Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,334 Year: 3,591/9,624 Month: 462/974 Week: 75/276 Day: 3/23 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 113 of 503 (676621)
10-24-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by mindspawn
10-24-2012 11:16 AM


Its impossible for the whole planet to have been covered in water since humans have been alive. We'd be able to see the resulting genetic bottleneck in all the organisms alive today. The fact that the genetic bottleneck is absent proves that modern organisms did not stem from a small group. Ergo, no Flood. Its a myth. It never happened. Get over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 11:16 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 120 of 503 (676642)
10-24-2012 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by mindspawn
10-24-2012 1:32 PM


Biologists can detect genetic bottlenecks that happened to species in the past.
If The Flood occured, then we'd see a genetic bottleneck in all the species affected by The Flood appearing from the same time in the past.
We do not see that genetic bottleneck, therefore The Flood could not have occured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 1:32 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 125 of 503 (676650)
10-24-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by mindspawn
10-24-2012 1:53 PM


Re: Discrepancy?
No problem, but look at those links in post 110. I find them fascinating. These are not just pictures, but archaeological observations.
Those ancient civilizations found the fossilized bones of those dinosaurs, not living ones.
Its like with the cyclops stemming from a wooly mammoth skull:
That's not actually an eye socket there in the middle, but we can see how ancient civilizations would have thought it was.
It is fascinating to see a stegosaurus in some old rock art. But they got that imagery from finding a skeleton, not from living with them.
Fun fact: The time between when the stegosaurus lived (150 mya) and when the T-Rex lived, is longer that the time when the T-Rex lived (65 mya) and right now. We are closer in time to the T-Rex than the T-Rex was to the stegosaurus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 1:53 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 130 of 503 (676672)
10-24-2012 4:08 PM


In before Paluxy.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 167 of 503 (676795)
10-25-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by mindspawn
10-24-2012 5:31 PM


CS can you post your evidence for the lack of bottlenecks?
Um, I can't really show you the lack of something, but check this out:
quote:
The cheetah is unusual among fields in exhibiting near genetic uniformity at a variety of loci previously screened to measure population genetic diversity. It has been hypothesized that a demographic crash or population bottleneck in the recent history of the species is causal to the observed monomorphic profiles for nuclear coding loci.
Just a moment...
The cheetah is unusual in having the bottleneck. That means that almost all of the other species do not have it.
Are there more than 14 alleles found in certain large non-aquatic organisms?
Of course. Where's this 14 number coming from? I'm not getting this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 5:31 PM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by JonF, posted 10-25-2012 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 503 (676796)
10-25-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by mindspawn
10-24-2012 5:44 PM


Re: Discrepancy?
We will have to agree to disagree on those dinosaur depictions. When most civilizations depict their concurrent animals, why do only the older civilizations reconstruct dinosaurs in their art?
Ignorance. Older civs wouldn't have known that the bones were of really old and extinct animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2012 5:44 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 271 of 503 (677520)
10-30-2012 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:32 AM


Re: No flood
Well dates may contradict a biblical flood, but not a global flood at the PT boundary.
It doesn't matter if there was a global flood at the PT boundary because that couldn't be The FloodTM because there were no people alive at the PT boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:32 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 353 of 503 (680391)
11-19-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 11:36 AM


Well if I'm claiming a biblical flood it would be wrong to claim a bottleneck in fish, they continued to swim. It would be wrong to claim it for insects and lizards and mice, there's an extremely high likelihood they would have been on the ark in large numbers, it was a massive ship. It would be wrong to claim a bottleneck for humans because of subsequent breeding possibilities.
Not according to the Bible:
quote:
Gen 6:7 So the Lord said, I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdand with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundfor I regret that I have made them."
Regarding genetic bottlenecks:
As usual the information confirms a flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 11:36 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 363 of 503 (680458)
11-19-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 3:38 PM


Whether 37.5 of 3 billion base pairs in an individual is a "few" or "many" is missing the main point of discussion.
Does this mean that you're dropping that whole "are there more that 14 alleles" argument from Message 132?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 3:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 368 of 503 (680495)
11-19-2012 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 4:38 PM


Yes, in the light of the mutation rate, 4500 years would create a significant number of new alleles, even if there was a bottleneck. So its a hard argument to prove either way.
No, 4500 years is not enough to produce the diversity we have today. That proves that there was no global flood 4500 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 4:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 1:50 AM New Cat's Eye 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