Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 16 of 204 (30090)
01-24-2003 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
08-22-2002 9:06 PM


quote:
Randy I'll admit that biogeography probably falsifies the flood as a completely natural event but I'll leave a tiny bit of room for natural repopulation.
Since this is being discussed on the evolution forum, and since TB is also claiming the flood is falsifiable on that forum, I thought to bump this so that all can see that TB uses non falsifiable miracles when his problems get too big.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-22-2002 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 204 (30128)
01-24-2003 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:37 PM


we dont as yet have a biogeography that is not idiosyncratic"" to a particular sister grouping such that as soon as one gets the "geography" part (more than one locality) we can not divide different lineages back to a common ancestor OR ancestral area (notion of relic etc) thus one can not say whether Linne's ARK climate etc is a unified inertial system or not. This is largest barrier to actual scientific advancement in the field. One would like to know if one were to draw a geodesic line between any to geographic distribution localities whether such geometry describes a part of a line at rest and continuing to move at rest or in motion with a certian amount of inertia compelling it INTO orbit with the Earth or simply if some other forces are involved in any rest or change of direction of the trajectory via migration etc etc.
So I do not even see how migration patterns explain any biogeography. There is a book by a Christian who went to Siberia to collect birds and only came away from the work with a regional division in the geography without knowing how it is that birds actually migrate. The simple phenomena of migration is not enough to decide if any influence is by gravity, magnetics, or tropisms generally when not otherwise. There is a difference between means of dispersal and translation in space and form making. Leon Croizat wrote in lit to Robin Craw that either vicariance of chance dispersal would have to go (conceptually) beofre the ptolemic state of biogeography recieved its own copernican revolution. I think that any reliable creationist creation of biogeography is most fit after this decision is made. Problem is if the attempts immediately work with stratigraphy BEFORE trying to answer in the kinematics. One can NEVER apriori be sure of dynamics if the kinematics are not available during the interation of the dynamic model, any. There may have been an implied difference between Price and Clark on this but I have not dug into the Creationis work far enough (as DS JORDAN interaction with Price was enough for me) to say as to biology and creation. I am able to read Galelio not in any conflict with any of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:37 PM Randy has not replied

  
Convince-me
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 204 (42450)
06-09-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:37 PM


The tortoise genus Geochelone
The distribution of the tortoise genus Geochelone is a little bizarre. Does anyone have any explanation for this on biogeographical means.
Their occurance on island such as Galapagos, Madagascar and Seychelles seems a little strange. These slow moving terrestrial animals could make their way to Islands separated from the continents for very long time. But other faster animals could not come to Madagascar and the Seychelles.
Any explanation, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:37 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2003 2:58 PM Convince-me has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 19 of 204 (42452)
06-09-2003 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Convince-me
06-09-2003 2:28 PM


Re: The tortoise genus Geochelone
Some book I read recently - and I don't remember which book it was - documented that these large tortoises can float for weeks on end without starving. So floating around randomly explains how they got distributed widely. I would presume that the reason they occurred only on various islands is that egg- or young-eating mammals, absent from these islands, wiped them out if they colonized mainland locations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Convince-me, posted 06-09-2003 2:28 PM Convince-me has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 06-10-2003 12:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 204 (42501)
06-10-2003 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coragyps
06-09-2003 2:58 PM


Re: The tortoise genus Geochelone
You presume only causal explanations and a lack of land bridges. It is a shame that Croizat's method has not been developed and popularized to date for one would find that ONLY one view is never usually the case on second thought about the same collection localities as the genera included are increased but to each shell its own carapace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2003 2:58 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 204 (42517)
06-10-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
08-22-2002 9:06 PM


if we're going to throw miracles into the equation, why bother with science at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-22-2002 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 06-11-2003 12:38 PM Gzus has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 204 (42561)
06-11-2003 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Gzus
06-10-2003 8:54 PM


See DEFENDER's STUDY BIBLE
Becasue we do not know if the # of cell death per Lerner pop gen locationS supports Gould or not. Spitural death is a richer framework of conceptual expansion than "when I die i shall rot" (B. Russel). When talking about THE FLOOD vs GEOGRAPHY one is comparing ONE to MANY or ONE to MANY of inertia FROM NEWTONS center of the solar system which Boscovich already said WAS NOT the comet materiality (for anyONE located) on the condition you understand. sorry if this dups someone has changed the public back button

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Gzus, posted 06-10-2003 8:54 PM Gzus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Gzus, posted 06-15-2003 9:30 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 204 (42955)
06-15-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Brad McFall
06-11-2003 12:38 PM


Re: See DEFENDER's STUDY BIBLE
Why YES! That's Exactly right! What insight...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 06-11-2003 12:38 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 06-16-2003 7:43 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 204 (43068)
06-16-2003 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Gzus
06-15-2003 9:30 AM


Re: See DEFENDER'SSTUDY BIBLE
And the reason we do not know, I assume you were not sarcastic, is that the toxin-antidote module postulated in France to have some similiar correlation in cause between chlorplasts and mitochondria may not (aka the Gould query)(as if endosymbiosis(I think otherwise)) could instead be meotic-self destruction causal with open habitats directing pollen either by 'murder or suicide' of the ( I forgot the botantical term for the two cells the pollen goes thru before the reduced gametic complement is found)in the same way some algae have been found to sporulate "sacraficing" *cytoplasmic cells*.
This would be a major advance in biolgical knowledge if we knew this. I pray I will not be scooped in the next few years for giving out the best idea for lack of funds to retain the reply to date about what is wrong in evolutionary theory today and even Gould did not think the free order of (use molecular free path if necessary). Even showing this kind of death does not necessarily mean that the chance switch of some theological contribution is ipso facto naturalistically matterially used up. My guess is that the adjectives used in the toxin-antidote hypothesis for the BCl2-CytochromC modularization will be replaced by the motion of the trjectory to the death from within orbit so described in the future work shoud the community so understand and pursue. Mitchondria may not be Maxwell Idle Wheels. I still think they are not matter what grave the death WAS a vehicle for in the replicator that could so interact. I already said I think the algae created 1/2 of the Mendel line between male and female parts
but rehabilitating the Medial binomial will require the expts actually be done and not mere retrorecognitions as per the discrete alternative to this analog a UNIFORM kinematics which may be variable in the sense that a Fisherite thought if species are not of variation is there any one who knows otherwise?
If the reasoning is supported it would not longer be necessary to bash creationism for the would be plenty of new work that no time would be available for such negative counter selection as some lurking monsters of c/e bring on the novice unawares. Further more the time spent by some in discussing spirtual death may instead of lesuire hours finding the almighty Bruced Nemo permit on the point of no return in cell death accumulate even potentially superadded traits but now I begun, to speculate, so I desist for a time and season of vanity under this SUN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Gzus, posted 06-15-2003 9:30 AM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Randy, posted 06-16-2003 9:49 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 25 of 204 (43081)
06-16-2003 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Brad McFall
06-16-2003 7:43 PM


Re: See DEFENDER'SSTUDY BIBLE
Brad,
I am glad to see you are back to normal. In post 20 I was really afraid that you were descending into comprehensibility. Were you sick that day? It would be a shame if you started writing posts that actually made sense but I see you have recovered.
However, regarding your post 20, I don't really see how vicariance can be used in any way demythify the worldwide flood wrt biogeography
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 06-16-2003 7:43 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 06-17-2003 7:28 PM Randy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 204 (43191)
06-17-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Randy
06-16-2003 9:49 PM


Re: See DEFENDER'SSTUDY BIBLE
I have not read any Croizat criticism lately so I was rather taken aback when criticised about how Croizat can be brought into comprehensibility in any area below the level of migration biology but indeed THERE WAS in letter between Croizat and Craw (published in the Tuatara? I really dont recall??) where Croizat TOLD Craw that EITHER vicarance of chance dispersal had to go. I have not seen creationist ecology get to the point of really discussing dispersal in truth to the details of a scientific mind of the Pascal/Morris kind that enables hydrodynamical details but these indeed could fall into the "incomprehensibility" category you feared I had awoke TO but lest you REALLY think this, that one must go, and one takes a design from VICARIENCE going then it is possible that anti-Morris geology of the kind at least publishing a local flood can be criticised, although I do not demonstrate this as it requires quite a bit Of (anti-Gould (anti-Paley) )scholarhip that perhpas a Wise has done or will do...in terms of random migrations of CHANCED dispersals (in terms of nonlinearity that may be even more stochastic than any determinism applying to the job order...)(all one considers in this point is if one is looking at geographic distributions from the firmament of the Southern or Northern Hemisphere Astronaut Psyche) which I would contend is prima facie (we would have to see the evidence and the biogeographic community can not decide on a data exchange standard and European interests argue about the middle ware there in...)supportive of the more GLOBAL croizat READING of translation in space but depending on the specific formations there would be wiggly room to which you here can critcism since without the data and the space defined futher especially with respect to the "random" elements involved makes for dense interpreting to say nothing of apprehension...so that would open you up as being correct in the sense I am wrong...and yet the other side of the empirical sentence if truer would be easier to re-tail the same scienfitic details that dove tail to the same Croizat context and yet we have neither of these alternatives in Evolutionary or Creationist literature as far as I flood the net with alternatives yet to be parsed...
The most likely place where the myth gets my thesis is on scale of the phenomena and using a vicariance abets more attempts than simple dispersal wihout being trumped geologically since dispersal is continuity from points whereas vicarance is point between intervals.As long as we are not talking about creatures IN heaven or on the right side... this should not be a problem and the choice a priori is thus much clearer for the creationist than the evolutionist who BOTH would use the same thesis for any attempt to Hegelize Gould to get to the point where Brad's nail is not as short as it still happens to be...I had suggested however we be not allowed this broader perspective but would under the stricture of evolutionist slanting to remand only issues of cell death as these particulars of other than migration biology (as why not included migration of cells as part of migration in organisms?) command MORE BIBILICAL CREATIONISM interest than do other approaches to the unresolved sentence in a letter to NZ but if one STARTS without this lack of bias it appears that we enter the apprehension of comprehensiblility in a more comprehensible fashion sooner but still not continuously and this is due to the likes of those de-tractors of the FUTURE employment of natural selection which is indeed out of my control and reasons I considered this week never to post again. But alas what else am I good for. This kind of writing IS my forte.
Morris discusses miracles and I am able to extend any discussion in the thermodymanic diretums but so far this has only achieved discursive treatements on c/e threads I have particicpated so far and I have found that even those who WANT to know the evo-development are not tooled enough on the HISTORY of the subject to rationally consider when more Biblical Creationism may be desired over say the REASONS TO BELIEVE approach in the same intelligently desgined light to extend the word beyond its function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Randy, posted 06-16-2003 9:49 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-03-2003 8:33 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
dragonstyle18
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 204 (53772)
09-03-2003 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
06-17-2003 7:28 PM


Re: See DEFENDER'SSTUDY BIBLE
You know,
To all of the skeptics out there, and I say that in a good way because I think it is a good thing to question, I would like to say that I am a Christian who believes the flood account of Genesis was localized to mesopotamia. I absolutely agree that a global flood is not possible and is not Biblical. The ammount of water needed to fill the earth to its highest peaks would be four times as the ammount on the earth. The Bible said God sent a wind to disperse the water. If it were global this would make no sense as God's using the water cycle would not get rid of the water but only recycle it. Keep in mind when you debate Christians on this forum that not all of us are young earth creationists. I'm a Christian who believes in an old earth. The major differences I see between you and myself is primarily that I happen to believe that biological macroevolution is not necessarily the mechanism God used to create. Most everything else I think is absolutely true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 06-17-2003 7:28 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 09-03-2003 10:57 PM dragonstyle18 has replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 09-04-2003 9:20 PM dragonstyle18 has replied

  
hoju
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 204 (53782)
09-03-2003 9:48 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Yaro, posted 09-03-2003 10:04 PM hoju has not replied
 Message 30 by Zhimbo, posted 09-03-2003 10:05 PM hoju has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 29 of 204 (53783)
09-03-2003 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by hoju
09-03-2003 9:48 PM


Did Noah have slaves? Help from the apes
Some have suggested that Noah may have had slaves to help in the construction. But if this was true, it wouldn't really seem fair that the slaves would perish in the flood. It is more likely that some of the stronger apes (like the Australopithecines and Pithecanthropus erectus were used as helpers).
2 Chronicles 9:2 and 1 Kings 10:22 speak of apes (Hebrew "qowph", and also "qoph") being on board boats.
Animals like dinosaurs could be recruited to carry great loads of wood as well.
Besides there is no mention of the use of slaves to build the ark in the bible.
(*note the longevity of man in terms of hundreds of years is dealt with elsewhere on my page)
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! OMG, you are deluded!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by hoju, posted 09-03-2003 9:48 PM hoju has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 30 of 204 (53785)
09-03-2003 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by hoju
09-03-2003 9:48 PM


Since this bare link does not address, as far as I could tell, the topic at hand, I'll limit my response to quoting to what I think is the funniest portion
quote:
"Some have suggested that Noah may have had slaves to help in the construction. But if this was true, it wouldn't really seem fair that the slaves would perish in the flood. It is more likely that some of the stronger apes (like the Australopithecines and Pithecanthropus erectus were used as helpers).
2 Chronicles 9:2 and 1 Kings 10:22 speak of apes (Hebrew "qowph", and also "qoph") being on board boats.
Animals like dinosaurs could be recruited to carry great loads of wood as well. "
Funny stuff, thanks.
However, actually addressing the facts of biogeography would be more productive for the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by hoju, posted 09-03-2003 9:48 PM hoju 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