Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 2:18 AM
17 online now:
Dredge, PaulK, Pressie, RAZD (4 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,629 Year: 3,666/19,786 Month: 661/1,087 Week: 30/221 Day: 1/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 76 of 991 (655027)
03-06-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
03-06-2012 3:08 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
The timing of the biblical flood can be roughly ascertained by reading the bible(have you read it, I have many times). You can put it roughly 4000 to 6000 years ago.--theodoric

You are assuming the Ussher genealogic dating is correct. The bible says nothing about the actual age of the earth. The genealogies are not meant to calculate time spans. You are interpreting the bible in a completely wrong way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:08 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:16 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 77 of 991 (655028)
03-06-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:05 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Why does there have to be a genetic bottleneck to begin with?

When you shrink a population down to 2 to 14 individuals it produces a genetic bottleneck.

My idea of 200,000 years ago actually corresponds radiometrically to what you would call the start of the archean eon.

Based on what evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:05 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 78 of 991 (655029)
03-06-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 2:52 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Heading way off topic now but since you ask:

There are at least two different stories of some flood in the Bibles.

If either of the stories were true and factual, then all living animals with the possible exception of some fish, sea mammals, maybe birds, and all living plants would be descendents of the stock on board the ark; a population of at worst two pair of a critter (male + female) and at best seven pair.

That is one amazing genetic bottleneck.

If either of the stories were true, whether it happened 4300 years ago or 200,000 years ago, every species should show that genetic bottleneck, all pointing to one specific and uniform event.

Well, that genetic bottleneck is not there, but we can see many other genetic bottlenecks that are unique to a species but not unique across species.

The missing bottleneck signature means that there was no Biblical flood as described in any of the Bible stories, not 4300 years ago, not 200,00 years ago. They are but myth.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:52 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:27 PM jar has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 79 of 991 (655030)
03-06-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:11 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
You are interpreting the bible in a completely wrong way.

And the magic key was given to you? By YHWH himself? No wonder you won't tell anyone about this wonderful revelation.

To think every other biblical scholar in the world is wrong but you are right.

Is this ICANT in disguise?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:11 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:21 PM Theodoric has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 80 of 991 (655031)
03-06-2012 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coyote
03-06-2012 2:54 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
coyote writes:

It seems that you are ignoring the opinions of biblical scholars, in addition to science in general.

I am ignoring biblical scholars; I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts.

coyote writes:

It would be good for you then to specify the date you see for the flood, and the evidence supporting that date.

I don't have a specific date. I have hunches, but I see no reason to date the earth any older than what the evidence actually shows. Other than radiometric dating, I see no evidence that demands an earth that is older than 1 million years.

coyote writes:

This would seem to be a critical point which would need to be resolved in order to address the topic of "Which animals would populate the earth."

That would only be a critical point if the evolution of the ancient past occurred by the exactly the same mechanisms that we see today in the lab. I have reason to believe other mechanisms that were much faster were in play.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2012 2:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:24 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 83 by subbie, posted 03-06-2012 3:26 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 81 of 991 (655032)
03-06-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Theodoric
03-06-2012 3:16 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Did God tell you that the genealogies were the way to determine how old the earth was? If he didn't, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Why should I believe that reading the genealogies as a continuous, father to son list of lineages is the correct way? You do know that when genealogies became long and unwieldy, they would be shortened but still maintained crucial information such as who the ultimate ancestor of a tribe was?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:16 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:29 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 82 of 991 (655033)
03-06-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:17 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts.

Well please present these "scientifically determined facts".

Other than radiometric dating, I see no evidence that demands an earth that is older than 1 million years.

More "scientifically determined facts"?

What you think has no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on what you believe.

I have reason to believe other mechanisms that were much faster were in play.

Again more "scientifically determined facts"?

Time to start presenting the science or else people are just going to think you are a crank.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:17 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:40 PM Theodoric has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 83 of 991 (655034)
03-06-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:17 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts.

Other than radiometric dating, I see no evidence that demands an earth that is older than 1 million years.

quote:
Your facts are uncoordinated.

Nomad, The Changling


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:17 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:29 PM subbie has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 84 of 991 (655035)
03-06-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
03-06-2012 3:14 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
jar writes:

if either of the stories were true and factual, then all living animals with the possible exception of some fish, sea mammals, maybe birds, and all living plants would be descendents of the stock on board the ark; a population of at worst two pair of a critter (male + female) and at best seven pair.

That is one amazing genetic bottleneck.

Genetic bottlenecks are a relatively modern phenomena. Most of the original genetic information that God originally created all life with has been lost. When you have that much genetic information that is lost, it is impossible to speciate from a original pair of a species. There isn't enough dna to work with. It is called a genetic bottleneck. You assume that todays quality of DNA in most species is the same as that which existed in the genomes of the animals that came off the ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 3:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 3:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 89 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 3:37 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 85 of 991 (655037)
03-06-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by subbie
03-06-2012 3:26 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Your facts are uncoordinated.--subbie

Nice opinion. Got anything else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by subbie, posted 03-06-2012 3:26 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 03-06-2012 3:44 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 86 of 991 (655038)
03-06-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:21 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
You do know that when genealogies became long and unwieldy, they would be shortened but still maintained crucial information such as who the ultimate ancestor of a tribe was?

So you agree that the bible is myth. So why do you call yourself a christian if the bible is myth?
I did not know this can you please provide your evidence? And because it may have happened in some tribes what is your evidence that the bible also reflects this?

Did God tell you that the genealogies were the way to determine how old the earth was?

First of all there is no god. Second, why are you correct and all other biblical scholars wrong? You have presented nothing but word salad. No argument at all as to how you know the correct answer and everyone else is wrong. Maybe you are just a crank.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 87 of 991 (655039)
03-06-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:27 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Ok enough already. This is a science forum please start providing some sort of evidence instead of just assertions and crap thrown against the wall. If you want to preach could you please move it over to one of the flood topics on the faith side of the forum.

I was really hoping you would have some sort of argument with some sort of pseudo-evidence. Instead we get this.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:27 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 88 of 991 (655040)
03-06-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:27 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Genetic bottlenecks are a relatively modern phenomena. Most of the original genetic information that God originally created all life with has been lost.

Evidence please.

Also, are you saying that genomes used to be 10 times larger?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:27 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 991 (655041)
03-06-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:27 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Bullshit.

Genetic bottlenecks are a fact and an artifact of the event and the time it happened.

Sorry again but we do have genetic information going back even before Adam was created and no sign that anything was lost.

In fact we know a lot about the genetics of that period as pointed out in Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found and in fact some very recent additional information was just found as described in Message 66.

quote:
There is yet more information about Oetzi.

As I pointed out back in Message 1, Oetzi would have been contemporary with Adam and so likely very closely related and as pointed out in a recent BBC News story his genetics shows he was from a family that likely originated in the Middle East, was lactose intolerant which would be reasonable for those early farmer/herders just recently thrown out of the foraging lifestyle of the Garden of Eden.

He had brown eyes and was predisposed to heart disease. There is also indications that he suffered from Lyme disease.



Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:27 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:42 PM jar has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 90 of 991 (655042)
03-06-2012 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Theodoric
03-06-2012 3:24 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
theodoric writes:

Well please present these "scientifically determined facts".

Since you guys are the ones charging me with ignoring science, the onus is on you to present facts (not theories) that my views are in contradiction with.

theodoric writes:

What you think has no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on what you believe.

Nice little nasty unsubstantiated charge you made there. Care to back it up?

theodoric writes:

Again more "scientifically determined facts"?

I didn't say they were scientifically determined facts. Learn to read, you old fart.

theodoric writes:

Time to start presenting the science or else people are just going to think you are a crank.

What you mean is for mean is for me to start presenting ideas that are accepted by a consensus of science. I cannot present science and neither can you since neither us is in a laboratory and analyzed the data and presented our conclusion in a report. This is a fucking discussion blog your raving idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:24 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:59 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019