Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
537 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, Omnivorous, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 529 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,028 Year: 4,140/6,534 Month: 354/900 Week: 60/150 Day: 33/27 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6622
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 751 of 991 (708379)
10-09-2013 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:49 AM


God Didn't Know?
They did not have a word for planet earth back then because thy did not know the earth was a planet.

Wait, wait. Are you saying that this god thing, whose words are supposedly quoted verbatim into the scriptures, did not know Earth was a planet when it used the hebrew word?

or

Are you now admitting that this whole global flud myth was actually just a local phenomenon greatly embellished by generations of re-telling before it was finally written down?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:49 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 3:35 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33882
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 752 of 991 (708380)
10-09-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:49 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
mindspawn writes:

So I fail to understand where I am "lying"

Yes, I understand that you fail to see that you are lying. Those who lie constantly, particularly to themselves do not see that they are lying.

Lying is a basis of Biblical Christianity, particularly all those who claim to take the Bible literally.

But if you substitute the word land for earth it changes nothing.

The God character in both stories says "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth land—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." or the God character says "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth land for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth land every living creature I have made."

You claim that you believe the Bible yet you constantly misrepresent what it actually says and deny what is actually written.

You said:

mindspawn writes:

But not the birds, some more could have flown onto the boat and avoided drowning. I doubt Noah would have killed them all but maybe he did, who knows, the bible does not actually say.

But the Bible says otherwise.

In the stories the God character says that He will kill them all. Period.

But wait; There's more...

Now you also are telling me that the God you market is not very bright and really ineffective.

First some birds escaped God's wrath by flying on the boat and second the God that just a few tales ago created the Earth didn't know it was a planet.

No wonder folk leave the faith. Any kid with an IQ higher than a the number of his fingers and toes that listens to the stuff you post would have to say, "This Christianity being marketed is just bullshit. If they lie about all the stuff that's so easy to test why should I believe them about stuff that's hard to test?"


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:49 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 3:48 AM jar has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12786
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 753 of 991 (708383)
10-09-2013 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:07 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
mindspawn writes:

The repetitiveness and rudeness and lack of moderation carries on unabated.

Several points:

  • Those who ignore or misapprehend points force their correspondents to repeat them.

  • Who is more rude, those who speak nonsense to people's face, or the people who call them on it? The Forum Guidelines are not a shield protecting those who speak nonsense. Participants are under no obligation to treat ridiculous ideas with respect. Moderators here are not potted plants with an understanding of the Forum Guidelines and nothing else. We can tell the difference between sense and nonsense, between rational and irrational, between a realistic and a fanciful interpretation of evidence. Members don't leave their minds at the door when they become moderators.

  • Complaints about discussion problems or moderation should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. Is there some number of times I have to tell you this before it sinks in?

I will issue a warning about one thing: Accusations of lying tend to distract attention from the topic. Participants can point out where people are wrong or mistaken or anything along those lines, but please do not accuse anyone of lying. The next accusation of lying will bring a suspension.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:07 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:01 AM Admin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 754 of 991 (708384)
10-09-2013 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:07 AM


Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
(ie if you can find a spot on earth that definitely did not have flooding in the PT boundary please just post your evidence, otherwise refrain from needless nonsense)

Well that's just stupid. There were no humans alive at the PT boundary. The Triassic layers hardly even contain mammals, let alone people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:07 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:15 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 755 of 991 (708388)
10-09-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:31 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
It was a typo . Not a "blatant disregard for the truth". How about giving a bloke a bit of benefit of the doubt instead of rudely jumping to conclusions.

Fair enough. I accept your explanation. But it brings up the quetions of what was the basis for even making a statement at all?

Substituting the right number into the question kinda makes the rest of your message moot. The point then becomes a debate over genetics setting a number at 4500 or much greater followed by your claim that genetics is useless at showing such things at greater than a few hundred years.

Because let's face it. When genetics shows some common ancestry back to anything like the time of the flood, your argument that no bottleneck can be detected at greater than 200 or so years is effectively shut down.

And what about your failing to note the range of possible ages for the cheetah bottleneck? You claimed the article said it was a few hundred years. You could not have seen that number without seeing the rest of the numbers, and it is difficult to believe you did not see the information supporting a much higher number.

Edited by NoNukes, : Fix some punctuation delete a tiny bit of testiness.


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 748 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:31 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 768 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:40 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 756 of 991 (708389)
10-09-2013 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 749 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:41 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
What dating methods are the studies relying on? Carbon dating? This thread is not about carbon dating.

No, the thread is not about carbon dating. But that does not mean that dates established by carbon dating cannot be used in an argument. It means that if you want to continue the discussion beyond that point, the reliability of the dating methods will of necessity be on topic. Maybe we will end up in separate threads, but so be it.

The same thing can be said for mutation rates. If you want to argue that our estimates of mutation rates are off, once the point has been made that they rule out any possibility of a recent global flood, then we can pursue them as ontopic discussion.

The same can be said for any other dating method. You don't get a free pass to deny any and all dating methods if a claim is made that such dating methods rule out a Flood.

In fact, an argument can be made that this debate really ended as soon as you began to rely on the K-T boundary as being the Flood. All methods of dating we can come up with including radiometric, geological, and biological all indicate that the K-T boundary dates from before humans existed, regardless of exactly how the bounday formed. Game over.

ABE:

It's been pointed out to me that you actually claim that the P-T boundary represents the Flood. I acknowledge my error, but note that it is even easier to rule out that as recent.

How do you measure the depth in the reduction of a population?

Really? What a question.

I get the bottleneck I'm sticking you with from Genesis 7:7 and Genesis 7:13. Are you arguing that there were more than 8 people on the ark? What are you really asking me?

Edited by NoNukes, : add so be it.

Edited by NoNukes, : Correct about a dating error


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 749 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:41 AM mindspawn has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2013 11:10 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 757 of 991 (708390)
10-09-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 756 by NoNukes
10-09-2013 11:06 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
In fact, an argument can be made that this debate really ended as soon as you began to rely on the K-T boundary as being the Flood.

Its even sillier than that. The K-T boundary is about 66 million years ago.

Mindspawn has been arguing that the flood occurred at the P-T boundary, some 252 million years ago!


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 756 by NoNukes, posted 10-09-2013 11:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by NoNukes, posted 10-09-2013 4:20 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 758 of 991 (708391)
10-09-2013 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 749 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:41 AM


Carbon dating
Mindspawn writes:

What dating methods are the studies relying on? Carbon dating? This thread is not about carbon dating.

But we do have a fine thread on carbon dating, which you have been ignoring for a couple of months now.


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 749 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:41 AM mindspawn has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 759 of 991 (708393)
10-09-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 732 by mindspawn
10-08-2013 8:16 AM


Re: Geology
Haha I'm not ignoring geologists, I'm embracing geology. All their studies point to widespread flooding.

And yet not one of them thinks their studies point to a global flood.

They are claiming the transgressions ...

And they also claim to know just how far inland the transgressions came, something that you're ignoring.

... the overfills, the clay layer, the widespread lacustrine environments right at the PT boundary.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how it is possible to have a lacustrine environment or an overfill during a global flood.

---

Your whole argument requires that geologists can't recognize an overfill, they can't recognize a lacustrine environment, they can't recognize aeolian sandstone, they can't measure the extent of a transgression ... etc, etc ... that they're a bunch of bumbling idiots who, despite having devoted their professional lives to geology, know less about it than you do, and that geological science, the basis of their conclusions, is fatally flawed. This is not "embracing geology". It's rejecting it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by mindspawn, posted 10-08-2013 8:16 AM mindspawn has taken no action

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 1018 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(2)
Message 760 of 991 (708398)
10-09-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 749 by mindspawn
10-09-2013 4:41 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
mindspawn writes:

How do you measure the depth in the reduction of a population? These are the kind of facts you guys need to be presenting to make a case for no recent genetic bottlenecks.

By reading the literature that you search for...

Here we have a paper that discusses a method for researching where bottlenecks have occurred within a species. Note that in the conclusion they state that:

Description and Power Analysis of Two Tests for Detecting Recent Population Bottlenecks From Allele Frequency Data writes:

In conservation biology, the most important type of bottleneck to detect is a severe and rapid decline from large Ne. Severe population declines are also the type of bottleneck most likely to be detected by our bottleneck tests.

So, in other words, the easiest bottleneck signature for scientists to locate would be when a population of animals suffers an extreme population bottleneck, which would have been the case for all animals, should a worldwide flood have occurred. This would have caused an Extreme Bottleneck in all species, which according to the paper, are the easiest types to spot with using the markers evolving under the infinite allele model (IAM). And yet, we do no see this signature of the easy to find bottleneck in all species at the same time.

Source

Likewise, one of the major bottlenecks in human evolution occurred after the eruption of the Toba volcano around 70,000 years ago, which would have caused widespread devastation to the world and decimated a large proportion of the human population. Huge reduction in population, means we should see a signature of a bottleneck at this time using markers evolving under IAM, and guess what.... We do! So, we know how to read these markers and place bottlenecks in time, especially extreme bottlenecks. This leaves you having to explain how your God managed to wipeout nearly every species to near extinction and yet not leave a signature mark on their genetics. A mark which is left on and easily readable in species who suffer enormous losses to their population counts.

Source

Added by Edit: Fixed the error I was speaking of in this message. Thank you Dr. A for the help! Subscript is now where it should be.

Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-end…the person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 4:41 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2013 1:02 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action
 Message 769 by mindspawn, posted 10-10-2013 4:58 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 761 of 991 (708400)
10-09-2013 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
10-09-2013 12:52 PM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
Ne

View in peek mode to see how it's done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-09-2013 12:52 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 762 of 991 (708407)
10-09-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Coyote
10-09-2013 11:10 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
Mindspawn has been arguing that the flood occurred at the P-T boundary, some 252 million years ago!

Yeah, I knew that. I suppose I forgot just how ridiculous his argument was.


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 757 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2013 11:10 AM Coyote has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3876
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


(1)
Message 763 of 991 (708424)
10-10-2013 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by Granny Magda
09-25-2013 10:34 AM


A bit of trangression error from the evo side
This describes the top of the Xuanwei as "meandering fluvial". That means rivers. The reason they describe it as reflecting a transgression is because when water levels rise, they rise across the board; marine levels and terrestrial levels. That does not mean that the sea covered this area. In fact, they clearly describe the opposite; rivers.

Focusing in on:

The reason they describe it as reflecting a transgression is because when water levels rise, they rise across the board; marine levels and terrestrial levels.

When I saw this, I was boggled by what he meant. So, thinking it was a pretty minor point, I PMed Granny Magda about that sentence. I will take the liberty of quoting his PM response:

Granny Magda, via PM writes:

If the sea levels rise, it's because the entire water table is rising. Sea levels don't rise in isolation, they rise and fall in tandem with the terrestrial water table.

Or am I wrong?

I think you are mostly wrong. I suspect the "near to the sea" water tables may well rise. More inland, I doubt there is a simple sea level/water table elevation relationship.

This message, in part, posted because of a message in another topic:

NoNukes writes:

ProtoTypical writes:

Could you provide an example from this site where the same is happening? I don't see it here.

It's hard for participants in group thinking to see it, so if it is going, it would be hard to detect. One thing an outsider might notice that a regular might miss is a lack of policing of bad arguments by one side or the other. You've likely noticed that Creationists rarely cross each other in an argument against evolution even when they disagree on the par. But given that there are so few of them here, it's almost understandable. But both sides do it, and the majority side has no real excuse.

So here I am, "policing" the evo side.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2013 10:34 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by Granny Magda, posted 10-12-2013 10:03 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1888 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 764 of 991 (708435)
10-10-2013 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 751 by AZPaul3
10-09-2013 8:04 AM


Re: God Didn't Know?
Wait, wait. Are you saying that this god thing, whose words are supposedly quoted verbatim into the scriptures, did not know Earth was a planet when it used the hebrew word?

or

Are you now admitting that this whole global flud myth was actually just a local phenomenon greatly embellished by generations of re-telling before it was finally written down?

Haha, I enjoyed your comments. Remember even in the English language we did not have a word for the planet earth a few hundred years ago, the word "earth" meant soil or land, much like the Hebrew and Greek words for the same concept. Unfortunately more recent translations have not adjusted the English bible wording to reflect the changed use of the word "earth" in the English language over the last 100 years or so.

We get the concept of a worldwide flood from other wording in Genesis 8, from the complete destruction of humans and land animals (requires widespread flooding over highlands because humans and animals rush to the highlands when there is a flood)
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 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

(the word "heavens" basically means "sky", all the mountains/hills under the sky were covered)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by AZPaul3, posted 10-09-2013 8:04 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 772 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2013 8:51 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1888 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 765 of 991 (708436)
10-10-2013 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 752 by jar
10-09-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
mindspawn writes:
But not the birds, some more could have flown onto the boat and avoided drowning. I doubt Noah would have killed them all but maybe he did, who knows, the bible does not actually say.
But the Bible says otherwise.

In the stories the God character says that He will kill them all. Period.

But wait; There's more...

Now you also are telling me that the God you market is not very bright and really ineffective.

First some birds escaped God's wrath by flying on the boat and second the God that just a few tales ago created the Earth didn't know it was a planet.

No wonder folk leave the faith. Any kid with an IQ higher than a the number of his fingers and toes that listens to the stuff you post would have to say, "This Christianity being marketed is just bullshit. If they lie about all the stuff that's so easy to test why should I believe them about stuff that's hard to test?"

You are completely misunderstanding the context in which I said those words. You should rather try journalism than science - haha just joking with you

I have always agreed that all the birds on the land were killed off by the flood, I am just saying that its possible some extras sneaked into the ark, other than those planned. This is not only possible, but quite likely with birds and rats and mice. Birds fly in, before and at the beginning of the flood, mice and rate creep in before the flood. This is what happens on ships. And I don't see why the ark would be excluded from this normal activity.

The bible says all the land animals and birds were killed and only those in the ark were left. This is what I am saying too.

"Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by jar, posted 10-09-2013 8:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by jar, posted 10-10-2013 9:28 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022