Summations Only

Thread copied here from the Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'm going to close this thread for about an hour.When I reopen it there should be only civil and constructive discussion. I will issue a 24-hour timeout to anyone guilty of incivility, even just mild sarcasm.This is the second thread this has happened to recently, it just happened to Best Evidence Macro-Evolution. I don't care if someone seems to be arrogant or ignorant or flippant or glib or whatever, you'll be civil and constructive or you'll be taking a vacation.If you have cogent arguments for your position or against your opponent's, then bring it on. Otherwise, remain silent.

I will give a 24-hour timeout to anyone I perceive not working hard at making themselves clearly understood and at understanding their opponent's arguments.

Please keep your focus on the topic and not on other participants. Any judgments rendered should concern the consilience between opinion and data, and they should not touch on other participants or their conduct whatsoever. It is the belief of this moderator that those stating what they sincerely believe, no matter how much they may be in error and in contradiction to all evidence, are not lying, and in any event, accusations of lying run against the Forum Guidelines and of any rules of decorum.Enforcement will depend upon who ignores this request. Some here have been told this many times, and for them there will be no warnings before being suspended.I have another request: Positions being argued for in the science threads (like this one) should be based upon evidence. You should put forward the evidence that brought you to your position. Positions not based upon evidence should receive no mention. Positions that you believe have evidence but you don't know what that evidence is should also receive no mention. In other words, those with no evidence for what they believe is true should remain on the sidelines.

For purposes of clarity, this thread is not about proving the flood impossible. It's about what we should expect to see in the global distribution of fauna had the world been repopulated from a single point in the Middle East around 5000 years ago.For purposes of general discussion, no thread is about proving anything impossible. The onus is on the claimant to provide positive evidence in favor, not for others to provide evidence in opposition. Claims aren't true simply because counter-evidence is absent. Look up the celestial teapot.

Hi MindSpawn,Participants in the science forums are expected to have at least a rudimentary scientific background so that threads aren't burdened with requests for evidence of basic knowledge.The damage that salt water flooding causes to soil and the inability of most salt water fish to survive in fresh water and vice-versa are well known. If you're unaware of these simple facts then please avail yourself of Google and look them up. Do not waste thread time and space with them.The current scientific understanding is that there was never any world-wide flood. Science believes this because it has never found any evidence of a world-wide flood, not because it has found evidence proving there was no world-wide flood. It makes no sense to request proof that waters for which there is no evidence never reached the mountains. If you have evidence that there was a world-wide flood that reached the mountains "during the P-T boundary" then you should provide it.But please don't do it in this thread. This thread assumes a world-wide flood about 5000 years ago and asks participants to speculate about what the world-wide distribution of fauna would look like had it radiated from a single point in the Middle East after the flood.I suggest again that you look up the celestial teapot because you're getting the burden of proof backwards. Or think about how you'd prove that unicorns never existed.

That's a little hard to believe. The negative impact on vegetation of high salt content in soil is well known. Here's an excerpt from Salt Water Inundation From Hurricane Sandy, which happened just last year: Focus especially on that last sentence. "Ponded for long periods of time" would be a localized example of your global 5-month flood.An apocryphal tale has it that when the Romans defeated Carthage in 146 BC that they sowed the land with salt so that nothing could ever grow there again, but the story is based upon the true and lasting negative effect of salt on soil. Some plants are more tolerant of salinity than others, obviously since some plants even grow in the sea, but many terrestrial plants would suffer greatly in the highly saline soil resulting after 5 months submerged in salt water. Check out the Wikipedia article on Soil Salinity. No one has made that claim. The claim that people have made is that no evidence for a worldwide flood exists in all of Earth's history. If you have evidence for such an event then you should describe it.But not in this thread. This thread is about fauna radiation from a single geographical location after a global extinction event caused by a global flood.

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.

Please discuss the topic. This thread is about the expected geographical distribution patterns we'd observe had faunal dispersion began from a single point in the Middle East into an empty world after a global flood. A global flood is assumed in this thread. Evolutionists, please adapt your arguments to the flood date preferred by each individual creationist.The Bible should only be referenced when it bears directly on the topic.

Hi Kofh2u,I thought you were disputing the well known fact that high soil salinity has a negative impact on vegetation, but I see you're now saying that post-flood soils wouldn't have been very salty. I was only asking that you not bog down discussion by disputing obvious facts.But the claim that the flood water wasn't that salty and that therefore the post-flood soil wasn't that salty could use some evidence if it has some bearing on the topic. Well, yes, I see that Jar is saying it in just this way. I'll post a note to him. Please ignore any posts about whether the flood happened while I try to get this thread on-topic. This thread assumes that the flood occurred and asks the participants to speculate about the worldwide distribution of fauna had it spread post-flood from a single point in the Middle East.--Percy

This thread is not about whether there was ever a global flood, Biblical or otherwise. This thread is about the global distribution of fauna that would result post-flood from a single point in the Middle East. Please ignore comments about whether or not there was ever a global flood while I try to get this thread on-topic. Thanks.

There are the issues of fish and vegetation and predators, but given that there's no evidence of any global flood, there's also no evidence of conditions during and immediately after the flood. The lack of evidence makes these questions very difficult to discuss.I think there are much more interesting questions. How did monkeys get to the New World but not apes? How did marsupials get to Australia but not mammals? Why are the fossil records of these continents consistent with evolution rather than radiation?

Hi Mindspawn,What the thread needs is evidence of what happened, not speculations of what might have happened. I'm trying to get the thread focused on evidence.

I'm here. Is your complaint about the characterization of arrogance? What adjective do you think should apply to someone who believes they understand a field better than the field's own experts? Do you think participants should be permitted to utter inanities without comment? To what degree should participants be required to ignore the behavior of other participants?The goal of the Forum Guidelines is to keep discussion focused on the topic, not to force participants to put on blinders, become unemotional robots, or refrain from calling a spade a spade.There is no complaints forum, only a complaints thread. Please take any complaints and any replies to this message to this thread: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

We've been over this before. The evidence that there is no elephant in your living room is that you just walked through your living room and saw no elephant. The evidence that there is no faunal-wide genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago is that the analysis of scores of genomes has revealed no such bottleneck. Perhaps it would help if you went through the exercise of describing for Jar just what you think such evidence would look like. You have this backwards. This is the celestial teapot thought experiment all over again. We do not believe something is true simply because there's no evidence it is not true. If you think there was a faunal-wide genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago then you should bring forward the evidence that led you to that belief.Please reply to Jar, not me.