Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 241 of 991 (705757)
09-01-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Tangle
08-31-2013 11:57 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2013 11:57 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2013 9:21 PM mindspawn has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 242 of 991 (705759)
09-01-2013 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 8:21 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 8:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 4:20 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 09-02-2013 4:30 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 243 of 991 (705761)
09-01-2013 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 8:04 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Wow!!
CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
ireport.cnn.com are not actual articles. Anyone can post any shit they want.
quote:
Submissions are not edited, fact-checked, or screened.
iReport - Wikipedia
Ooparts: Out of place Artefacts
Nothing here at all.
http://voiceofrussia.com/...d-in-Russian-city-of-Vladivostok
You 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 8:04 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 991 (705765)
09-02-2013 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by mindspawn
08-31-2013 4:55 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 4:55 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 3:00 AM NoNukes has replied

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


(1)
Message 245 of 991 (705766)
09-02-2013 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 8:04 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
quote:
I cannot prove the biblical flood. But I can prove a major rise in sea levels, at the same time as major movements of water-borne sediment across the whole world, at the same time as a volcanic layer of clay across the world.
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:
As for human remains, the list of anomalies is endless. None of them are taken seriously by the scientific establishment. And these anomalies are becoming more and more common, the establishment will have to take notice soon:
Not if the reports are nonsense.
quote:
CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
So Ed Conrad got somebody to believe his lunacy ?
quote:
Ooparts: Out of place Artefacts
Several of those are familiar...
quote:
http://voiceofrussia.com/...d-in-Russian-city-of-Vladivostok
Any reason to think that this is genuine ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 8:04 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 246 of 991 (705770)
09-02-2013 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by NoNukes
09-02-2013 12:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 12:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 3:29 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 248 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 3:49 AM mindspawn has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 991 (705772)
09-02-2013 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 3:00 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 3:00 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 7:39 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 248 of 991 (705773)
09-02-2013 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 3:00 AM


quote:
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."
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,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 3:00 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 4:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 249 of 991 (705774)
09-02-2013 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by NoNukes
09-01-2013 9:21 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
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/004484868390279X
The 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 Fish
It 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2013 9:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 5:40 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 250 of 991 (705775)
09-02-2013 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by NoNukes
09-01-2013 7:29 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2013 7:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 5:21 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 251 of 991 (705776)
09-02-2013 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by NoNukes
09-01-2013 9:21 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2013 9:21 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 4:51 AM Tangle has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 252 of 991 (705777)
09-02-2013 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by PaulK
09-02-2013 3:49 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 3:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 5:04 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 253 of 991 (705778)
09-02-2013 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Tangle
09-02-2013 4:30 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 09-02-2013 4:30 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Tangle, posted 09-02-2013 5:07 AM mindspawn has replied

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


Message 254 of 991 (705779)
09-02-2013 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 4:38 AM


quote:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 4:38 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 255 of 991 (705780)
09-02-2013 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Coyote
09-01-2013 7:40 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 7:40 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 5:31 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2013 10:27 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024