Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
CK
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 256 of 298 (328584)
07-03-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
07-03-2006 2:33 PM


Re: A small point
Faith writes:
NOW. The past is a different story. Of course with the uniformitarian assumption the whole thing is impossible. But we YECs don't operate by that assumption. We have a completely other model in mind.
I've seen it - it's not very descriptive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:33 PM Faith has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6333 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 257 of 298 (328587)
07-03-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by CK
07-03-2006 2:32 PM


Eggs and the Ark
quote:
about 4,500 years ago Noah built an ark. He then collected all of the kinds that needed to go on the ark. Some of those kinds (20,000 or so is the number generally given) were dinosaurs but it was thought those were eggs
Genesis
7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
I get this picture of cartoon dinosaur eggs with arms and legs walking up the gangplank of the ark hand in hand.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 2:32 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 3:41 PM Randy has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2979 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 258 of 298 (328591)
07-03-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
07-03-2006 2:33 PM


Re: A small point
But we YECs don't operate by that assumption. We have a completely other model in mind.
It doesn't matter what model you have in mind. That does not change the facts, which your model does not take into account. You can't just create new facts.
Again you are assuming uniformitarianism and assuming conditions now, and assuming the whole evolutionist program.
Well, one can study population genetics in a fruit fly colony in the lab, create bottle necks, etc and watch it all unfolding right in front of you. There is no reason NOT to assume that a human population 4000 years ago would have behaved in a significantly different way in terms of population genetics. Also we have some pretty good data on Amish and royal family populations and we know what inbreeding can do (and they don't generally marry any closer than second cousins. Noah's grandchildren were FIRST cousins). Again you have to provide some evidence that population genetics followed a different set of rules since the parsimonius explanation is that the rules are the same now as then.
Mutation is pretty much IT, and that is full of holes.
Off topic so I won't pursue it except to say that you have never successfully argued that point and you provide no citation so we can safely ignore it as "facts not in evidence."
they still had relative health compared to us, quite dramatically better health.
Again, an assertion with no evidence cited. Anyway the state of health of Noah and his family would not have been good for long if a virus being carried by an animal had swept through their tiny population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 3:24 PM deerbreh has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 298 (328595)
07-03-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by deerbreh
07-03-2006 2:35 PM


No. In-breeding problems are a result of inbreeding, which you would have in spades in Noah's grandchildren.
The only reason inbreeding is a problem is the accumulation of inherited diseases and according to the YEC understanding, there were no diseases at all until the Fall, and considering the long life spans of at least the God-fearing line of Adam's immediate descendants, they died of old age rather than any kind of disease for many many generations after Adam, Noah's generation included. We assume great vigor and genetic diversity even in those eight on the ark, enough to generate all human beings since, certainly diminished from the original vigor and diversity of Adam and Eve but still considerable. Compared to us, astronomically considerable. Inherited diseases to the extent we now face them are a relatively recent phenomenon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 2:35 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 3:38 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 298 (328596)
07-03-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by deerbreh
07-03-2006 3:09 PM


Re: A small point
Again, an assertion with no evidence cited. Anyway the state of health of Noah and his family would not have been good for long if a virus being carried by an animal had swept through their tiny population
This is all the working out of YEC theory itself, inferences therefrom, and evidence is not available to anybody on either side of this divide. It's all plausibilities and speculations. I am trying to demonstrate the conceptual consistency of the YEC model itself, which actually does amount to evidence in itself, rightly considered.
The animals were just as genetically strong as the human beings. ALL creation has been deteriorating health-wise inexorably since the Fall, but in Noah's day their vigor would have been still very very great.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 3:09 PM deerbreh has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6333 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 261 of 298 (328600)
07-03-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
07-03-2006 3:21 PM


quote:
The only reason inbreeding is a problem is the accumulation of inherited diseases and according to the YEC understanding, there were no diseases at all until the Fall, and considering the long life spans of at least the God-fearing line of Adam's immediate descendants, they died of old age rather than any kind of disease for many many generations after Adam, Noah's generation included. We assume great vigor and genetic diversity even in those eight on the ark, enough to generate all human beings since, certainly diminished from the original vigor and diversity of Adam and Eve but still considerable. Compared to us, astronomically considerable. Inherited diseases to the extent we now face them are a relatively recent phenomenon.
How could Adam and Eve have had "great diversity"? No matter how you slice it they are only two people and one of them was supposedly made from the other's rib. Does that make her a clone? In any case you have only 4 allels for each gene. Or do you think Adam and Eve had multiple copies of each genome.
Of course "unclean" animals should have even less diversity than humans since you reduce them to 2 of each "knd". There should be less diversity in every "kind" of unclean animal than there is in humans but that is not at all what is seen. There are a few species of animals such as the Cheetah that show recent bottlenecks but most do not. Why not?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 3:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:08 PM Randy has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 262 of 298 (328601)
07-03-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Randy
07-03-2006 2:52 PM


Re: Eggs and the Ark
I get this picture of cartoon dinosaur eggs with arms and legs walking up the gangplank of the ark hand in hand.
Yes, it is a cartoon. And as YECs attempt to explain away the problems, it becomes ever more cartoonish.
Oh, what a wicked web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.
[it may be self deception, but the rhyme still seems appropriate]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 2:52 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:13 PM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 298 (328613)
07-03-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Randy
07-03-2006 3:38 PM


How could Adam and Eve have had "great diversity"? No matter how you slice it they are only two people and one of them was supposedly made from the other's rib. Does that make her a clone? In any case you have only 4 allels for each gene. Or do you think Adam and Eve had multiple copies of each genome.
I don't know all the genetics of course, but I think they had lots more variation possible per trait than we do, more loci for a particular trait, for instance, and other ways more genetic diversity can be built into a genome that others have explained in the past, but I'd have to review it all.
Of course "unclean" animals should have even less diversity than humans since you reduce them to 2 of each "knd". There should be less diversity in every "kind" of unclean animal than there is in humans but that is not at all what is seen. There are a few species of animals such as the Cheetah that show recent bottlenecks but most do not. Why not?
Because the original (built-in genetic} diversity and health of all living things was astronomically higher than we are capable of imagining at our remove.
Other recently bottlenecked animals most likely became extinct however. Somehow the cheetah has held on despite its compromised genetic condition.
{By recently I mean much more recently than the ark of course. You think the ark was recent. As a YEC I assume that even through that drastic bottleneck great genetic potential survived in all living things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 3:38 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2006 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 298 (328615)
07-03-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by nwr
07-03-2006 3:41 PM


Re: Eggs and the Ark
Just for the record, I've never argued for eggs. I've considered the possibility that young dinosaurs might have been taken, but I'm most persuaded by the idea that the particular species of that Kind that was taken on the ark was a smaller Kind, while all the big ones died in the flood. The species that was taken might still have produced some giants afterward, depending on how much genetic diversity was still present in the genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 3:41 PM nwr has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6333 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 265 of 298 (328616)
07-03-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
07-03-2006 2:25 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos.
Of course we know things about the past. We are not talking about the distant past we talking about 4,500 years ago.
It's all speculative imagination.
Nice try but we do know quite a bit about what the world was like 4,500 years ago. You are talking about the time of the 4th Eqyptian dynasty after all, not billions of years ago.
Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia.
I suggest you look at a map of the earth before the break up of Pangea. Here is a link to a MAP
It is a long way from the Middle East to Australia. Among the animals that somehow got there are the Koala, which only lives in Eucalyptus trees, the marsupial mole, a small nearly blind animal that only lives in sandy soil and the echidna, an awarkward marsupial(Added in editOPs the echidna is a monotreme not a marsupial) version of the porcupine. How did these animals not only make that long trip before the continents broke up, but get there ahead of all "kinds" of placenatal mammals that are much better travelers. Why did they make this long hike back to where they just happen to have a fossil record? Did they also make this long hike up to get on the ark? There are no flood deposited fossils of modern Australian marsupials or montremes anywhere in Europe or Asia.
Why no placental mammals? Who knows? Territoriality of some sort maybe.
Do you think the tasmanian tiger was able to keep wolves, lions, leopards, hyena, bears and other placental predators away because of territoriality? Do you think kangaroos somehow kept out wildebeest, deer, zebra and all the other placental grazers because of territoriality. It makes no sense at all.
It is quite possible the little brown bat did not exist in Noah's day but subsequently evolved from whatever bat was saved on the ark.
The little brown bat appears in the Miocene. Was that before or after the flood? Oh, sorry. I forgot that YECs actually have no idea which fossils are flood deposits and which aren't.
Then they (Kolas) were on the ark and didn't evolve. So what?
Then how did these little animals make it all the way back to Australia before the continents split up? How long after the flood was that? Maybe during the 6th Egyptian dynasty if the flood was during the 4th.
So I've heard. Just because you can't imagine how it (rapid continent movement) could have happened without dire consequences doesn't mean it didn't. Nobody KNOWS anything about any of this. We're all applying our imagination. You have more scientific knowledge which gives you more apparent credibility but nevertheless you are still doing nothing but speculating about a past you can't know a thing about.
We know how continents move and how they have been moving for billions of years. Sea floor is subducted in subduction zones and created at spreading centers. This necessarily produces new ocean crust and lithosphere and it is hot. Would you like to give us a geophysical model for moving the continents around that doesn't involve subduction and seafloor spreading?
Randy
Edited by Randy, : Echidna is a monotreme

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:08 PM Randy has replied
 Message 271 by Jazzns, posted 07-03-2006 5:39 PM Randy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 298 (328624)
07-03-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Randy
07-03-2006 4:28 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos.
Of course we know things about the past. We are not talking about the distant past we talking about 4,500 years ago.It's all speculative imagination.
Nice try but we do know quite a bit about what the world was like 4,500 years ago. You are talking about the time of the 4th Eqyptian dynasty after all, not billions of years ago.
Yes, and the written record of the Bible trumps all the reconstructed history from archaeology you can come up with to "prove" the timing of the Egyptian dynasties. One written record that has been passed down intact for millennia is worth more than all that after-the-fact reconstruction.
Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia.
I suggest you look at a map of the earth before the break up of Pangea. Here is a link to a MAP
It is a long way from the Middle East to Australia. Among the animals that somehow got there are the Koala, which only lives in Eucalyptus trees, the marsupial mole, a small nearly blind animal that only lives in sandy soil and the echidna, an awarkward marsupial version of the porcupine. How did these animals not only make that long trip before the continents broke up, but get there ahead of all "kinds" of placenatal mammals that are much better travelers. Why did they make this long hike back to where they just happen to have a fossil record? Did they also make this long hike up to get on the ark? There are no flood deposited fossils of modern Australian marsupials or montremes anywhere in Europe or Asia.
There are lots of different maps of Pangaea on the web. Some I've seen show it to be a lot more compact than the one you put up. But certainly those are good questions to think about. I would also think that evolution wouldn't have any easier time explaining it than a YEC.
Then how did these little animals make it all the way back to Australia before the continents split up? How long after the flood was that? Maybe during the 6th Egyptian dynasty if the flood was during the 4th.
The timing of the Egyptian dynasties is obviously off.
We do know how continents move and how they have been moving for billions of years.
You know ONLY how they move NOW, not how they have been moving for any great time in the past, not even how they moved a hundred years ago for sure.
Sea floor is subducted in subduction zones and created at spreading centers. This necessarily produces new ocean crust and lithosphere and it is hot. Would you like to give us a geophysical model for moving the continents around that doesn't involve subduction and seafloor spreading?
No, that is the way it happens. It just happened faster 4500 years ago and has since slowed down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 4:28 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 07-03-2006 5:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 272 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 5:48 PM Faith has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 298 (328629)
07-03-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:43 AM


Re: Egyptian Pyramids?
It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.
Except it makes no mention of pyramid building in the Bible. Nor do the pyramids show any evidence of having been built by Israelites.
Another thing, all of your arguments hinge on assumptions and belief that the Bible is accurate to the word. You say "if we assume this, and then assume this, all these assumptions and the conclusions we can draw from them are self-supporting" (not in those words). The problem is that you have nothing but assumptions.
You can use the Bible as evidence in some places, but not here, these are the Science Forums. You need some scientific evidence. You can't just come up with one assumption after another in support of your view. Even if the math works out, that doesn't mean anything, because all of the evidence works against you.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:23 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:27 PM Jon has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 298 (328631)
07-03-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Jon
07-03-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Egyptian Pyramids?
Another thing, all of your arguments hinge on assumptions and belief that the Bible is accurate to the word.
Definitely.
You say "if we assume this, and then assume this, all these assumptions and the conclusions we can draw from them are self-supporting" (not in those words). The problem is that you have nothing but assumptions.
Based on the Bible as accurate report, yes, that is true, plus some known facts about genetics and fossils and the like, which certainly others know better than I do.
And what do you have? Reconstructions of the past based on the uniformitarian assumption and some known facts, and speculations of exactly the same sort I'm doing based on those things.
You can use the Bible as evidence in some places, but not here, these are the Science Forums. You need some scientific evidence. You can't just come up with one assumption after another in support of your view. Even if the math works out, that doesn't mean anything, because all of the evidence works against you.
It holds together quite nicely as a consistent picture, and that ought to count for a great deal. However, now that you are pulling science rank against the Bible, this is probably why I didn't post on this thread originally.
I don't know if it was you or somebody else that was complaining that no YECs had posted on this thread, but that's probably why. There's no point in any of us posting on a science thread given the specific demands made on such a thread, violations of which get us suspended all the time.
So. Sorry I posted anything at all here. It really belonged in Theological Creationism and ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 07-03-2006 5:13 PM Jon has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 298 (328634)
07-03-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Jon
07-03-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Egyptian Pyramids?
It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.
Except it makes no mention of pyramid building in the Bible. Nor do the pyramids show any evidence of having been built by Israelites.
They may not have been building pyramids since their work had to do with brick-making rather than rock-hewing-and-hauling. But the absence of a mention of pyramids in the Bible is no evidence that they weren't known at the time or that their work had nothing at all to do with them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 07-03-2006 5:13 PM Jon has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 270 of 298 (328635)
07-03-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:08 PM


On the Science side now.
Yes, and the written record of the Bible trumps all the reconstructed history from archaeology you can come up with to "prove" the timing of the Egyptian dynasties.
Maybe in your beliefs but this is the Science side.
You know ONLY how they move NOW, not how they have been moving for any great time in the past, not even how they moved a hundred years ago for sure.
This is another of those misconceptions you love to bring up. Certainly NOTHING, including the existence of GOD can be known for sure, but we can know about the past with a very high degree of certainty. The Continents did not move without leaving records, and those records are there for all to read. Some of the evidence is:
  • the conformities found on continents seperated by oceans.
  • similar fossils found in coastal areas on different continents.
  • the magnetic bands spreading out from the sea floor.
  • remnants of earlier collisions such as the eastern US mountain ranges.
  • continuing examples that can be observed today such as the African Rift Valley.
No Faith, we can know what happened in the past.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:08 PM Faith 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