Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:49 AM
35 online now:
edge, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,619 Year: 3,656/19,786 Month: 651/1,087 Week: 20/221 Day: 20/36 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 211 of 991 (705684)
08-30-2013 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Minnemooseus
08-30-2013 7:32 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
I don't think this discussion line belongs in this topic, but I felt I needed to comment on the above. I'm not going to be citing evidence in this topic.

The short version is, the mainstream old Earth geologic theory does a pretty fine job of explaining the geology we see. All kinds of processes (see Introduction to Geology topic) in all kinds of sequences happened.

The young Earth creationist explanation for large (but vaguely defined) portions of the Earth's geology is "the flood did it". I have never seen any sort of coherent explanation for how "the flood did it", and I'm quite confident that I never will.

The summary of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory is actually (perhaps) the best "flood geology" exposition that I've seen. And by that I mean "moderately good science fiction" as opposed to the more common "bad science fiction".

Perhaps you would like to try a one-on-one "Great Debate" discussion with me, on this matter. I think such would largely be too far off-topic to properly happen in this topic.

Moose

Thanks , I would enjoy a debate on my theory that the flood occurred at the P-T boundary. Although I disagree with the timeframes , I do agree with most accepted mainstream thought on the geologic layers that we observe. I have yet to see any scientific evidence that disputes that a world-wide flood occurred at the P-T boundary, in fact mainstream geologic evidence specifically states there was a widespread marine transgression and extremely significant marine regression at the P-T boundary. And there are signs of mass sediment movement across the continents at that boundary, which have been closely studied.

I agree that the mainstream creationist theory that most geologic layers were caused by the flood is pretty easy to disprove. The links I have posted in this thread concerning evidence of the flood are not proposing the standardised flood model, and deserve more than the vague and unscientific response of "the flood has been disproven". And so I'm looking forward to a more in-depth critique of the theory of a world-wide flood at the P-T boundary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2013 7:32 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by jar, posted 08-30-2013 1:47 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 222 by Granny Magda, posted 08-31-2013 4:57 AM mindspawn has responded

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


Message 212 of 991 (705686)
08-30-2013 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by mindspawn
08-30-2013 1:36 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
The links I have posted in this thread concerning evidence of the flood are not proposing the standardised flood model, and deserve more than the vague and unscientific response of "the flood has been disproven".

Except you have been given far more than just the vague and unscientific response of "the flood has been disproven", you have been given links to posts that are simple, easy to understand and that prove conclusively that none of the flood stores in the Bible happened at any time modern man or modern animals or modern plants existed.

If you actually read those links and continue to claim there was a Biblical flood you are simply being dishonest.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mindspawn, posted 08-30-2013 1:36 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 5:02 AM jar has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 213 of 991 (705692)
08-30-2013 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Tangle
08-30-2013 12:27 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Everything was dead – even the fish:

21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

Now you’ll argue definitions here about whether fish were included. But fish have nostrils and they have the “breath of the spirit of life” in them and they move on the earth. Finally we have this, so that we are sure:

Fish were not included. The verse specifically refers to all living things "on the face of the ground" and that "moved on the earth" and "all that was on the dry land". You probably wont back down on this, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

The adhoc explanation is that it was a new grown shoot. Well the first newborn leaves from a seed are cotyledons – not true leaves and do not look like true leaves. So we have to suppose that we’d gone beyond the first sprouting stage.

The Hebrew word means "foliage" or "leaf". It can even be used to describe branches. the word derives from a root word that means growth. Cotyledons would fall under that category.

Olive seeds take several weeks to sprout and need slightly damp but not wet material to do it in. We could then add a further 3-4 weeks to get to a true growing plant. I’d say at least a couple of months.

The text says that Noah waited 5 months since the first mountaintops were seen. More than enough time for your scenario. One week is enough for a seed that has sprouted then to have visible greenery. And remember we are not talking about a universal worldwide search here. this was a dove that was unsuccesful in its first trip, and came back with something in its second trip. Noah was checking the terrain, the bible isn't claiming that the dove went in the same direction and covered the same ground both times. It simply had more chance of finding vegetation the more Noah waited for the earth to dry. It was succesful the second time.“4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

There are living cells in seeds – if there weren’t they would not grow. So what are we to make of this? That god excluded seeds from living things? It seems more likely to me that the story tellers didn’t know that seeds were living things so didn’t think to exclude them. Oops

You are scientifically correct, but language is not always applied that way. In normal use of language an ant or a plant is alive, a sperm or a seed or egg has not yet produced life.

So we have 98% of all plants being intolerant of salt – this doesn’t sound too hopeful does it?

It wasn't too hopeful. Many plants I believe went extinct. But some seeds of non saline plants can survive 5 months in water. And then germinate in the less saline conditions after the flood. And then you have saline plants, and seeds that float well.

then we have this interesting verse too:
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

These birds were probably fed seed, and when released they would have spread the seed through excreting it, a standard method of spreading plant growth. They probably also contributed towards plant pollination.

he sea is specifically left out before and after the mention of all those with nostrils. The reason the fish were not even on the boat is because they could survive without the boat.

Its an unknown period during which the waters were rising to the mountaintops, but the waters only "prevailed" for 150 days until the mountaintops were visible again. The story isn't clear enough about the mountaintops being covered any longer for that, we know that the waters were rising for an indefinite period. Unless you can see in the text an exact moment when the mountains were covered? I cant. So its highly likely that the highest regions were only covered for 150 days. Seeds from these regions only needed to survive 150 days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2013 12:27 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2013 6:31 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6680
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 214 of 991 (705703)
08-30-2013 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by mindspawn
08-30-2013 2:43 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I see that despite your earlier quibble about this being a science thread, you have ignored all the science in my post and in instead favour biblical literary criticism and invention.

I want you to think very carefully about this single line and try to imagine that it means what it plainly says. I know you'll find it hard and every cell in your body will try to avoid it, but it's very clear and it's very direct:

“4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

That's says ALL LIVING THINGS THAT I HAVE MADE. He makes no exclusions. His intention was quite plainly, as He says, to kill every damn thing not on the boat.

The rest of your post is adhoc bullshit.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by mindspawn, posted 08-30-2013 2:43 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2013 9:43 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 219 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 4:04 AM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 215 of 991 (705705)
08-30-2013 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
08-30-2013 6:31 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Well he didn't mean "all".

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

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2013 6:31 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-31-2013 12:25 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 991 (705708)
08-31-2013 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Theodoric
08-30-2013 9:43 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Well he didn't mean "all".

Well, "some" did survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2013 9:43 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 991 (705709)
08-31-2013 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Tangle
08-30-2013 12:27 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
But fish have nostrils and they have the “breath of the spirit of life” in them and they move on the earth.

I think there is still room to argue the point.

Fish do have nostrils, but the nostrils don't have the breath of life in them. Fish breathe without using their noses. I suspect that the writer of Genesis did not intend to include fish in this paragraph. It might not even have been apparent to the author that a flood would kill fish.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2013 12:27 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2013 3:24 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 220 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 4:28 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6680
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 218 of 991 (705710)
08-31-2013 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by NoNukes
08-31-2013 1:24 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
NoNukes writes:

I think there is still room to argue the point.

Sure, but only if you're content to twist the meaning out of shape.

Fish do have nostrils, but the nostrils don't have the breath of life in them. Fish breathe without using their noses. I suspect that the writer of Genesis did not intend to include fish in this paragraph. It might not even have been apparent to the author that a flood would kill fish.

I'm sure the writers meant to leave fish out. And pretty much everything in the oceans and lakes. (And for obvious reasons they also left out the largest quantity of life on earth; micro-organisms.) But at no point are we given a list of exclusions.

It would have been an interesting task to create aquariums on board and get fish, cetaceans, sea slugs, clams, and octopi into them but I'm equally sure the apologists would invent a method.

But we're still left with two 'facts'

1. God said "4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

Supposedly God's words, not man's, and I assume that Creationists do not exclude fish from their list of stuff God made.

2. We know that very few fish can survive brackish water and those that can would in any case have been killed when their habitat and food source was destroyed.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by NoNukes, posted 08-31-2013 1:24 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2013 1:37 AM Tangle has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 219 of 991 (705711)
08-31-2013 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
08-30-2013 6:31 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I believe my "ad hoc bullshit" makes sense. I am happy to agree to disagree, we have both put forward our views pretty clearly. I'm sure neutral observers would see some sense in some of what I have written. Thanks for the chat.

Edited by mindspawn, : Concluding remark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2013 6:31 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 220 of 991 (705712)
08-31-2013 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by NoNukes
08-31-2013 1:24 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I think there is still room to argue the point.

Fish do have nostrils, but the nostrils don't have the breath of life in them. Fish breathe without using their noses. I suspect that the writer of Genesis did not intend to include fish in this paragraph. It might not even have been apparent to the author that a flood would kill fish.

Exactly, and if you as a non-neutral reader of that text can see that, it is pretty apparent to other readers that fish were specifically excluded. In addition there was no word for the planet earth at that stage, the word "earth" specifically means "land" if you delve into the Hebrew.

1. God said "4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

Supposedly God's words, not man's, and I assume that Creationists do not exclude fish from their list of stuff God made.

2. We know that very few fish can survive brackish water and those that can would in any case have been killed when their habitat and food source was destroyed.

Two good points

1) The word 'earth" in Hebrew meant "land". "I will destroy all living things from the face of the land"

2) I agree. Only fish that could survive brackish water survived. Its only logical that many became extinct. Since then they have adapted to specialised environments and due to this adaptation do not easily survive when removed from the environment they have adapted to. In experiments you still often find that when enough fresh water fish are exposed to brackish water, some do survive. And the same with salt water fish exposed to brackish water. So that ability is genetically latent in many fish populations. It would obviously be more latent in modern populations descended from those that survived the brackish water, but it only makes sense that mainly fresh water organisms at the time of the flood would have undergone major extinctions. Myself and Moose may be entering into a debate specifically about my view of the flood occurring at the P-T boundary. This boundary had major extinctions of both fauna and flora, aquatic and terrestrial, and so I am not denying the extinctions. I actually emphasize them because I believe there were major changes in world temperatures, including oceans, before and after the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by NoNukes, posted 08-31-2013 1:24 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2013 11:57 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 229 by ringo, posted 08-31-2013 1:05 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 221 of 991 (705714)
08-31-2013 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by JonF
08-30-2013 12:58 PM


In the fine tradition of Making Shit Up, he thinks that clean and unclean were different before the Fludde. I.e., clean and unclean is just at a whim and doesn't have any basis other than a trickster God.

Before the flood God said:
2:16 God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

After the flood God said:
3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Its possible that the society changed from vegetarian to meat eaters, and thus the rules of what was clean and unclean changed after the flood. A few hundred years after the flood the emphasis was on what should or should not be eaten, which would obviously not have applied to a vegetarian society before the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by JonF, posted 08-30-2013 12:58 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 12:06 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 222 of 991 (705715)
08-31-2013 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mindspawn
08-30-2013 1:36 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Thanks , I would enjoy a debate on my theory that the flood occurred at the P-T boundary.

We had one. You lost, publicly humiliating yourself rather badly as I recall. But by all means let's go again.

Although I disagree with the timeframes , I do agree with most accepted mainstream thought on the geologic layers that we observe.

No. You don't get to say that.

If you disagree with the time frame, then you disagree with all geology. You have swept away the very foundations of the discipline. You need a whole new explanatory framework. You can't just pick and choose as is convenient.

I have yet to see any scientific evidence that disputes that a world-wide flood occurred at the P-T boundary,

This is a lie. Your talent for self-deception is as sharp as ever.

in fact mainstream geologic evidence specifically states there was a widespread marine transgression and extremely significant marine regression at the P-T boundary.

Love to see some citations on that. After all, watching you cite studies that say the opposite of what you think they say is always priceless.

And there are signs of mass sediment movement across the continents at that boundary, which have been closely studied.

Did the geologists who studied these sediments conclude that they were the result of a global flood? No?

I agree that the mainstream creationist theory that most geologic layers were caused by the flood is pretty easy to disprove.

There is no mainstream creationist model. All creationists behave as you do; lying, making shit up, misinterpreting the work of real scholars and ignoring corrections. It seems to me that every creationist on these boards has believed something different. Talk of a standard creationist model is nonsense.

The links I have posted in this thread concerning evidence of the flood are not proposing the standardised flood model, and deserve more than the vague and unscientific response of "the flood has been disproven". And so I'm looking forward to a more in-depth critique of the theory of a world-wide flood at the P-T boundary.

And I'm looking forward to you providing us with just one Permian or Triassic human fossil.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mindspawn, posted 08-30-2013 1:36 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 5:40 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 223 of 991 (705716)
08-31-2013 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by jar
08-30-2013 1:47 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Have you read my links about a flood at the P-T boundary? Its the consensus of geologists that there was a major marine transgression and a significant worldwide marine regression at the P-T boundary. This means that science itself has already confirmed worldwide marine flooding at the P-T boundary. This isn't my theory , but what has been geologically established.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jar, posted 08-30-2013 1:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Granny Magda, posted 08-31-2013 5:32 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 227 by jar, posted 08-31-2013 9:28 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 224 of 991 (705717)
08-31-2013 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by mindspawn
08-31-2013 5:02 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Its the consensus of geologists that there was a major marine transgression and a significant worldwide marine regression at the P-T boundary. This means that science itself has already confirmed worldwide marine flooding at the P-T boundary.

No it doesn't. Obviously it doesn't.

Do the studies you refer to mention a worldwide flood? Yes or no mindspawn...

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 5:02 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 6:55 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 225 of 991 (705718)
08-31-2013 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Granny Magda
08-31-2013 4:57 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
We had one. You lost, publicly humiliating yourself rather badly as I recall. But by all means let's go again.

That's your perception. You probaby think you are winning this debate as well. lol!

Here's my summation in that thread, you see there was not ONE good argument proposed against the geological evidence of a flood at the P-T boundary. Obviously the marine transgression and regression cannot be denied, because these are recorded. But regarding the masses of movement of sedimentation the best reply was from Percy who proposed normal rainfalls, but a loss of vegetation caused the widespread sedimentation found across the continents of that time. ie increased erosion rather than increased flooding. I thought that was a clever alternative to the flooding, but does not disprove the flood, its merely another possibility to explain the extreme movements of water-borne sediment found exclusively at the P-T boundary.

The fossil argument was not completed by the time of summation, and I would have liked to go into further depth about that, but the actual geological evidence against my observations of masses of sedimentary movement and a marine transgression and regression was seriously lacking.

Thanks everyone, I really enjoyed the discussion. As Granny Magda pointed out so eloquently, my theory is adjusting as I go along. I believe its gaining in strength even if those participating in the thread feel the theory is weak because it is developing.
The truth is the PT boundary was a dramatic event with all the ingredients for a worldwide flood. There was the melting ice caps, melting glaciation, huge worldwide sediment movements, enlarging of Pangea (low-lying landmass peaked in area, oceans were compressed). There is a major proven transgression and regression then at the PT boundary. Some tried to brush off the evidence I presented of this major sediment movement across the world, but anyone researching this will see endless evidence of unprecedented sedimentation at the PT boundary, because this is proven fact, no matter the cause.

I feel the only good points disputing the flood hypothesis presented, are that
1) the worldwide mass movements of sedimentation could have been a result of loss of vegetation and not flooding, erosion occurring after the worldwide loss of vegetation. This I believe is an alternative valid evidence based hypothesis worth considering
2) the Appalachians were apparently too high to be covered by excess melt waters. I asked for proof that they were that high, the alternative is that they were covered by eroding floodwaters during the flood, and only subsequently rose to current heights. I never saw the supporting geological evidence for high Appalachians in the pre-boundary era.

Other discussions were more related to peripherary topics, there was no conclusive evidence presented that any large terrestrial animals have a lot more than 28 alelles in areas of the genome where mutation rates are normal. I feel generally the reduced number of alleles found in "ark animals" supports the ark theory. Neither was conclusive evidence presented of any sort of transitional fossils outside of evolutionary assumptions, although the thread ended too quickly to end that discussion.

Neither did anyone challenge my premise that changing conditions regularly cause niche environments to dominate, and the alternative conclusion that the new dominant fauna/flora evolved; is based on as yet unproven processes (fairytale speculation regarding some aspects of novel genes), and on so-called "transitional fossils" that are really imaginative speculation concerning numerous fossils of extinct species.

Dr A presented the usual "scientists say" comment regarding transitional fossils without presenting any evidence or links for his confident conclusion that whales have a history of developing transitional fossils accurately sequenced according to confirmed dates. Anything less evidence based is speculation, using evolution to prove evolution - ie circular reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Granny Magda, posted 08-31-2013 4:57 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Granny Magda, posted 08-31-2013 5:48 AM mindspawn has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
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