|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fish on the Ark? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
We're not getting off-topic. Whether dolphin is a "fish kind" or not is very much part of the topic.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBuzsaw Inactive Member |
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 -->EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Updated the link to the "General discussion...". AB's link was to the previous version. I will also tweak his "signature" for him. For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
AdminBuz writes: A wise crack on occasion is acceptable but please don't let it get distractful in the science forums. Thanks. Even before AB posted his warning, I had noted and was concerned about this topic turning goofy. In the serious topics the goal is to have serious discussions. I think the discussion should be somewhere in the vicinity of what fish require to survive. Any replies to moderation messages such as this one should go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below. To do otherwise is the risk a 24 hour suspension. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You do realise that 'Neogene creatures' date back over 20m years, don't you?
This is hardly in agreement with any notion of a world wide flood, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: No they can't. Few insects can survive in water, most of the insects you're thinking of are water striders and they don't live in the water, but walk on the water, which doesn't work if the water is choppy. And few fish can survive serious salinity changes. Only a relative few, such as the bullshark can tolerate massive changes in salinity. Furthermore, many species are density specific. Changes in salinity change pressure. How you intend to deal with that I'd love to see. And how are large predators going to survive when the food pyramid has been wiped out?
quote: Except that the strata doesn't support a flood belief. If the flood was true, we'd see strata with trilobites and humans. What we see is what evolution predicted. And don't even try to argue that complexity changes fluid mechanics. A 50 ton mammoth does not sink slower then a 1/2 an once primitive reptile.
quote: See the early posts for a mockery of that argument. There is no indication of such rapid changes in species.
quote: Not quite. Salmon undergo a specific change in their bodies to tolerate a single one time change in salinity and temperature. Not what you are arguing.
quote: Magic. Got it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
'Course, the easiest answer is that this is just an over exaggerated story of a local flood. Folks likely didn't even think of what would happen to the fish, as they likely had no realisation of the importance of the different salinities. They probably just assumed they could all survive in the water.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
noachian Junior Member (Idle past 5288 days) Posts: 10 From: Cumbria, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain Joined: |
In answer to your question Tanypteryx, You or I are no people to question the Universal Father's methods of preserving specific spiecies. God always nature to handle itself most of the time, so dureing the flood; it was maybe safer/wiser to have the animals under human care.
As for the 'innocent' animals, well there has to be sacrifices in order to get to where you want to be. Natural Selection is ten times worse. And about your 'animals-on-a-mountain top' scheme, its not up to me to explain to you why God chose an Ark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
No, this doesn't fit. You can't put a massive change of salinity on coral. I've kept them for long enough to know how sensitive they are. Now since there is no freshwater alternative to coral, there is no fallback onto the 'kind' excuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
You realize this is a science forum, right? If you keep playing the goddidit card, this debate will get nowhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
noachian Junior Member (Idle past 5288 days) Posts: 10 From: Cumbria, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain Joined: |
Oh yes, fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils over 20m years, the question you should be asking (yourself) is "Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
noachian Junior Member (Idle past 5288 days) Posts: 10 From: Cumbria, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain Joined: |
Yes, I do realise that this particular section of the forum is a sceince forum, and I am also aware that Divine Providence caused the flood to happen. Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'. Here's how it goes: Sports is a Social Sphere, Politics is also a Scoial Sphere. Sports and politics interact with eachother (laws on sport, country teams, national pride, Prime Minister/Queen rewarding players of a sports team etc). Science is a Social Shpere, the sphere in which we learn about the natural world and how it works. Religion is also a Social Sphere, the sphere in which laws of morality are given and the sphere in which people worship their chosen god or choose to live their life. Religion and Politics interact, for instance here in the United Kingdom our Head of State (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is also Head of the Anglican Church and titled Defender of the Faith (whoes agreement is needed in the law making process). Also there are Bishops in the House of Lords (which agreement are needed in the law making process). Science and Religion also interact (well Religion tries its best, but Science has none of it), Religion lays down ethic and moral laws for science to abide by in its functions. Also Science gives an explaination to Religion for how photosythensis works. But often Science comes with the attitude of "Leave God out of this", I have never heard a Bishop saying "Leave science out of it", that would be most unusual. God plays little part in Science and Science plays little part in Religion because they are both two entirly different Scoial Spheres, "It is not Sciences place to say what is right or wrong, just as it is not Religions place to say how far the earth is from the sun." However this does not mean God has no place in Science, since he did invent it. Just like a Clergyman acknowlaging a baby is born due to the fushion of a sperm and egg cell, or a Scientist acknowlaging that the baby is given a soul by God when it forms. So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh yes, fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils over 20m years... True, apart from the word "evolutionary".
... the question you should be asking (yourself) is "Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?" Yes, everyone should ask that question. And the answer is ... drumroll please ... the story about the magic flood is wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'. Speak for yourself.
So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit". But not to any purpose. Suppose someone comes to us with a new idea about gravity, and we do the calculations, and we find that according to his hypothesis planets under the influence of gravity would move in triangular orbits. So we go to him and point this out, and say that in fact the planets move in elliptical orbits. "Ah yes," he says, "but my hypothesis only says what planets would do under the influence of gravity. But in fact (as I forgot to mention while explaining my hypothesis) the planets do not move solely under the influence of gravity; they are also being pushed around by magical invisible angels. So the observation that planets move in ellipses doesn't prove me wrong." At that point he is not doing science. You can always imagine a miracle to explain the discrepancy between your beliefs and observation, but when you do so you go beyond the confines of the scientific method. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, I do realise that this particular section of the forum is a sceince forum, and I am also aware that Divine Providence caused the flood to happen. Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'. Here's how it goes: Sports is a Social Sphere, Politics is also a Scoial Sphere. Sports and politics interact with eachother (laws on sport, country teams, national pride, Prime Minister/Queen rewarding players of a sports team etc). Science is a Social Shpere, the sphere in which we learn about the natural world and how it works. Religion is also a Social Sphere, the sphere in which laws of morality are given and the sphere in which people worship their chosen god or choose to live their life. Religion and Politics interact, for instance here in the United Kingdom our Head of State (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is also Head of the Anglican Church and titled Defender of the Faith (whoes agreement is needed in the law making process). Also there are Bishops in the House of Lords (which agreement are needed in the law making process). Science and Religion also interact (well Religion tries its best, but Science has none of it), Religion lays down ethic and moral laws for science to abide by in its functions. Also Science gives an explaination to Religion for how photosythensis works. So because some {A} is {B} and some {B} is {C} then some {A} is {C}? Not a true conclusion. Science is partly social and partly a-social -- the conclusions about the truth of reality from science have nothing to do with any social function or kind of social organization. The earth will orbit the sun whether you believe it or not. Photosynthesis will continue to operate whether you know how it works or not, nor will it's existence decide the presidential election.
But often Science comes with the attitude of "Leave God out of this", Not really, science is not concerned with supernatural because it has no way to measure or quantify things outside the natural world. A blind man cannot tell you what color the wall is on his own. Science investigates what it can about the real world, and we can develop instruments that will measure the relative spectrum absorption vs reflection of light from surfaces, and be able to tell you what their color will be. The basic assumption of objective reality is that there are basic natural laws that operate, and that by understanding them we can better understand the truth of the world of objective reality. But where did those "laws" come from? Science may not be able to tell the color of the walls there. So if you believe in (a) creation, as many scientists do, then you can think of science as sitting down next to god and saying "tell me how you did this?"
I have never heard a Bishop saying "Leave science out of it", that would be most unusual. God plays little part in Science and Science plays little part in Religion because they are both two entirly different Scoial Spheres, I really think you mean independent intellectual concepts not social spheres. Religion, like philosophy, to be valid must be solidly based in the world of objective reality, or it becomes the playground for loonies (see flat earther).
However this does not mean God has no place in Science, since he did invent it. Just like a Clergyman acknowlaging a baby is born due to the fushion of a sperm and egg cell, or a Scientist acknowlaging that the baby is given a soul by God when it forms. So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit". A scientist looks at a set of evidence and says because of {A}, {B} happens, because of {B}, {C} happens, and because of {C}, {D} happens. A creationist looks at a set of assumptions, assumes {E} happens and says because of {A} plus god-did-it, {E} happens. This is nothing more than wishful thinking. What you are saying then is "I don't know, I don't have a clue, and I don't WANT to know, because I like to think 'god-did-it' provides the answer to how objective reality works, and I don't care how my beliefs relate to reality" On this forum we are interested in sitting down next to god and saying "is this how you did it?" Asking the question and expecting to get an answer from the objective evidence that is provided. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024