Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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:   Does The Flood Add up?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 298 (319044)
06-08-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by arachnophilia
06-08-2006 10:20 AM


Re: ...and bad logic
I'd also question the idea that the association between the division and Peleg is made on the basis that Peleg was patriarch at the time. Since we are given no other name for Peleg or any reference to a change of name, it seems more likely to me that the event supposedly happened around the time that Peleg was born, and that is why Peleg was named after it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 10:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 10:50 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 117 of 298 (321016)
06-13-2006 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 11:33 PM


The reference to Peleg is not intended to give a date - it is to explain why he was named "Peleg". Thus the whole argument is built on sand. As I pointed out earlier, it is most likely that the author meant that Peleg was born around the time of the "division" and thus named after it.
Thus your source is taking an extremely speculative and dubious reading to justify futher speculative and dubious readings. In short he's decided what he wants the Bible to say and is trying to force it to fit his ideas. Do you really endorse that ?u

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 11:33 PM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:56 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 298 (321719)
06-15-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:56 PM


quote:
Why is he trying to fit his ideas? It doesn't makes sense?
Of course it makes sense. The Bible doesn't say what he wants it to, so he looks for excuses to strain and torture the text, so he can say that it does mean what he wants.
quote:
Besides, if we could find the date so easily in the bible then we could have calculate the earth's age in the medieval ages!
If you relied on the Bible, you could come up with an estimate quite easily. And people did. So what is your point ?
quote:
The bible says in Daniel 12:
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Try reading it in context:
Daniel 12:4
But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time;
It refers to the Book of Danile itself which will only be revealed in the end times.
quote:
So he reveals certain thing when he wants to. Also warning us the end is near.
Firstly it refers only to concealing whole books, not to some guy coming along and deciding to twist the text of the books we do have.
Secondly it tells us that the end times were at the time of the Maccabean Revolt - more than 2,000 years ago (as, indeed, the author of Daniel believed).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:56 PM Crue Knight has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 136 of 298 (323706)
06-20-2006 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Crue Knight
06-20-2006 12:43 AM


quote:
The bible didnt give any reason to make us think that the reference to Peleg was mentioned because it explains why he was named so. He can be a very important calendar patriarch.
You are incorrect. Genesis 10:25
Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided...
(emphasis mine)
The Bible IS explaining how Peleg got his name. It does not in anyway imply that Peleg was a "calendar patriarch" and - more importantly - it doesn't in any way imply that the division happened while he was the patriarch. (i.e. if they used the system at all there's nothing here to suggest that this is an example).
As I stated earlier the simplest explanatoin is that the "division" happened about the tiem of Peleg's birth which would explain why he was named after it.
quote:
He didnt change anything, at least nothing contradicts that explanation I just did on message 116
Apart from claiming that Genesis 10:25 says somethign that it doesn't say. Remember that Genesis 10:25 is the whole basis of his idea - but it doesn't support it. His while idea of "calendar patriarchs" is his invention. It isn't in the Bible.
quote:
And if you go to the link and read further, he explains some more about this and why he thinks there is such and such gap between Eber and Peleg and other calendar patriarchs.
I've checked the page an his "strong evidence" is based on misrepresenting Genesis 10:25. That's it. Nothing else. If there's more on some other page I'm not going to search the whole thing looking for it. If there is some more, and you want to discusss it provide a link to the correct page.e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Crue Knight, posted 06-20-2006 12:43 AM Crue Knight has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 230 of 298 (328428)
07-03-2006 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:19 AM


So how did a mere two individuals manage produce offspring that "microevolved" into several distinct species ? Even explaining the genetic diversity found in a single species today is a problem for YECs. And why exactly should this amount of evolutionary change be considered "microevolution" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:42 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 233 of 298 (328435)
07-03-2006 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:42 AM


It should be a problem for you especially. It isn't so long ago that you were insisting that genetic diversity was decreasing. The comparison with dogs doesn't work without begging the question - dogs weren't bred from a single pair. Never mind that the difference between dog breeds is maintained by artificial selection - in the wild it wouldn't work like that at all.
The assumption that kinds were "engineered" to have this level of diversity also fails on the same grounds. Worse for you, the failure to find solid evidence of discrete kinds through biological investigation also counts against you and for evolution.
So it appears that the only reason for calling this "microevolution" is the assumption that there are preprogrammed mutations that would produce the diversity we see. It's a nice illustration of the fact that the creationist division between "micro-" and "macro-" is an ad hoc one distinguishing the evolution they are prepared to accept from that they absolutely reject.
quote:
Evolution assumes the process is open-ended, but a creationist assumes that it is self-limiting and there appears to be more evidence on our side of this one as the more speciation events there are, the less genetic diversity and the more hard-wired the species.
Of course this isn't really true. You're really ignoring the issue of timescales and here again the actual evidence supports the mainstream scientific view. What we'd expect to see in the rpesent day is pretty much the same. And as I mentioned above the fact that biological classification points to a single phylogenetic tree rather than the multiple trees of your "kinds" is a major piece of evidence against your view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:31 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 236 of 298 (328452)
07-03-2006 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Faith
07-03-2006 6:31 AM


If genetic diversity is decreasing it should be far lower than it was at the supposed time of the flood. According to you many "kinds" - which represent multiple species - were reduced to just two individuals. That is not a great deal of diversity to start with - it's less than is observed today. So not only do you have a problem, your own arguments make it much worse.
quote:
All that is required is migration, reproductive isolation.
Which is in itself a problem. Why are they going to migrate far enough to become isolated ? And it's not enough without mutation.
quote:
It's perfectly reasonable, nevertheless, that we postulate original kinds although at present there is no way to strictly identify them.
By which you mean that it is all right with you that all you have is ad hoc assumptions - and that the evidence is against you. There is no mention of this "kind" idea in the ark story - and it does refer to modern species (the dove and the raven).
quote:
I don't think in terms of mutations. I think in terms of Mendelian genetics, the selection of built-in genetic factors with each new sexual combination.
Then your idea can't work. The theoretical limit on the genetic diversity of two individuals (4 alleles per locus) is still too low.
quote:
Well, whatever. It's consistent. It makes sense. It simply contradicts the way evolutionists think.
It contradicts the way evolutionists think - because evolutionists think "implausible ad hoc assumptions are bad". I couldn't even call your view consistent except in the formal sense that it isn't logically contradictory. Essentially you are arbitrarily assuming that evolution works even better than mainstream science allows when it agrees with your views and not at all when it contradicts them. There is definitely a strong tension there - and it is all ad hoc assumptions.
As for the final part.
1) Timescales. The timescales derived by science are far longer than you allow and do not show the rate of change that you require. The evidence supports the scientific timescales. The observed rates of change are consistent with the mainstream scientific view, and not evidence against it. Rather the evidence of timescales and of slower rates of change than your view requires is evidence against your view.
2) The evidence shows one single, massive tree of common descent. Your idea postulates that each "kind" has it's own tree. This evidence, then, supports the view that change beyond your assumed "kinds" has occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:21 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 240 of 298 (328474)
07-03-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-03-2006 7:21 AM


Genetic diversity is decreasing in all living species ? Any evidence of that?
quote:
The diversity of which I speak is GENETIC diversity WITHIN the genome of each creature. THAT is what reduces with reproductive isolation
You're not making much sense. Reproductive isolation in itself can't reduce genetic diversity in any sense.
quote:
To have blue eyes an individual must have a b gene and a b gene. You can't have a B and a b, that gets you brown, as does B and B. Well, if only bb's make up a newly isolated population they will only produce blue-eyed offspring and that will characterize that group in distinction to the parent group.
But there will still be plenty of 'B' alleles in the remaining population so genetic diversity hasn't decreased overall.
quote:
Not that I can see.
There is too much genetic diversity around to be reasonably explained assuing the Ark story. Assuming that genetic diversity has DECREASED since the Flood makes that problem worse. Why can't you see that ?
quote:
The picture given in the Bible of how Noah's descendants spread out and populated various territories is interesting to think about
Yes, it only covers people relatively near to the Middle East. That's interesting. But that's about the only interesting part of it. But your picture of isolation doesn't work. Relatively few human populations have been completely isolated for any length of time.
quote:
No, I simply mean that that's life. Nothing we can do about it. It's all we have to work from.
But that's not true. We can go with the evidence from biology instead of the opinions of creationists. There's no good reason from biology to consider your "original kinds" and they aren't even implied - in the sense you mean - by the Bible.
quote:
Assumption is that there were many more loci for a particular trait in the original kinds, much more variety possible
That really doesn't make much sense as it stands. Perhaps you could explain what you mean in more detail.
quote:
I don't see much real evidence for any of that. Or, I don't see BETTER evidence for that than for the YEC scenario.
To use just one example (and there's cerainly more) there are many transitional fossils. If discrete kinds exist then we shouldn't find fossils which happen to neatly fill the "gaps" between "kinds". So there's certainly decent evidence for common descent. So where's the "as good" evidence for creationist "kinds" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:21 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 293 of 298 (328805)
07-04-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Faith
07-04-2006 3:02 PM


Re: tectonic plate movement
quote:
Yeah I know the history whereby supposed Christians abandoned their faith for fallible science. Sad history. Some stupid stuff they actually accepted, a seeming arrangement of fossils supposedly proving descent. Now that is truly idiotic.
Obviously you don't know the history in any detail. IF you cared about the truth you would actually look into it rather than hurling out ill-founded insults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 07-04-2006 3:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 07-04-2006 3:58 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 296 of 298 (328808)
07-04-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
07-04-2006 3:58 PM


Re: tectonic plate movement
If you've read quite a lot then you know that the order in the fossil record was only generally accepted as the product of evolution after Darwin published and that evolution had a strong basis in other evidence. But it was a problem for your beliefs long before that. So you ought to know that your post was shallow and inaccurate as well as just plain insulting.
And disagreeing with YEC beliefs is not discarding God's own revelation. Not unless you wish to claim that YECs are God.
COme to that, I care about the truth and that is why I DON'T accept your views as representing a revelation from God.r

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 07-04-2006 3:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 07-04-2006 5:08 PM PaulK 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