Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,949 Year: 18,985/19,786 Month: 1,405/1,705 Week: 211/446 Day: 9/98 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 271 of 298 (328636)
07-03-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Randy
07-03-2006 4:28 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
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?

What a great point! Why the heck would the marsupials and monotremes go to the only place where all the fossils are found? Maybe they smelled their dead ancestors buried underground?

I would LOVE for a YEC to try to explain that one. That is going to take some kind of serious mental distortions.

As if the flood couldn't get any more refuted. Dang.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 4:28 PM Randy has not yet responded

Randy
Member (Idle past 4537 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 272 of 298 (328637)
07-03-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
quote:
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.

Sorry but the "written record" of the Bible was written well after the written records of the Egyptians and the Summerians. You can't use the myth of Biblical infallability to substantiate the myth of a worldwide flood.

quote:
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.

Here are two more maps. They vary slightly but all show a long ways from what became the Middle East to what became Australia.
Map1
Map2

And evolution has a far easier time explaining biogeography than YEC. The Natural History of Marsupials

quote:
The timing of the Egyptian dynasties is obviously off.
You need it to be way off since there is considerable record of predynastic Egypt prior to the formation of the 1st dynasty in about 3,100 BCE. How long do you think it would take after the flood for all those people to be born and develop their culture.

You also need the dates for ancient Sumeria to be way off. You have to completely distort what is known about prehistory in order to fit you myth, just as you have to distort genetics, biogeography and geology among many other things. Have you ever consider that this might be the result of trying to substantiate a Bronze Age myth?

quote:
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.

No, that is the way it happens. It just happened faster 4500 years ago and has since slowed down.


So first you say we don't know how they moved even a hundred years ago and then you say they moved by suduction and spreading but faster. The point is that if they moved enough faster to separate the continents in the time frame you are talking about the earth would look very different. one of those differences would be boiled oceans which would be a little hard on things don't you think?

Randy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:51 PM Randy has not yet responded
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:54 PM Randy has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33362
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 273 of 298 (328638)
07-03-2006 5:48 PM


Concerning Australia, marsupials etc
I am rushing and haven't given this site the reading it deserves but I only see mention of ONE fossil marsupial find. And fossil evidence that placental mammals did once live in the area. Perhaps someone would like to start a thread specifically on this subject. I'm sure I'd be more of an observer than a participant.

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacoleo/introducing/about_marsupials_5.htm

As for this being a science thread, yes, I regret posting on it. There's nothing less rewarding than being nagged about sticking to science rules when the kind of evidence I have is something else.

Got sucked in by challenges to YECs. Belongs in the Theological Creationism and ID forum. Too bad.


  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33362
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 274 of 298 (328640)
07-03-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Randy
07-03-2006 5:48 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
Sorry but the "written record" of the Bible was written well after the written records of the Egyptians and the Summerians. You can't use the myth of Biblical infallability to substantiate the myth of a worldwide flood.

YOU can't, but I don't regard it as a myth. Its authenticity and internal integrity and the quality of its details and concepts make it THE authoritative record over all other records.

NEVERTHELESS I've agreed this does not belong on this thread but in the Theological Creationism forum where the Bible can be used as evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 5:48 PM Randy has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33362
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 275 of 298 (328642)
07-03-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Randy
07-03-2006 5:48 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
So first you say we don't know how they moved even a hundred years ago and then you say they moved by suduction and spreading but faster.

Semantic confusion. I just meant you don't know how FAST they moved then. Sheesh.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 5:48 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 6:03 PM Faith has responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4537 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 276 of 298 (328643)
07-03-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:54 PM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
Oh for cripes sake. Semantic confusion. I just meant you don't know how FAST they moved then. Sheesh.
Not exactly but the depth profile of the oceans and the amount of sediments on the ocean floor are both consistent with movemment over many millions of years as we have discussed on this forum before. Fast movement might be possible but it would have left a very different geology on the ocean floors and released enough heat that either the crust and lithosphere would still be molten or the average temperature of the earth would be too high to sustain most life including us. This is quite easy to show.

The problem you have is that this is indeed a science program and every aspect of science that is applied to the problem shows that the answer to the question in the title of this thread is a resounding NO. The flood does not "add up".

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:14 PM Randy has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33362
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 277 of 298 (328644)
07-03-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Randy
07-03-2006 6:03 PM


tectonic plate movement
Fast movement might be possible but it would have left a very different geology on the ocean floors and released enough heat that either the crust and lithosphere would still be molten or the average temperature of the earth would be too high to sustain most life including us. This is quite easy to show.

Well, try rethinking it from the ASSUMPTION that the flood DID occur 4500 years ago and that the movement of the tectonic plates DID start then. That's what a YEC has to do, since we don't have the luxury of taking every bit of mathematical debunkery that comes down the pike as gospel truth as you do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 6:03 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 07-03-2006 6:21 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Randy, posted 07-04-2006 9:40 AM Faith has responded

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2579 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 278 of 298 (328646)
07-03-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
07-03-2006 6:14 PM


Re: tectonic plate movement
Well, try rethinking it from the ASSUMPTION that the flood DID Not occur 4500 years ago and that the movement of the tectonic plates DID not start then. That's what a OEC has to do, since we don't have the luxury of taking every bit of biblical debunkery that comes down the pike as truth as you do

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4313 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 279 of 298 (328649)
07-03-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:08 PM


Hey Faith
Hi Faith, it's been a while.

As a YEC I assume that even through that drastic bottleneck great genetic potential survived in all living things.

I just wanted to let you know that I started a thread to expand and discuss on this point:

Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds" (and/or decreasing genetic diversity)

Let me know what you think; I think it might be a good starting point to start a constructive discussion about your ideas regarding kinds, mutation, and genetic diversity.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 280 of 298 (328650)
07-03-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
07-03-2006 1:56 PM


That would require an extraordinarily high rate of macro-evolution.

Not at all, I'm talking variety of whatever kind was on the ark; same kind, new variety/species.

The difference between the Australian animals, and anything likely to have been in the middle east, is far far greater than the difference between humans and other apes. It makes no sense to say that the Australian animals are of the same kind as middle east species, yet to deny that humans and chimpanzees are part of a common kind.

The time taken for such evolution is highly exaggerated by the ToE. All it takes is reproductive isolation of a small portion of a population over a few generations.

If you think it that easy, then you have no argument against evolution, including the evolution of humans from earlier creatures.

Think of the so-called "ring species" which are called species, varieties or species of the same kind as a YEC thinks of them, with their own distinctive characteristics yet all evolved from an original parent type.

The differences across ring species are quite small. The differences between kangaroos, echidnas, koalas are huge.

I have no idea how the insects were taken care of. I'm not addressing this problem here. How anybody could be expected to know is beyond me anyway.

Yet you do claim to know that the flood story is true history, in spite of the fact that anybody who uses a little common sense can see that it is only an ancient fable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 1:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4644 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 281 of 298 (328702)
07-03-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:05 AM


Re: A small point
By creationist assumptions there was far greater genetic richness the farther back you go. Many repeated splittings and migrations, all processes of selection and migration and reproductive isolation and so on, reduce this richness a great deal over many incidents of same, and that is what makes in-breeding a problem.

So if I'm understanding this correctly the DNA of people (and animals and plants?) was "richer" at the time of the flood and has become denuded over time to the present day state. Is this correct?

I have a couple of questions:

  • How was this greater richness manifested in the flood-era DNA? Were there less non-coding (so called "junk DNA") areas in the genome or are you talking about something else?
  • How linear is this decline of richness between the flood and now? Has it been a steady downwards progression or was there a more rapid period of decline which "bottomed out" at the current level sometime between the flood and now? If the latter how many years ago did this bottoming out happen?


Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4537 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 282 of 298 (328716)
07-04-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
07-03-2006 6:14 PM


Re: tectonic plate movement
Well, try rethinking it from the ASSUMPTION that the flood DID occur 4500 years ago

That is what the geologists of the 19th century did. They found that their assumption was wrong. When one actually studies the science assuming that the flood occurs doesn’t really help. You can read about it on a page by Evangelical Christian Geologist Davis Young HERE

and that the movement of the tectonic plates DID start then.
Do you think the plates moved during the flood like the people at AiG or after the flood? It doesn’t really matter. Rapid plate movement would generate a huge amount of heat from the new ocean crust and lithosphere and the heat would have to go somewhere. Further Bill Birkeland has posted links on this forum showing that sea floor sediments are not consistent with rapid plate movement HERE and Joe Meert has an analysis that shows that the depth profile of the oceans is consistent with slow and not rapid plate movement HERE

That's what a YEC has to do, since we don't have the luxury of taking every bit of mathematical debunkery that comes down the pike as gospel truth as you do.

The problem you have is that virtually EVERY mathematical analysis, whether of heat from rapid plate movement, or the amount of water required for a global flood or the amount of time to deposit the massive salt deposits in the geologic column or amount of time required to feed the animals on the ark effectively debunks the young earth and global flood as does paleontology, archeology, geology, astronomy, biogeography, biodiversity and any other science that has ever been applied to the problem. You don’t have the “luxury” of accepting any science at all. From a scientific standpoint the flood simply does not "add up".

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 07-04-2006 3:02 PM Randy has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4644 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 283 of 298 (328787)
07-04-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
07-03-2006 2:11 PM


A Genealogy can easily be invented
It boasts an awfully detailed and specific genealogy for a "myth" but whatever.

About as detailed and specific as those Tolkien provides in The Silmarillion and Lord Of The Rings - and those are works of fiction, not even historic or cultural myths.

Just shows how easy it is to come up with a genealogy if you want to.


Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 07-04-2006 2:59 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4644 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 284 of 298 (328791)
07-04-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by CK
07-03-2006 2:32 PM


Re: Have I left anything out
I think you've left something out - but it is kind of subtle.

Then all the animals got off the ark and we had hyper-evolution for the next 4000 years to leave us with the wildlife we see today.

Since Noah built the ark and the shit pump 4,500 years ago this 4000 year period of warp-speed evolution continued until 1500AD or so - maybe even more recent than that.

As far as I am aware there is no record anywhere - either written or in an oral tradition - that suggests anybody saw new creatures magically appearing, particularly by direct birth from a (different) known type of creature.

Sure there are plenty of accounts of new creatures being seen, but only when people go to a new place (i.e. the European voyages of discovery and conquest from the 15th. Century onwards) which is where you'd expect to find 'new' animals. Of course, they weren't new, they were just previously unknown - the locals knew all about them.

I guess the hyper-evolving critters were just shy and hid away from humans, which is why it wasn't recorded by the Jews, Greeks, Romans, Phonecians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chritians or Muslims. Oh, not forgetting the Chinese, Japanese, the whole of S.E. Asia, Indians, Native Americans, Australian Aborogines, Polynesesians, the Inuit and well, everybody really :)


Oops! Wrong Planet

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33362
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 285 of 298 (328793)
07-04-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by MangyTiger
07-04-2006 2:41 PM


Re: A Genealogy can easily be invented
Right, the whole Bible is nothing but a made-up novel pretending to be fact and everybody who believes it is nothing but an idiot, all those who believed it back when it was written right up to now, and it doesn't matter that the same people know fiction when they see it, we're all idiots anyway and can't tell a real genealogy from a fake one. Not hard at all to make up a genealogy that spans 1500 years and maintains its consistency. Not at all. Great. Now go ahead and congratulate me for realizing the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by MangyTiger, posted 07-04-2006 2:41 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019