|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
The word "fish" is never mentioned. Fish therefore have not been specifically excluded from anything in exactly the same way that squid, crabs and dolphins haven't been. Equivocating over what earth means is pointless when we know God's actual words and intentions. This is made perfectly plain so that "a non-neutral reader of that text can see that".... "....I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made. ... means that he intends to kill every living creature that he made. Which includes fish. A discussion is difficult when you don't even consent to the most obvious points. Did they really have a word for "planet earth" in ancient Hebrew? that's amusing. Read in terms of King James English:I will destroy from the face of the earth (soil/land) all living things I have made This is garbage. Some fish, almost entirely a very small range of specialist estuary dwelling and swamp fish, can survive brackish water. These fish live in shallow waters and would die within days of having 30,000 feet of water above them. They are adapted to a specialised habitat which the benevolent lord has just totally obliterated along with their food source. Its possible salt water fish that lived at great distances from the continents survived the flooding, at whatever depth they were used to. Some then adapted to estuary and then fresh water conditions over hundreds of years after the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Some then adapted to estuary and then fresh water conditions over hundreds of years after the flood. I think you've finally invoked magic. Can you present any evidence of fish adapting to fresh water conditions in mere hundreds of years?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Wow!!
CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos ireport.cnn.com are not actual articles. Anyone can post any shit they want.
quote:iReport - Wikipedia Ooparts: Out of place ArtefactsNothing here at all. http://voiceofrussia.com/...d-in-Russian-city-of-VladivostokYou really should try to be a little more skeptical. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
mindspawn writes: 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. Notice how your statement above progresses from speculation ("Its [sic] possible" ) to assertion ("thus...") within the span of a single sentence. What should I or anyone else make of such an argument? What criteria do you think determined clean/unclean prior to the flood, when no animals were being eaten? Were there more or fewer unclean animals pre-flood versus 100 years post flood? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: CAN you prove major sediment movements at the P-T boundary ? The last time you tried you didn't provide any real evidence. And really, none of these add up to a case for a global Flood at the P-T boundary. Not to mention that you need a serious rewriting of geology - which you've yet to really try - to even make it possible that it could be Noah's Flood.
quote: Not if the reports are nonsense.
quote: So Ed Conrad got somebody to believe his lunacy ?
quote: Several of those are familiar...
quote: Any reason to think that this is genuine ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Notice how your statement above progresses from speculation ("Its [sic] possible" ) to assertion ("thus...") within the span of a single sentence. What should I or anyone else make of such an argument? Fair enough, I should rather have said "given the wording in the bible, its likely that the society changed from vegetarian to meat eaters, and if so the rules of what was clean and unclean would have changed after the flood."
What criteria do you think determined clean/unclean prior to the flood, when no animals were being eaten? Were there more or fewer unclean animals pre-flood versus 100 years post flood? The bible does not say. I have absolutely no idea, and so the possibilities are endless. Given that biblical wording points to a vegetarian society maybe predators were seen as less clean. But that is just guesswork and I wouldn't base a theory on guesswork.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The bible does not say. I have absolutely no idea, and so the possibilities are endless. Given that biblical wording points to a vegetarian society maybe predators were seen as less clean. But that is just guesswork and I wouldn't base a theory on guesswork. So what's your argument?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Surely the understanding of the author and the intended audience are relevant here. By all reckonings the story was written well after the Flood. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, surely the audience and the author would naturally take the term as referring to the same classification as we see in the Bible,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Some then adapted to estuary and then fresh water conditions over hundreds of years after the flood.
I think you've finally invoked magic. Can you present any evidence of fish adapting to fresh water conditions in mere hundreds of years? I said that saltwater fish could adapt to freshwater conditions in a few hundred years. I was expecting that selective breeding would produce such results, but fish directly exposed to large decreases in salinity have already shown a higher than expected tolerance. Obviously selective breeding is able to enhance features that already exist. Most fish exposed to the fluctuating salinities found in estuaries survive. 3 of thirteen species of marine fish even survived freshwater salinity levels without any selective breeding. http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/004484868390279XThe present results suggest that many marine fish are more euryhaline than expected, and could be selected for farming in estuaries, provided that production is not reduced in fluctuating salinities. ATJ's Marine Aquarium Site - Reference - Effects of Hyposalinity on FishIt has long been assumed that most reef fish are stenohaline. This means they can only survive within a very narrow range of salinity and is based on the fact that reef habitats normally have a fairly constant salinity. Fish that live in estuaries and other brackish waters are considered euryhaline as they are able to tolerate a wide range of salinity. Research over the last few decades is shedding some doubt on the stenohaline status of many fish and it is possible that none or very few cannot tolerate variation in the salinity of their environment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: God also, according to the author, intended to restore life on the earth, yet there were no fish on the ark. The clear implication is that the fish were not going to be destroyed. It is fairly easy to read the words in Genesis in that way. Sure, you can read it that way if you need to. But the two main problems remain: 1. God says he's going to kill everything on the face of the earth that he made. 2. Everything on the face of the earth would have been killed. And to introduce a third 3. There is a partial list provided of things that were killed. There is no similar list of things to be excluded.
Again, your own interpretation despite its arguably more literal nature, makes far less sense. Assuming, as I do, that the story is not true, the story as you interpret it requires not mere suspension of belief, which is excusable for fiction and myth, but outright inconsistency between motives and action, which I find inexcusable for fiction. The story is full of inconsistencies - it's not meant to be the subject of intense literary criticism and it doesn't stand up to it. People are looking for too much from it.
Secondly your interpretation attributes the silliness to God, whereas I believe the correct place to attribute the silliness is to the authors of the story. The authors thought that fish would survive a global flood. Well they were wrong about that, but so what. They did not think God was an idiot. And the story isn't even true to boot. I'm pretty clear from the story that its God's intention to kill everything he's made and I've already said that it's the authors that just wrote about what they knew and got it wrong. But it's a fantasy from beginning to end so the point is moot.
Your reading makes is not the only logical one. And your reading makes for a far sillier story. Perhaps for you that is part of its attraction. I find the entire thing unattractive, whichever way you spin it. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: I think you've finally invoked magic. Can you present any evidence of fish adapting to fresh water conditions in mere hundreds of years? Magic was invoked when God said he was going to flood the world in a week's time then flooded it to a depth of 30,000 feet within a 40 days. I have no idea why the rest of the fantasy has to be considered as factual and not just as miraculous as the first event.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Surely the understanding of the author and the intended audience are relevant here. By all reckonings the story was written well after the Flood. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, surely the audience and the author would naturally take the term as referring to the same classification as we see in the Bible, The animals are divided as clean and unclean before the flood, then after the flood we see this apparent change from vegetarianism:Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. Then a few hundred years later Moses is told that certain animals are clean or unclean to eat. Sure, it is possible that the same divisions were used before the flood, to me it doesn't make sense to divide animals according to eating patterns if the society at that time never ate meat. Anyway this is all an unnecessary sidepoint, it doesn't add much to the argument. I'm not saying that predators were unclean, my point is that we don't know how many of each species were on the ark, so we cannot make assumptions about predator/prey ratios.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Magic was invoked when God said he was going to flood the world in a week's time then flooded it to a depth of 30,000 feet within a 40 days. I have no idea why the rest of the fantasy has to be considered as factual and not just as miraculous as the first event. The bible just says it rained for 40 days. The waters "prevailed" for 150 days, its entirely possible that it was on day 80 that the mountaintops were covered. Regarding mountains of 30 000 feet, remember us creationists compress the timeframes and place the geological process of mountain building during or after the flood. With flatter terrains and shallower oceans of that pre-boundary era the flooding/transgression effect of melting glaciation and ice caps would have been greater. Someone once said the Appalachians had significant height before the P-T boundary, I'm still awaiting that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: What makes you think that the classification is based on eating patterns rather than the eating patterns being based on the classification ? And how do you answer my point ? If the author of the story intended a meaning different from that current in his own time, wouldn't he have said so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Those papers don't say what you claim they say. I reviewed the literature, particularly the paper you cited, and there is no claim of a worldwide flood at the P-T boundary. The paper at "studentresearch.wcp" includes the citation to Newell in the abstract, but refutes his "first order lowstand" without calling for a worldwide flood. If you actually read the paper you cited, you wouldn't make these silly mistakes. Coyote, please read the article again. I already quoted the relevant comments. They refute his regression theory in favor of a transgression. They claim a highstand (high water levels - ie flooding) rather than Newells "lowstand" approach. They do not deny the regression, but show that the timing of extinctions relate to the transgression, not the regression.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024