Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 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?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 421 of 991 (706134)
09-06-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by vimesey
09-06-2013 6:52 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
The evidence for a widespread rise in sea levels is something which everyone here seems to accept.
You are understating the case, and I see that mindspawn is running with your acknowledgement.
In fact there evidence is that the flooding mindspawn relies on happened tens millions of years ago.
When people say that the Noah's flood has been refuted, there may be reason to quibble as mindspawn is doing IFF a OEC time frame is allowed.
But when we thrown in the YEC time table, then we can make more absolute statements about what the evidence shows. And the positive evidence (i.e. not mere lack of evidence) that there was no world wide flood in the last 5,000 years completely refutes such a story regardless of any argument I've seen mindspawn make about the P-T boundary or fish surviving in freshwater. The possibility that the P-T boundary corresponds to a recent event is absolutely ruled out by multiple lines of evidence. Genetic bottlenecks, evidence of no flood in many locations, having enough people to build the pyramids, cave paintings in France, etc. all point to a YEC global flood being null and void.
And of course for this discussion, that line of argument is off topic. If you aren't going to accept for the purpose of discussion, that a flood happened on the YEC time scale, then this is not the discussion thread for you.

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 410 by vimesey, posted 09-06-2013 6:52 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 422 of 991 (706138)
09-06-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 6:17 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I haven't seem anything vaguely convincing yet. I have been shown a graph which reflects a regression not a transgression at the PT boundary. My earlier posts already refuted that.
Well, no. The first-order curve at the PT boundary is particularly low. That still stands. What may have happened at the PT boundary is a second-order fluctuation. Certainly you have provided no evidence for a flood at the PT boundary that covered the whole of the land, and you can't, because geologists know that that didn't happen.
And if you're going to cite Anthony Hallam as an authority, then you should go the whole hog. According to Hallam, the landmasses were never completely inundated, and we can find the high stand. Instead, you're picking and choosing --- Hallam says that there was a transgression at the PT boundary, yay! His methods tell us exactly how far the transgression transgressed, let's ignore that 'cos it's no use to creationists. This is doublethink. Either Hallam's methods are right, or they are wrong. If they're right, then there was no time at which the whole Earth was flooded. If they're wrong, then we have no reason to believe that there was a transgression associated with the PT boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:17 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 6:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 423 of 991 (706147)
09-06-2013 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 6:25 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:
Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence.
As I mentioned, you can find "widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time" today.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:25 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 424 of 991 (706148)
09-06-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 7:12 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:
If the predators ate the fish, they didn't need to eat the poor cow.
As I already mentioned, many predators can not eat dead fish.
mindspawn writes:
The cow could then eat the growing vegetation.
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.
Seriously, why aren't creationists doing these things instead of just saying they woulda/coulda/shoulda happened?
mindspawn writes:
Impossible to say, but whatever way it happened there were specific plans before the flood, to keep seed alive on the land.
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.
I suppose some creationists would say that snakes grew from seeds before the flood. They had legs, you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 7:12 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 425 of 991 (706150)
09-06-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 6:25 AM


Transgression
Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence.
Yes, but again you're trying to have your cake and eat it.
Based on sedimentary evidence, and on their methods of interpreting the data, geologists say that there were transgressions in the past. The same geologists, based on exactly the same evidence and using the same methods, say that there was no universal flood.
If their methods are no good, then we don't even have a reason to believe in the transgressions. But if their methods are good, then we should think that there was never a worldwide flood.
Let me present an analogy. Suppose you wanted to argue for the existence of purple unicorns. Now suppose I was to take my Bible oath that I'd seen a green unicorn. How could you take my testimony as evidence? You'd have to say at the same time that I was smart enough to know a unicorn when I see one, and also that I'm such an unreliable observer that I can't tell the difference between green and purple.
You're putting yourself in a similar situation. You are in effect saying that we should believe geologists when they say that there was a transgression (after all, they're the experts) but we should ignore them when they say it didn't flood the whole Earth (because they're idiots and atheists).
Well, I think you should choose what you're going to do with your cake. If geologists are idiots, then we have no evidence for a transgression. If they're smart, then we know that Noah's Flood didn't happen.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:25 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 426 of 991 (706154)
09-06-2013 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 4:32 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
No, it doesn't. Look at the word: trans-... -gress. A "gress" is a step. progress is a step forward, digress is a step backwards. Transgress is a step across. As a geological phenomenon it is when waterline/sediments move across the surface. Here's an image:
This is all semantics.
Well no shit. You didn't know what a word meant, how else am I to explain it to you other than semantically?
Do you care to address the actual point of my post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 4:32 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 427 of 991 (706157)
09-06-2013 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Minnemooseus
09-06-2013 12:03 AM


Re: Nice graphic, but the text is rather bogus
but there is nothing in the transgression definition that says all the land couldn't have been covered by the sea.
No doubt, but we're talking about his paper that he linked to. Doesn't their study of transgressions imply that there was dry land there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-06-2013 12:03 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 428 of 991 (706160)
09-06-2013 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Adminnemooseus
09-05-2013 10:13 PM


Not Going into Summation Mode
Hello Everyone,
I think Adminnemooseus didn't notice that I was already moderating this thread when he scheduled it for summation mode. I wouldn't have put any effort into moderating a thread that was closing soon, so I asked him if he could unschedule summation mode, but I haven't heard back, and as it is the weekend I can't be sure when he'll be online again.
So I'm unscheduling summation mode.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-05-2013 10:13 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 429 of 991 (706195)
09-07-2013 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by kofh2u
09-03-2013 6:40 AM


Making only the assumption that years means thousands of years,...
In the capacity of a literary critic, giving the author the benefit of the doubt, and suspecting that this is an important metaphor because of the nature of the Book, we find these uncanny correspondences to support the writing as metaphor.
Then, from such a perspective, the many factual correspondences between what the story says and Paleontology we, ourselves, only recently have discovered give a degree of credence Noah and his Ark.
A number of things in the story strangely correspond one-to-one with what we now know to be true.
1) It is uncanny that both Genesis and Genetics explains that everyone living today is related to just one man, a common father, who lived about 40 thousand years ago.
2) The story also agrees in that the three different sources for the population of the whole earth, Ham, Shem, and Japheth corresponds directly with the Three Racial Stock Theory that separates our earliest racial differences of Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid.
3) Just before the "flood," Genesis reports an inbreeding between different "kinds" of men, a case of hybridization, which we recently confirmed by genetic tests that indicate the people of today carry Neanderthal genes in them.
4) Genesis tells us that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all born 100,000 to 145,000 years ago which corresponds with the time table science holds for Modern Homo sapiens. (Adjusting the metaphor to mean 100 years = 100,000 years)
5) Paleontology reports a mass extinction of lower forms of humans took place 40,000 years ago, when Neanderthals and Homo erectus went extinct.
According to Genesis, the was the very purpose of the flood, to eliminate other types of mankind.
6) Paleontological Theories (called "Out -of-Africa" and the "Noah's Ark theory") connect the migration out of Africa, 40,000 years ago, with the sudden population explosion among Modern Homo sapiens and the spread of modern man around the globe and to the mountain tops, as if a flood of not water, but a species.
7) There is also the genetic evidence for an "Eve, mother of all men theory," better assumed to refer to Noah's wife, which explains all people today had one common mother who @200,000 years ago.
This evidence compares and corresponds with the Genesis "flood" out of Africa story since the three sons of Noah were born when Noah was 500 (000) years old, but the flood did not come until he was 600 (000) years old.
If we take the liberty of applying "a day is to the lord like a thousand years," as the Bibles says,... 40 days = 40,000 years.
////
Then, we have these Paleontologists (who are atheists) but liked the correspondences enough to use the idea below:
Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neanderthals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.
If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry. All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.
From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by kofh2u, posted 09-03-2013 6:40 AM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2013 8:44 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 431 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2013 9:41 PM kofh2u has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 430 of 991 (706199)
09-07-2013 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by kofh2u
09-07-2013 5:16 PM


Uncanny??
1) It is uncanny that both Genesis and Genetics explains that everyone living today is related to just one man, a common father, who lived about 40 thousand years ago.
4) Genesis tells us that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all born 100,000 to 145,000 years ago which corresponds with the time table science holds for Modern Homo sapiens. (Adjusting the metaphor to mean 100 years = 100,000 years)
I'll say this is uncanny. Somehow that common father actually had descendants that were born somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 years before he lived.
Or maybe someone is just making up silly stuff and calling it uncanny.
If we take the liberty of applying "a day is to the lord like a thousand years," as the Bibles says,... 40 days = 40,000 years.
. (Adjusting the metaphor to mean 100 years = 100,000 years)
As I have pointed out to you before, these conversion factors are not the same. 40 days = 40,000 years is a 365,000:1 conversion factor.
I know. Why am I quibbling over these minor bits of silliness in response a message full of knee-slappers?
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 429 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 5:16 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by kofh2u, posted 09-08-2013 12:12 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


(1)
Message 431 of 991 (706202)
09-07-2013 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by kofh2u
09-07-2013 5:16 PM


Re: Uncanny?
1) It is uncanny that both Genesis and Genetics explains that everyone living today is related to just one man, a common father, who lived about 40 thousand years ago.
What is uncanny is how wrong you can be!
Genesis is reported to deal with the last 6,000 years.
And according to wiki:
In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual (see below).
Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time. His other male contemporaries could also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, solely through patrilineal descent.
The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000, 270,000, 306,000, and 142,000. A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years. Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years, and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years
In other words, you are wrong again: the age of 40 thousand years is not mentioned anywhere!
Not surprising, as you are just making things up, while scientists are reading what the real world evidence says. And if the numbers are as different as they are, scientists will just keep at it until they get it all figured out.
This is unlike what creationists do: if they disagree they just have a schism and there is one more denomination or sect out there to join the roughly 40,000 that are already there!

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 429 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 5:16 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by kofh2u, posted 09-08-2013 12:18 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 434 by kofh2u, posted 09-08-2013 12:26 PM Coyote has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 432 of 991 (706214)
09-08-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by NoNukes
09-07-2013 8:44 PM


Re: Uncanny...
KOFH2u:
4) Genesis tells us that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all born 100,000 to 145,000 years ago which corresponds with the time table science holds for Modern Homo sapiens. (Adjusting the metaphor to mean 100 years = 100,000 years)
NoNukey:
I'll say this is uncanny. Somehow that common father actually had descendants that were born somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 years before he lived.
Or maybe someone is just making up silly stuff and calling it uncanny.
The first thing is that the Bible even mentions that everyone living today is related to just one man, Noah, which in itself is uncanny.
The second thing which is uncanny, is that The Three Racial Stock Theory confirms that all Modern Homo sapiens have been derived fro Ham, Shem, and Japheth.
That we never had a clue that this was the actual facts until after the 19th Century, at least, is amazing confirmation of the general story of Noah being founded upon the truth.
The third uncanny CORRESPONDENCE, between Genesis and the extinction of Neanderthal/Hobbit man, Homo erectus, et al, is that we just learned in this present age, this was the actual case.
Before you pick at the details that we can discuss further, you must admit that these statements in Genesis are not only right, but an uncanny coincidence if you excuse them as lucky guesses.
If you can't or won't do that, please don't go any further with the literary criticism I am embarking upon, in defense of the story, because it wastes time when your mind set is biased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2013 8:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 433 of 991 (706215)
09-08-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Coyote
09-07-2013 9:41 PM


medieval interpretations no withstanding...
Genesis is reported to deal with the last 6,000 years.
That is not the way I understand the Genesis time line, so it has no place in the literary criticism which I am introducing.
I have already explained many times to you that since the Solar Clock was assigned as the time keeper for earth, well into the story of those first seven "days" we logically can conclude the seven
days" of creation were seven durations unrelated to earth days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2013 9:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Coyote, posted 09-08-2013 12:30 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 434 of 991 (706216)
09-08-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Coyote
09-07-2013 9:41 PM


Noah lived 380,000+ years before the 40,000 yr extiction flood...
In other words, you are wrong again: the age of 40 thousand years is not mentioned anywhere!
If you just jump on to this with the intent of denigrating the analysis without understanding what I am saying, you come away with a criticism of things I never said.
Genesis supports the understanding that Noah had three sons 140,000 years BEFORE the "flood."
But the paleontology today says that "all the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2013 9:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Coyote, posted 09-08-2013 12:55 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


(1)
Message 435 of 991 (706217)
09-08-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by kofh2u
09-08-2013 12:18 PM


Re: medieval interpretations no withstanding...
Sure, as long as you are making things up, why be bothered with consistency or agreeing with what anyone else has made up.
By the way, this is the science forum, so feel free to provide some evidence once in a while. If you have any.

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 433 by kofh2u, posted 09-08-2013 12:18 PM kofh2u 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