|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
Good. Then the Biblical flood is a non-starter scientifically.
I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains. mindspawn writes:
"Disproved" probably isn't appropriate terminology. "Not a shred of evidence to support it" would be better. What people are telling you is that there is no scientific evidence that thre Flood happened or even that it could happen. How's that?
My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
As I mentioned, you can find "widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time" today. Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence. Note that the signs of this year's flood will not be distinguishable from the signs of last year's flood in the distant future. "Flooding" evidence can include overlapped individual floods over a period of time. What you don't have a shred of evidence for is the extrapolation of many floods into one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
As I already mentioned, many predators can not eat dead fish.
If the predators ate the fish, they didn't need to eat the poor cow. mindspawn writes:
There's another easy experiment that creationists could do. Drown grass - or anything else that cows can eat - and then turn a cow loose on it. The cow could then eat the growing vegetation. Seriously, why aren't creationists doing these things instead of just saying they woulda/coulda/shoulda happened?
mindspawn writes:
The word "seed" as used in Genesis doesn't refer specifically to plant "seeds" as we know them. For example, God put enmity between the serpent's seed and Eve's seed. Impossible to say, but whatever way it happened there were specific plans before the flood, to keep seed alive on the land. I suppose some creationists would say that snakes grew from seeds before the flood. They had legs, you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
It's interesting that you talk about "firsts" when you don't accept the dating methods used to determine chronology. The first cave dwellings are in Turkey. The first building is found in Turkey. The first towns are found in Turkey. But since this thread is about animals, you should really be pointing to evidence of kangaroos in Turkey, giraffes in Turkey, penguins in Turkey, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
How long can it spend getting to the sea? Can it live on dead fish on the way? Did it go by way of the Black Sea and the Med or did it take a shortcut to the Persian Gulf?
(except for the penguin which can spend several months at sea). mindspawn writes:
You're not presenting answers. You're presenting excuses for why there's no evidence to back up your speculations.
The answer is.... mindspawn writes:
There has been a lot of microevolution since the dawn of man but not nearly as much macroevolution as creationists claim.
... and there has been much speciation since....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
Herd animals such as bison would already have been extra-vulnerable to predators if reduced to only two or fourteen individuals. Sending inexperienced calves out into the cold cruel world would have increased the extinction rate immensely. It seems unlikely that there would have been any left for all of the present species to flash-evolve from.
Due to lack of space, its more likely that they used calves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
Well of course you don't foresee any problems because as soon as a problem crops up you have a new ad hoc what-if to cover it. That isn't science. It isn't even good fiction. ... so I don't foresee space problems on that huge ark. For every "maybe" that you cite, I'd like to see you suggest an experiment to test whether what might be really is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
This is a science thread. We don't stop at guesswork. So many aspects of this discussion are in the realm of guesswork. As I have suggested more than once, you need to be proposing experiments to test your guesses, not just pretending that one guess is as good as the next. The "evolutionists" have mentioned the experiments that have already been done. Your only counter has been to guess that the experiments are wrong. Gotcha again: You have to propose experiments to show that the other experiments are wrong. Science is an infinite loop. There's no escape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
This thread isn't about refuting the flood. That has been done in a myriad of other threads. You have ample opportunity to back up your guesswork over there. If participants of this thread cannot refute the flood, why make confident claims based on guesswork? In this thread, you need to substantiate your wild guesses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
First, assumptions are not just wild guesses that somebody made up. The assumptions in one train of thought are the conclusions from another train of thought. Good assumptions have already been tested and found to be correct. ... both evolutionary assumptions and creationist assumptions would predict many more such scenarios across many species. Second, any goober with a keyboard can "predict scenarios". Science isn't about making up assumptions and making up scenarios about what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened. It's about using tested assumptions to predict scenarios that can be tested. The keyword, in case you missed it, is "tested". The target can be tested for holes and lack of holes is evidence that you missed the target. You can predict until the cows come home to eat their beans that you woulda/coulda/shoulda hit the target but there are no holes in the target. The test "proves", if you like, that your scenario doesn't work. Edited by ringo, : Speling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
You have been shown the evidence. You have been shown the positive evidence that your shots hit the wall beside the target. You have also been shown the negative evidence that there are no holes in the target. Which test? Without evidence, you are making an assumption yourself. I would like to see your evidence that my scenario does not work. You can't just handwave the evidence away with more "scenarios". You can't just say cows woulda/coulda/shoulda eaten something else. You have to show that cows can live on something else and that that something else can survive a flood and propogate in a post-flood environment.
You are the one who needs to show evidence that your scenario will work. That is the essence of science. You're in the minority position here. Nobody here gives a flying f*ck if you are convinced. You're trying to convince us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
That isn't how science works. The one who is challenging the accepted theory has to back up his challenge. The first to make a statement must prove it. And what really separates the scientists from the creationists is that scientists test their own challenges before concluding that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
mindspawn writes:
You're the one who is challenging the entire body of biological knowledge. Yes, you do have to back up that challenge. And no, the world doesn't owe you a spoon-feeding of that knowledge first.
Am I the only one that has to back up every comment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
Not "all" vegetation, "enough" vegetation. It is the accepted theory - supported by observations of small floods every year for the entire history of mankind - that floods destroy vegetation and it takes a while to come back. When rivers flood, herders have to move their livestock to new pastures for a while. Of course after the Big Flood there were no new pastures.
So is the accepted theory that all vegetation dies off in a flood? mindspawn writes:
You have that backwards. There only has to be ONE species with no bottleneck at the time of the Flood to disprove the Flood. If there is ONE species that didn't come from two (or fourteen) ancestors, the myth is factually wrong. Is the accepted theory that all animals do not have bottlenecks? Edited by ringo, : Splling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
You're equivocationg again, "most floods" with THE Flood. The reason that vegetation can recover quickly from "most floods" is because there is unflooded vegetation nearby to propagate from. With THE Flood, you have no such source of propagation; it's all gone. The only vegetation that could ever recover from THE Flood would be whatever seeds had not been killed by it.
I need your evidence now to show how most floods do not involve a quick recovery of vegetation. mindspawn writes:
What part of ONE did you not understand? You only need ONE species, large or small, without a bottleneck to disprove the Flood. Others have already mentioned that the human genome shows no such bottleneck. You need to address that evidence. You should only apply that rule to large terrestrial animals, otherwise its a strawman argument. Edited by ringo, : Added, comma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
And yet you do:
Some people like to add stuff to the bible. I prefer not to.quote:Speculating that there coulda/woulda/shoulda been something that is not mentioned in the Bible is adding to the Bible. Your thinking about the Bible seems to be as topsy-turvy as your thinking about science. mindspawn writes:
What that is is an indication that the authors of the Flood story didn't know what would happen in a flood like the one they describe.
All terrestrial animals were killed off, not marine. mindspawn writes:
That... has... been... done. Sure, show me how DNA analysis refutes 4500 years of mutations since 14 common ancestors in any ONE large mammal. Humans. Your only response has been, "Nuh uh."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024