Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
34 online now:
CosmicChimp, ICANT, nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,989 Year: 3,635/14,102 Month: 255/321 Week: 71/44 Day: 13/9 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8175
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 286 of 991 (705854)
09-03-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 5:32 AM


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

I don't mind claiming miracles,.....It could be a miracle.

I'm still waiting for your answer - was it a miracle when God flooded the world to 15 cubits above the tallest mountain?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 5:32 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 9:11 AM Tangle has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 287 of 991 (705856)
09-03-2013 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Tangle
09-03-2013 8:20 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I'm still waiting for your answer - was it a miracle when God flooded the world to 15 cubits above the tallest mountain?

God could have started the process, but I believe he used natural processes to create the flood.

ps its no miracle that water would cover the earth, it just requires slightly shallower oceans, and lower mountains:

http://www.livescience.com/...ean-depth-volume-revealed.html
"A group of scientists used satellite measurements to get new estimates of these values, which turned out to be 0.3 billion cubic miles (1.332 billion cubic kilometers) for the volume of the oceans and 12,080.7 feet (3,682.2 meters) for the average ocean depth"

70% is ocean, 30% land. This means if the planet had even terrain, water would cover the planet by a depth of 2577 meters deep. There is more than enough water, all you need is flatter terrain to flood the earth.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Tangle, posted 09-03-2013 8:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 9:14 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 09-03-2013 9:26 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 288 of 991 (705857)
09-03-2013 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 9:11 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
but I believe he used natural processes to create the flood.

Where did all the water come from and where did it go?

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


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 287 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 9:11 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by vimesey, posted 09-03-2013 9:45 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 292 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:06 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8175
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 289 of 991 (705858)
09-03-2013 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 9:11 AM


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

God could have started the process

Why so shy all of a sudden?

If God started the the process it was a miracle.
If he didn't, it's either a natural flood or it's not true.

Which is it?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 9:11 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:08 AM Tangle has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.9


(1)
Message 290 of 991 (705860)
09-03-2013 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Theodoric
09-03-2013 9:14 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Where did all the water come from and where did it go?

Let's not forget that it's just a theory that water molecules are comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen - that's not set in stone. It's just as likely that water molecules are comprised of two oxygen atoms that like to lie back and take it easy. When the global flood happened, a few gazillion of them chilled out and took it easy to form the extra water, then afterwards they all got excited and zippy again and headed back into the atmosphere. Simples !

It's just a theory that water and oxygen molecules are different - it's also a theory that they're the same. And those clever Greek chaps taught us that abstract philosophizing is just as good as gathering evidence.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 9:14 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1043 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 responded

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

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 292 of 991 (705863)
09-03-2013 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Theodoric
09-03-2013 9:14 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Where did all the water come from and where did it go

The water came from the melting oof Southern Hemisphere glaciation and melting of the ice caps. Due to compressed timeframes of creation theory, the splitting of Pangea occurred during the tail end of the flood. The waters most likely poured into the newly opened northern Atlantic trench. There was an incomplete return to previous landmass levels, it probably took hundreds of years of marine regression and ice caps forming to create the landmasses we see today. (during the period Pangea was splitting and creating the deep Atlantic Ocean)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 9:14 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 10:21 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 309 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 11:38 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 293 of 991 (705864)
09-03-2013 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Tangle
09-03-2013 9:26 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Why so shy all of a sudden?

If God started the the process it was a miracle.
If he didn't, it's either a natural flood or it's not true.

Which is it

The bible does not give enough detail. God often used nature to carry out his will. And so I really don't know the answer. Why the interest?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 09-03-2013 9:26 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 09-03-2013 10:59 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 313 by ringo, posted 09-03-2013 1:39 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 294 of 991 (705865)
09-03-2013 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 7:58 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Its not set in stone, its just a theory based on current rates of decay.

And here comes yet another totally asinine idea promoted by the Christian Cult of Sciolism and Denial.

That too is an idea that has been totally refuted. You are aware of Oklo aren't you?

If gotta ask. Were you educated in one of those Christian Avoidance schools where the only goal is to keep kids from thinking or learning?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 7:58 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 295 of 991 (705866)
09-03-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Coyote
09-03-2013 10:04 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
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]

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2013 10:04 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2013 10:35 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 302 by Granny Magda, posted 09-03-2013 10:56 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 307 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 11:26 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2013 11:34 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 296 of 991 (705867)
09-03-2013 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 10:06 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
But that does not agree with what the bible says and is also freaking ludicrous.

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 292 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:06 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:27 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 297 of 991 (705868)
09-03-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by jar
09-01-2013 7:43 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
That's really tough. Too bad it's irrelevant.
If any of the Biblical floods myths happened then EVERY living critter, every single living critter would show the same bottleneck and at the same time. If it doesn't show up in even one critter then the flood myths are kaput along with the Garden of Eden, Conquest of Canaan and Exodus.

And it doesn't show up.

Evidence please!!! I've never seen a DNA sequence or any genetic evidence that contradicts a creation 6500 years ago or a flood 4500 years ago. Bluegenes and I are in a discussion about this topic, and the problem is more for evolutionists than creationists. The rate of germline mutations is way to slow to reflect the genetic diversity we see today. It fits in better with biblical timelines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 09-01-2013 7:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 09-03-2013 10:41 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 298 of 991 (705869)
09-03-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Theodoric
09-03-2013 10:21 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
But that does not agree with what the bible says and is also freaking ludicrous.

Its only ridiculous if you are indoctrinated into evolutionary timeframes. Without radiometric dating you have nothing.

And how does it contradict the bible?

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 10:21 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 11:46 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 311 by JonF, posted 09-03-2013 11:46 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1043 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 yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 300 of 991 (705871)
09-03-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 4:40 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.

This is a lie.

You know for a fact that there are other methods of geological dating. You've been discussing them in the Age of Mankind thread, so you are quite aware that other methods exist. Feel free to dispute those methods if you wish, but please don't waste our time by pretending that they don't exist.

The higher latitudes did not experience the earlier extinction crisis. This "Siberian" area is the most likely habitat of the small population of humans during the turbulent extinction period of the Guadalupian stage (mid-Permian). This entire area was covered by lava during the P-T boundary and under this lava is where you will most likely find evidence of human settlement.

Until you can provide evidence for this, there is no reason to think that this is anything other than wishful thinking on your part. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously without evidence for your claims, not just "Might-have-been", or "Could-have-been", but good, solid evidence that your ideas are actually true. I need to see solid evidence that you're not just making things up.

If you want to claim that there were humans in the Permian, you need to provide us with Permian human fossils. Nothing else is sufficient.

mindspawn writes:

{during the Permian} the more likely place for human settlement would have been in the northernmost section of Pangea, please refer to the linked map:

mindspawn writes:

During the Triassic, humans were in Turkey, and had not spread around the world yet.

So they moved? What is now Turkey was on the Western side of Pangea.

But again, without solid corroborating evidence, there is no reason to treat this as anything more than just another fanciful notion that you made up.


Let's condense my responses to your two messages into one.

I never said the article supports a "worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land"

Then it does not support the Flood, because a "worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land" is exactly what the Bible narrative describes.

The landscape was flatter then, in the absence of proof of high Permian mountain ranges, its possible that the waters could have covered all the land, science has not disproven that at the P-T boundary.

Another example of an excuse that you have plucked from thin air.

We've been over this. There were mountains on Pangea. Worse for your case, the Bible very clearly mentions mountains in the Flood story;

quote:
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. - Gen 7

The bible account claims that there were mountains before the Flood. If you are going to posit a scenario where there where no mountains, then that cannot be regarded as evidence for the Flood.

The article does not only survey shallow marine environments but also points to flooding of vast areas of the interior of Pangea (found in Australia/Madagascar/Greenland)
'The culmination of the long-term sea-level rise occurred in the Griesbachian when several seaways flooded into the interior of Pangea e.g., in eastern Greenland, western Australia and Madagscar . This inundation was short lived and marine deposition in these areas ceased in the Dienerian."

This too disproves the idea of the Flood occurring at that time.

Every time you find a source saying that "Area A was flooded" you implicitly acknowledge that the remaining areas were not flooded. That is contrary to the Biblical account and therefore evidence against the Flood.

Conodonts became extinct. I don't see your logic that extinctions prove evolution??

You miss my point. I never claimed that.

The point about the conodont dating is that for you to sensibly make the claim "The Flood takes place at the P_-T boundary", you must have some way of dating the P-T boundary. For you to make any claim about the history of the Earth, you need to have some sort of dating method. Without such a method, you cannot make any kind of what about what happened when. Your P-T claim would become meaningless, since you would have no way dating the Flood, the P-T or anything else.

I am simply pointing out to you that the paper that you are so fond of is founded upon the assumptions that a) evolution is true (the conodont dating is based on this assumption) and b) radiometric dating is accurate (because the paper incorporates radiometric dating).

You can't pick and choose. Either radiometric dating is reliable, or it is not reliable and neither is any date that relies upon it. Either evolution is real or evolution is false and any date which relies upon evolution must be called into question. In attempting to utilise a paper that uses methodology that you denounce, you are guilty of hypocrisy and deeply flawed logic.

Granny Magda, the end Permian and the early Triassic are the P-T boundary.

Good grief... I know that, okay.

What I'm saying is that the paper you cite shows the highstand persisting well into the Early Triassic. Look at figure 2; it clearly shows a greater highstand during the Griesbachian (Earliest Triassic) than in the latest Permian. So if the Flood took place at the boundary point, then either God broke his promise and flooded the place again in the Early Triassic or the Flood waters persisted for a whopping one million years!

I have no idea why you're so keen on this paper. It simply fails to support your version of events.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:40 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:56 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021