Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 991 (575959)
08-22-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


The pre-flood diet of animals and mankind was vegetarian, there being so much vegetation, fewer, shallower and smaller oceans and a super relatively even temperature globally.
Vegetarian? Explain canine teeth in mammals, and carnasial teeth in carnivores.
Even temperature? Please explain the several ice ages.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by menes777, posted 09-02-2010 2:28 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 991 (576119)
08-22-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Nij
08-22-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Think like one of them
You have to be careful when you parody fundamentalists.
It is often very hard to tell if such a post is real or a parody.
Google "Poe's Law" for details.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 9:08 PM Nij has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 991 (578783)
09-02-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dirk
09-02-2010 2:43 PM


Re: Landing Site
He writes about where the ark landed etc., but what I would like to hear from him is - among other things - how and why penguins exist in the first place, because if I release two pinguins on Mt Ararat today, I am pretty sure they will die a horrible death, as will probably at least 90% of all other animals that are supposed to have been on the ark (given that their current ecological niches are not those of Mt Ararat or its immediate surroundings).
It's worse than that.
Surrounding the ark you have a massive salt-brine mud deposit everywhere the oceans and seas don't cover.
No food for quite a while.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dirk, posted 09-02-2010 2:43 PM Dirk has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 64 of 991 (654959)
03-05-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by foreveryoung
03-05-2012 11:18 PM


The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
You have made an enormous amount of unwarranted assumptions about the biblical flood story. Most of the animals that came off the ark no longer exist. The animals that exist today were not on the ark. The latter evolved from the former. As far as which ones survived, none of them lasted in their former states; they adapted to new environments and changed from one form into another.
If the date of the "ark" is as biblical scholars agree, about 4,350 years ago your statement is entirely incorrect.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest hyper-evolution since 4,350 years ago, nor is there any evidence to suggest a global flood at that time period.
On hyper-evolution: It is funny that you suggest such a thing. I've seen creationists ("Woodmorappe" and Lubenow) claim that since the flood, and more precisely since the Babel incident, that "Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel."
There is just one problem with this. "The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!"
http://blog.darwincentral.org/...-at-creation-science-part-i
On a global flood 4,350 years ago: I've been doing archaeology for decades and tested perhaps 100 sites which contained 4,350 year old strata. In not a single one was there evidence of either massive erosion or massive sedimentary deposition. Rather what we see is continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, stratigraphy, and mtDNA. The same has been reported by my colleagues around the world.
Before you claim that folks have "made an enormous amount of unwarranted assumptions about the biblical flood story" you should try to ascertain whether there is any evidence that the flood story is accurate.
All the evidence to date suggests it is an ancient tribal myth.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 03-05-2012 11:18 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 03-06-2012 12:58 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 69 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:01 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 991 (655023)
03-06-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 2:01 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
It seems that you are ignoring the opinions of biblical scholars, in addition to science in general.
It would be good for you then to specify the date you see for the flood, and the evidence supporting that date.
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."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:01 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:17 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 152 of 991 (705283)
08-25-2013 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by mindspawn
08-25-2013 6:40 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Please note that I hadn't even posted the full extent of my proof for vast sedimentation during the P-T boundary across vast flood plains on all continents. I believe other creationists have neglected to look in the right place to find the evidence of the worldwide flood, but the evidence is there in numerous scientific journals.
The P-T boundary does not work for the biblical flood because that event occurred just over 250 million years ago, roughly some 248 million years before the advent of genus Homo.
Oh, just as an aside, it was perhaps some 160 million years ago that the first true mammals appeared (think shrews). The first larger mammals were perhaps 100 million years later. (In other words, no mammals at all for the ark.)
What it comes down to is that there are absolutely irreconcilable problems between your claims and actual events established by a couple of hundred years of scientific research.
The magnitude of the error you are making, if put into other terms, would have Jesus and the apostles running around just under two weeks ago. That is the size of your error!
Do you see why your ideas receive no respect here?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by mindspawn, posted 08-25-2013 6:40 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 2:58 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 164 of 991 (705327)
08-26-2013 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by mindspawn
08-26-2013 2:58 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
The more I look into it, the entire theory of evolution rests on currently measured rates of decay of heavy isotopes. Without that theoretical basis for measuring timeframes, geology, archaeology and all else fits in perfectly with the so-called biblical myths.
Its theoretically possible that even the weather can affect the rate of decay of heavy elements, and so the whole theory of evolution is currently resting on very shaky foundations.
Based on comments such as this I started a tread just for evidence that radiocarbon and other radiometric forms of dating are inaccurate.
Please present your evidence on that thread. That would be the courteous thing to do, as the thread was started just for you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 2:58 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 1:10 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 181 of 991 (705535)
08-28-2013 1:44 PM


Hmmmm
I've always wondered where they kept the termites, and what they ate????

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 08-28-2013 2:09 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 184 by jar, posted 08-28-2013 3:22 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 236 of 991 (705749)
09-01-2013 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 6:55 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.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 6:55 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:07 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 275 of 991 (705816)
09-02-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 5:07 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
They refute his regression theory in favor of a transgression.
That's what I said in my post.
They claim a highstand (high water levels - ie flooding) rather than Newells "lowstand" approach.
Correct. But they do not claim a worldwide flood. There is a lot of difference between a "transgression" and a worldwide flood.
That article does not support your claims for it.
You are still grasping at straws.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:07 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:11 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 291 of 991 (705862)
09-03-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 7:58 AM


Another brief off topic note
...its just a theory
Why is it that those who are pushing lame-brain ideas always say, of the accepted science they oppose, "...its just a theory?"
Could it be that they have no idea of the role of theory in science?
They use the term "its just a theory" to imply that what they oppose is just a guess, a silly notion of some kind, something that isn't "proved" and not to be taken seriously. What nonsense!
A theory is the highest level of explanation in science. It is not a guess or a silly notion.
A theory is the single best explanation for a specific set of facts. Take a look at the definitions below and perhaps you won't make this mistake in the future.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 7:58 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:14 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 299 of 991 (705870)
09-03-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
I know that, but radiometric dating is based on a modern rate of decay that is assumed to be constant. The assumption does not have a strong basis, due to the fact that there are a few known and also unknown ways in which it can be affected. So its application to previous environments is a shaky foundation on which the entire theory of evolution rests.
Not so. The calibration curve (for C14 dating) would correct for changing rates of decay as well!
You really need to think about these wild ideas you are throwing out, as they reveal an awful lot about your level of education in science.
(And your "what if" objections, designed to rationalize away all the evidence that contradicts your beliefs, are becoming increasingly bizarre.)
Edited by Coyote, : minor addition

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:14 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 339 of 991 (705941)
09-04-2013 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:34 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Radiometric dating was acceptable to science because it compared well with evolutionary theory. If they looked at erosion rates or salination rates they would have seen how little sense there is on these long timeframes and it radiometric dating would not have been accepted. It was unintentional cherry picking based on the presumption that evolutionary theory is the truth.
Absolute nonsense.
Is your faith so weak that you just have to make stuff up to prop it up?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:34 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:51 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 346 of 991 (705949)
09-04-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 10:51 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
You saying I'm making up stuff?
Yes.
You appear willing to say most anything, via cherry picking the data, to support your beliefs.
Further, you ignore evidence that is presented showing you are wrong--by making up more nonsense.
Your claim that humans were kicking around 250 million years ago is one example. As is the claim that a sea level rise equates to a global flood. And to support your dates, you have to claim that almost all of science is wrong.
There simply is no evidence to support those claims.
But perhaps the worse problem is that you are impervious to scientific evidence. If it does not fit with your religious belief, you just won't accept it no matter how well supported.
Edited by Coyote, : Fix formatting

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:51 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 5:15 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 389 of 991 (706033)
09-05-2013 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 5:15 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
A sea level rise does equate to a global flood (flooding on every coastline on the planet.)
I will take this as your admission that the P-T sea level rise was not Noah's flood.
Which the rest of us knew all along.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 5:15 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024