc. The clear differences between all of these formations in color and composition certainly don't suggest any normal earth surface landscape to me, but I know you'll pretend it is.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. This is an issue that does not exist. There is clearly some discontinuity of deposition reflected in source material, or other environment of deposition.

The normal earth surfaces I've seen and tried to create a garden in are jumbled and lumpy, with many sized stones and so on, and there is no normal earth surface that is as straight and flat as the contact between the layers in the top picture or the Carmel Goblin valley picture. And it still makes absolutely no sense that there should be layers of recognizably different stuff, each homogeneous in its own composition, so clearly distinguishable from each other, on any normal natural everyday basis of deposition I can think of.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2837 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 12:17 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2840 of 2887 (832690)
05-08-2018 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2838 by edge
05-08-2018 12:37 AM


Re: the strata again
Again, to all appearances, you conflate terrestrial deposits with marine deposits.

As long as it is considered to be an "environment" in which creatures lived I don't see a problem.

The eolian sandstones of the Jurassic do not have nearly the extent of formations such as the Tapeats or the great Paleozoic limetstones of North America. That is because they are terrestrial.

I guess that makes sense on your paradigm. On mine the Flood was running out of material for forming layers since the terrestrial formations are much higher than the marine formations.

hing with the Claron where I spent much of the last two days. It is not continental in scale.

The Claron as seen on that cross section of the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area is just a tiny piece of its former self, having been severely truncated to become uppermost cliff in the Grand Staircase. But of course being so high in the column it probably was much smaller in scale than the others anyway.

What fun to be up there though. I hope you are enjoying your time.

And neither are many of the formations that Percy has provided to you from the lower peninsula of Michigan.

I ignore a lot of Percy's stuff, sorry, but so much of it is nonsensical anyway..

They are smaller in extent and do preserve landscapes that you are so hung up on. Some, such as the Hell Creek Formation contain abundant dinosaur fauna.

"Preserve landscapes???" You mean dead dinosaurs constitute a "landscape?" What?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2838 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 12:37 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2846 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 8:55 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2841 of 2887 (832692)
05-08-2018 7:17 AM


Ark bottleneck genetic depletion and evolutionj defeats evolution again
Over on the thread about science and religion Tangle is talking to ICANT about his view of the Flood in Message 28. I don't want to get into that conversation but the topic belongs here anyway:

Tangle writes:

Second I would expect to see evidence of such a massive and recent global event everywhere in the strata. But we don't see it. What we DO see are many local flood events.

Uh. Strata. ALL the strata of the Geo/Strat Columns. ALL. And fossils galore, all the dead things the Flood was intended to bring about. SO much evidence.

Similarly, we'd expect to see a genetic bottleneck in every species of plant and animal on earth - we don't. Nor do we see any interuption in man's societies spanning the supposed time of this flood.

I've answered this a bajillion times but not on this thread yet so I'll put it here too:

The bottleneck does show up in the genome of every creature but not in a way we would expect to see it, because today it would cause severe genetic depletion in a creature, meaning so much homozygosity/fixed loci there is no way for it to continue to vary genetically. Examples are the cheetah and the elephant seal.

But a dramatic reduction in genetic diversity would have to have occurred because of the Flood bottleneck too, only because the genetic diversity was so enormous in the pre-Flood world it left enough diversity for all the creatures to continue to vary to the extent of evolving all the species alive today, and NOW we are getting enough genetic depletion in some lineages to threaten them with extinction.

What would have happened is a great increase in homozygosity (and I think the production of all the junk DNA too, the death of a huge number of genes because of the increase in homozygosity, making the junk DNA itself evidence for the Flood). Homozygosity is the result of genetic reduction, but there easn't enough for us to notice because it was merely a limiting of the potential for variation, not the cessation we see in the cheetah and the elephant seal, and the limiting allowed all the variation we see today so in our frame of reference we'd have no basis for considering it a reduction at all.

We accept the current level of homozygosity as normal as well as the huge amount of junk DNA, just as we accept the strata and fossils as somehow producible by normal processes instead of the evidence they are for the Flood's devastation of the earth and all living things.

I've mentioned that I think the enormous variety of the trilobites in the fossil record show the huge genetic diversity that existed before the Flood in all species/Kinds, the trilobites being a special case because so many of them appear in the fossil record, allowing us to see that great diversity.

But over time the very processes of evolution (mostly anything that reproductively isolates a portion of the greater population of any creature) the prpcesses that bring about all that variety, all the breeds and races of all the creatures, also bring about reduced genetic diversity in each race or breed so that ultimately they could potentially reach the same point of genetic depletion as the cheetah or the elephant seal just through those normal processes, I've called this evolution defeating evolution, since obviously if evolution brings about reduced genetic diversity it is going in the opposite direction of what the ToE requires to keep on producing new species, it ultimately brings evolution to a natural end.

The answer I always get to this is that mutation prevents the reduction in genetic diversity from happening. But for various reasons it doesn't and it can't. I'm not up to this argument right now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2844 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2018 7:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17883
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2842 of 2887 (832693)
05-08-2018 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2772 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:17 PM


Re: no supergenome
quote:
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Bible interpretations can be argued endlessly because so much is ambiguous. Does God say in Gen 6:17 that he will kill all land life, or all life period?

I'll get to that in a minute. First, to build my argument, I need to interject that Genesis mentions only man, among all life, as receiving the "breath of life":

quote:
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

But even though the Bible doesn't mention it, your interpretation of Gen 6:17 seems fair:

All flesh wherein is the "breath of life" is taken to refer to animals on the land that breathe the air.

And Gen 6:17 seems to encourage that interpretation, except that it feels like it's leaving something out. Fish and whales and dolphins and seals and manatees and walruses and crustaceans are also living beings, but not on land. And then there's bacteria and protozoa and fungus (neither animal nor vegetable) and so on. If land life required a "breath of life" to become living beings, then wouldn't fish and whales and all the rest also have required some equivalent or analogous "breath of life" to become living beings?

So did water creatures and life too tiny for the Bible writers to know existed have the "breath of life" or not? Who can say?

On whichever side of that argument you fall, where Gen 6:17 says "every thing that is in the earth shall die" doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room. God does seem to be saying he will wipe out all life not on the ark. He says it in other places too, for example:

quote:
Gen 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

And later when the flood was over, the land was dry, the ark had come to rest, and Noah, his family and all the animals had disembarked, God tells Noah that he has indeed destroyed all life not on the ark:

quote:
Gen 8:21 And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

God clearly states he has destroyed all life, which means life both on land and in the sea.

But how would he have done that. For the time being we'll just assume the Flood wiped out all land life, but what about sea life? You suggested suffocation by sediment, but I've already shown there wasn't enough sediment to make a difference. I suggested salinity changes, but you didn't seem enamored of that possibility, and neither am I really, since many marine creatures can tolerate wide salinity ranges.

And how would seals and dolphins and and whales and so forth be destroyed? They can swim and breath air and so wouldn't be much bothered.

And then there are hippopotamuses and alligators and the like, which though more tethered to land are still very strong swimmers.

And how would fish be destroyed that weren't bothered by salinity changes? How would lobsters and crabs and crinoids and starfish be destroyed?

But the problem of wiping out all life would have been even more difficult than that. Vast mats of floating vegetation would support all kinds of life. Did God go about zapping or in some other way destroying all life that survived this way?

Some of those could be saved on the ark. Marine creatures would die on the ark but could live in the Flood water as long as it wasn't too polluted.

But God claimed to have destroyed all life, which means land and sea life. How did he do that? (Minor nit: polluted is probably the wrong word.)

Why all the trilobites died I don't know.

Science thinks the Siberian Traps, which marked the end of the Permian when the trilobites disappeared and which had a devastating impact on the world environment, might have played a significant role.

All the dinosaurs also eventually died, but in the new world after the Flood, probably because there wasn't enough vegetation to sustain them, as well as the problem of the ice age that would have killed them.

What evidence tells you that trilobites did not survive the flood but dinosaurs did?

Interesting that Gen 2:7 implies that life begins at the first breath, not at conception.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2772 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2845 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 8:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17883
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2843 of 2887 (832694)
05-08-2018 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2774 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:22 PM


Re: trilobite species
Faith writes:

The reason your landscape arguments fail is because they're incoherent.

That is probably part of it because it's very hard to get it said.

Would you agree that the expression of inchoate, chaotic or unintelligible ideas (or any combination) is by nature difficult to impossible?

Would you agree that ideas that fall into one or more of these categories should be better thought through and fleshed out before sharing them with others?

In turn I think that most here would agree that anyone with ideas of these types who needs help developing them should be able to request assistance here. But would you agree that while this process of refinement is ongoing that that person should not insist the ideas are correct?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2774 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6255
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 2844 of 2887 (832695)
05-08-2018 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2841 by Faith
05-08-2018 7:17 AM


Re: Ark bottleneck genetic depletion and evolutionj defeats evolution again
Faith writes:

Uh. Strata. ALL the strata of the Geo/Strat Columns. ALL. And fossils galore, all the dead things the Flood was intended to bring about. SO much evidence.

Utter bullshit.

This is what flood evidence looks like. It's thought to be the largest flood event in the last 10,000 years and it's in China at around 1920 BC. Just a few hundred years after your mythical flood.

The work began by accident, Wu said, when he was helping a colleague along the Yellow River in Qinghai Province. There, below a dam, he noticed some unusual sediment material likely lodged there when the dam broke years before from flooding.

"By identifying those sediments and carefully surveying their locations on both sides of the valley," said co-author Darryl Granger, professor in the department of earth atmospheric planetary sciences at Purdue University, "we were able to determine the dimensions of the flood channel downstream, and exactly how high the floodwaters reached."

Applying these insights in a standard engineering equation, they determined that the flood that broke the dam gushed forth at roughly 300,000 to 500,000 cubic meters per second.

"That's more than 500 times larger than a flood we might expect on the Yellow River from a massive rainfall event," Granger said. "It's among the largest known floods to have happened on Earth during the past 10,000 years."

The researchers dated the massive flood using radiocarbon dating techniques taken from skeletons and sediments found downstream.

https://www.aaas.org/...vidence-chinas-great-flood-uncovered

You'll also see in the image that the Chinese had an entire dynasty in place only 200 years after the flood. How was that possible?

I've answered this a bajillion times but not on this thread yet so I'll put it here too:

What you mean is that you made up some unevidenced nonsense that everyone called you out on.

The bottleneck does show up in the genome of every creature but not in a way we would expect to see it, because today it would cause severe genetic depletion in a creature, meaning so much homozygosity/fixed loci there is no way for it to continue to vary genetically. Examples are the cheetah and the elephant seal.

Hopeless. What we would see is what we would expect to see. We expect to see it because that's what we see when near exinction event happen. We see it in the genomes of those creatures. The fact that we don't see it in all organisms disproves your fantasies.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2841 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 7:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2845 of 2887 (832697)
05-08-2018 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2842 by Percy
05-08-2018 7:22 AM


Re: no supergenome
Percy writes:

Gen 6:17 writes:

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Bible interpretations can be argued endlessly because so much is ambiguous. Does God say in Gen 6:17 that he will kill all land life, or all life period.

There is no doubt disagreement about this among theologians though I'm not up on it and I don't think it matters much anyway. A great deal of sea life also died in the Flood so I won't argue against the idea that it could be included in genesis 6:17 though I think my interpretation is the more common one.

I'll get to that in a minute. First, to build my argument, I need to interject that Genesis mentions only man, among all life, as receiving the "breath of life":

Gen 2:7 writes:

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

But even though the Bible doesn't mention it, your interpretation of Gen 6:17 seems fair:

Faith writes:

All flesh wherein is the "breath of life" is taken to refer to animals on the land that breathe the air.

And Gen 6:17 seems to encourage that interpretation, except that it feels like it's leaving something out. Fish and whales and dolphins and seals and manatees and walruses and crustaceans are also living beings, but not on land. And then there's bacteria and protozoa and fungus (neither animal nor vegetable) and so on. If land life required a "breath of life" to become living beings, then wouldn't fish and whales and all the rest also have required some equivalent or analogous "breath of life" to become living beings?

So did water creatures and life too tiny for the Bible writers to know existed have the "breath of life" or not? Who can say?

I'm sure the theologians have plenty to say about it but I'm not up on all that. But about the tiny creatures. they would have had plenty of opportunity to survive in at least the same proportions as all other life, by hitchhiking on the ark or all kinds of stuff floating in the water, including corpses, and maybe even in the water itself in many cases. Just as the sea creatures were left to live or die in the oceans all other life that couldn't be saved on the ark would have died in huge numbers while nevertheless some survived and populated the new world.

On whichever side of that argument you fall, where Gen 6:17 says "every thing that is in the earth shall die" doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room. God does seem to be saying he will wipe out all life not on the ark.

Yes, and if land animals are meant then He did just that.

He says it in other places too, for example:

Gen 7:4 writes:

Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

This is probably why it's land creatures that are interpreted for Genesis 6:17 But the Bible isn't averse to hyperbole and figures of speech. I don't think we should get all nitpicky about these things. It's pretty clear that ALL land creatures DID die except for those on the ark, and that sea creatures and everything else died in huge numbers.

And later when the flood was over, the land was dry, the ark had come to rest, and Noah, his family and all the animals had disembarked, God tells Noah that he has indeed destroyed all life not on the ark:

Gen 8:21 writes:

And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

God clearly states he has destroyed all life, which means life both on land and in the sea.

Unless the Bible does mean life on the land exclusively for some reason and you are adding the sea creatures yourself.

But how would he have done that. For the time being we'll just assume the Flood wiped out all land life, but what about sea life? You suggested suffocation by sediment, but I've already shown there wasn't enough sediment to make a difference.

You can't "show" that, how on earth would anyone know? I still go with sediments because I know there was a lot of that.

I suggested salinity changes, but you didn't seem enamored of that possibility, and neither am I really, since many marine creatures can tolerate wide salinity ranges.

I don't know, maybe salinity levels contributed something to the mix.

And how would seals and dolphins and and whales and so forth be destroyed? They can swim and breath air and so wouldn't be much bothered.

I don't think the air was all that life-enhancing during the Flood either, at least toward the end, but even the heavy rain could have made breathing difficult when the creatures came up for air.

And then there are hippopotamuses and alligators and the like, which though more tethered to land are still very strong swimmers.

Not strong enough to survive ten months to a year in the water I'm sure.

And how would fish be destroyed that weren't bothered by salinity changes? How would lobsters and crabs and crinoids and starfish be destroyed?

Sediments, murkiness, my opinion.

But the problem of wiping out all life would have been even more difficult than that. Vast mats of floating vegetation would support all kinds of life. Did God go about zapping or in some other way destroying all life that survived this way?

Perhaps they were among the creatures that did survive on their own. Many did after all. Before the floating mats got deposited on the land and buried along with everything else anyway.

Faith writes:

Some of those could be saved on the ark. Marine creatures would die on the ark but could live in the Flood water as long as it wasn't too polluted.

But God claimed to have destroyed all life, which means land and sea life. How did he do that? (Minor nit: polluted is probably the wrong word.)

I think it's pretty clear by this point that "all life" didn't include sea life, for whatever reason. It would probably require some research into the cultural/philosophical views of Old Testament times to understand why not but the implication I see in the Bible is that it was land life that God was talking about.

Why all the trilobites died I don't know.

Science thinks the Siberian Traps, which marked the end of the Permian when the trilobites disappeared and which had a devastating impact on the world environment, might have played a significant role.

Even if that volcanic event occurred at the end of the Flood, as most likely in my paradigm, I suppose it could have contributed to the death of the trilobites or anything else.

Faith writes:

All the dinosaurs also eventually died, but in the new world after the Flood, probably because there wasn't enough vegetation to sustain them, as well as the problem of the ice age that would have killed them.

What evidence tells you that trilobites did not survive the flood but dinosaurs did?

Well, doesn't everybody agree that trilobites are extinct? And as for dinosaurs they were land creatures and at least all land creatures were to be on the ark, so I have to assume they were too.

Interesting that Gen 2:7 implies that life begins at the first breath, not at conception.

But there are other parts of the Bible that point to conception and after this long post I'm not up to finding them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2842 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 7:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4421
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2846 of 2887 (832698)
05-08-2018 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2840 by Faith
05-08-2018 6:43 AM


Re: the strata again
"Preserve landscapes???

Topography.

You mean dead dinosaurs constitute a "landscape?" What?

Is that what I said?

If dinosaurs lived on a landscape (your definition), would they not die there also?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2840 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 6:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2848 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 9:12 AM edge has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17883
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2847 of 2887 (832700)
05-08-2018 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2777 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:41 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:

Percy, as I've made clear many times, I reject YOUR posts because of your attitude toward me. I'm not going to spend time on them for that reason, unless something you say is something I feel like answering. If it means I don't get my argument developed more I'm willing to pass up the opportunity.

First, if you're going to veer off-topic to lavish yourself with praise for the quality of your arguments then you are of course going to draw responses from people who do not see the same qualities. If you don't like people commenting on your self-assessments then you should keep them to yourself. They're not really appropriate anyway - you are not the topic.

Second, everything I said was true. Here is everything I said again, this time in list form and slightly reworded here and there. If I've gotten anything wrong please let me know:

  • If you've done such a good job then why are there pages and pages of posts you've never answered, or that you have answered with just two or three content-free lines?
  • Why do you frequently abandon threads in mid-discussion?
  • Why is the vast majority of what you write just redeclarations of your views?
  • Why do you insist on sprinkling your posts with insults?
  • Why don't you anchor your views in facts?
  • Why do you exert so much effort avoiding certain topics, like fossil order and radiometric dating and sediment sorting, to mention only a few?
  • Why can't you understand important concepts like Walther's Law or how angular unconformities form?
  • Why do you avoid all attempts to discuss Walther's Law?
  • Why are you attempting a scientific approach when:
    1. You've displayed little aptitude for science, especially for assessing evidence and concepts, your own or anyone else's.
    2. You've declared science subordinate to the Bible.

Maybe this has been asked before, but if so I missed it, and right now I'm curious. Do you have a degree or degrees, and if so, what was the highest degree you obtained and in what field? What field or fields were your career or careers in, and what pertinent role or roles did you play? If you have significant and relevant experience outside of work, what was that?

I became curious about your background while thinking about the obvious certainty you feel inside about your ideas.
This certainty seems to me likely a product of the way your brain is wired that has nothing to do with how well those ideas are tethered to facts. I also feel like I detect a significant component in your makeup that values winning much more than getting the facts right, that for you it isn't how the facts add up but how strongly, forcefully and determinedly you can express yourself in order to manipulate and control discussion.

These are strong criticisms, so let me add some balance by reprising an earlier positive comment in greater detail and with greater emphasis, that I think you have a *very* powerful and creative mind, but one which seems to lack all discipline. Were it to embrace the need to connect ideas to facts and find the wherewithal to set ego aside you could accomplish great and wonderful things.

But if you're determined to continue on your current course, one of persuasion that has not wavered one bit in all your time here (I say this with great confidence because I recently read a large number of your posts from 2005), then your time may be wasted here and would be better spent on your blog. No one here who isn't a creationist is ever going to be persuaded of ideas that you're unable to connect to facts.

If your goal is to get feedback about your ideas so you can improve them then because of the way you're going about it I would conclude again that your time is wasted here and would be better spent on your blog.

If your goal is the rewarding feelings you experience from ministering to those with different or no religious beliefs, then carry on but perhaps don't take it so seriously.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2777 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2849 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 9:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2848 of 2887 (832701)
05-08-2018 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2846 by edge
05-08-2018 8:55 AM


Re: the strata again
"Preserve landscapes???

Topography.

How does a formation preserve a topography?

If dinosaurs lived on a landscape (your definition), would they not die there also?

But the odds of their being preserved/fossilized is extremely remote.

By the way I've been wondering why all that vegetation ended up in the Carboniferous "period" where it turned into coal, while I gather the strata in which the dinosaurs are buried don't have much vegetation though of all animals they would have needed a prodigious amount of it. There's no problem of course on the Flood model since the "Carboniferous" is merely a layer where the vegetation got deposited and not a time period, but it doesn't make a lot of sense on the Geo Time Scale model that so much is found there and not with the dinosaurs.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2846 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 8:55 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2856 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 9:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30062
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2849 of 2887 (832702)
05-08-2018 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2847 by Percy
05-08-2018 9:04 AM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
I do want to thank you for the compliment. In this atmosphere it means a lot to get such recognition. But since I don't trust you as far as I could throw you when it comes to your ability to read people's motives and personality, and I think you've got me all wrong on most counts, I have no reason to say anything about myself personally.

I still have at least two posts from the distant past of this thread that I hope to get around to answering, one of them yours, but beyond that I suppose I'll continue to answer whatever catches my attention that I feel like answering.

I've come to regard this thread as a sort of archives for my arguments since so many different topics have been covered if only in sketchy form. I would in fact like to take a lot of my stuff from EvC to somewhere else but that's not easy. I value it even if nobody else here does. As for my blogs, Google interfered with some things involving how they are managed so that I wish I'd never made use of Blogger.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2847 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 9:04 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17883
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 2850 of 2887 (832704)
05-08-2018 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2778 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:43 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
I'm surprised at your reaction. When you say things like this, as you did in Message 2659:

Faith in Message 2659 writes:

...or maybe I'm just up against a hidebound bunch of anti-creationists.

Then you should expect a defense against what feels to us like an unwarranted and untrue characterization. You called us narrow, rigid in opinion, and inflexible (that's the definition of hidebound). Calling us anti-creationists in that context declares our opposition to be based on obstinacy, intolerance, intransigence and obduracy rather than on data and analysis. Of course there's going to be a defense.

Keep it up and I'll keep on ignoring you.

I still have a long ways to go before I'm caught up in this thread, but I catch bits and pieces of what lies ahead each time I post a message, and it seems possible that you may not be ignoring me. I think that's a good thing, because I don't think on-topic posts that argue from evidence should ever be ignored. I encourage you to eschew engaging in the periodic shunning of one person or another.

YOUR behavior should have gotten you suspended many times over by now, but you are so self-righteous about it you don't even see your own egregious violation of your own rules.

You don't say which posts, but they're likely just like the one you're responding to, a response to another of your insults.

The way I see it is that I am a lone individual who is at the mercy of a punitive autocratic madman.

I'm really a pussycat once you get to know me.

What I get out of being here is being able to work through some of my own views. I don't much care any more whether I convince anyone here or not.

Then I think you have to ask yourself whether you're really getting anything of value out of EvC Forum. Developing and refining your ideas by soliciting feedback and engaging in a give and take is a valuable exercise, but that's not what you're doing here. You just throw your ideas out to us and demand we accept them. You dispute almost all feedback, no matter how significant or minor, and usually on the weakest of grounds. If feedback is just an annoyance to you then you're not gaining any advantage from it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2778 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
188189
190
191192193Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018