So Noah took 2 of each animal onto the ark to save them from drowning. But about the plants?

Would there really be enough genetic material, to restart from just two, of any species?

quote:Originally posted by Source:

Would there really be enough genetic material, to restart from just two, of any species?

WOW!!!!

Insightful question!!!!

Quick question:

Do you believe in 'billions of years' of evolution??

quote:Originally posted by Source:

Would there really be enough genetic material, to restart from just two, of any species?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

WOW!!!!

Insightful question!!!!

Quick question:

Do you believe in 'billions of years' of evolution??

Single-celled organisms, which include the first life on earth, do not reproduce sexually. So they don't have the same genetic problems we diploidies have when it comes to heritage.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Single-celled organisms, which include the first life on earth, do not reproduce sexually. So they don't have the same genetic problems we diploidies have when it comes to heritage.

If everything evolved from those single-celled organisms, then there had to have been more genetic info already there... evolution does not increase info, it makes it more specific.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If everything evolved from those single-celled organisms, then there had to have been more genetic info already there... evolution does not increase info, it makes it more specific.



The point about the 2 animals per species thing was that inbreeding would amplify any genetic disorders they had developed over the past few thousand years between Adam and Noah... they could still survive, just the species would start off pretty weak, and may die off completely. At least that's what I think Source was saying.

As for evolution not increasing the amount of information, that's incorrect. Selection does weed out those that don't pass on their genes, but at the same time you have mutations that increase variation within a species. So it's really a balance of the two forces -- mutation and selection -- that allow species to adapt and yet be uniform to an extent.

Creationist answer I have heard:

Plants. Their seeds floated on water and logs and survived in the dirty. Then grew once the flood was over. (no explanation on how these seeds survived a flood that supposably created all the oil in the world and carved the grand canyon).

Animals. Each animal taken had the most genetics of their "kind" and so not only did they have enough genetic material to survive they had enough to recreate all the lesser of their "kind." (No in-depth explanation has ever been given).



Xtreem: Why don't you actually answer his question instead of ignoring a perfectly valid question to drag an old strawman around in the dirty. If creationism is a science that is equal to evolution (as so claimed by creationists) you shouldn't have to dodge valid questions.

What did the preditory animals eat after they got off the Ark? Or is this how creationist exsplain why there are so many exstict species.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

What did the preditory animals eat after they got off the Ark? Or is this how creationist exsplain why there are so many exstict species.

They obviously ate cake and threw a party!

By the way, great question.

There was a flood of somesort in the black sea. But there was no Noah. Think of it, its stupid.

The story has been passed down through differenct religons over the years. Nothing special about it.

Noahs ark would have to be EXTREMELY huge with technology far greater than what we have now. Bare in mind the Ark was supposedly built froma 500 year old man and his 6 sons, from wood alone.

Okay, lets pretend EVERY LIVING THING managed to make it to the ark. Polar bears somehow managed to swim across vast oceans to get to somewhere in the middle east or wherever this was happening. blah blah blah.

COLLEMBOLA: 6000 eg. springtails

THYSANURA: 370 e.g.. silverfish

EPHEMEROPTERA: 2100 eg. mayflies

ODONATA: 5500 eg. dragonflies

PLECOPTERA: 2000 eg. stoneflies

BLATTODEA: 3700 eg. cockroaches

ISOPTERA: 2300 eg. termites

MANTODEA: 1800 eg. mantids

DERMAPTERA: 1800 eg. earwigs

ORTHOPTERA: 20500 eg. grasshoppers

PHASMATODEA: 2500 eg. stick insects

PSCOPTERA: 3200 eg. bark lice

PHTHIRAPTERA: 3000 eg. biting lice

HEMIPTERA: 82000 eg. aphids

THYSANOPTERA: 5000 eg. thrips

MEGALOPTERA: 250 eg. alderflies

RAPHIDIOPTERA: 175 eg. snakeflies

NEUROPTERA: 5000 eg. ant-lions

COLEOPTERA: 400000 eg. beetles

MECOPTERA: 400 eg. scorpion flies

SIPHONAPTERA: 2400 eg. fleas

DIPTERA: 120000 eg. fruit-flies

TRICHOPTERA: 10000 eg. caddisflies

LEPIDOPTERA: 150000 eg. butterflies

HYMENOPTERA: 130000 eg. ants, bees

These are all the diffent species of insect. HOW THE FUCK DOES ONE OLD GUY AND HIS 6 SONS MANAGE TO KEEP ALL THESE ALIVE FOR MORE THAN A MONTH IN TORRENTIAL RAIN?

Answer. Its bullshit. You can't reason someone out of a position they didnt reason themselves into.

People can bitch and moan about religion all they want. It wont change shit. People like to believe that there is a master plan, a loving god, an after life. It isnt going to change. Thousands of years of human science has made religion obsolete. You might aswell shake your meat shaft in a christians face rather than argue.

Let people have their opiates, as long as they dont make me believe in their bullshit (intelligent design theory anyone?).

"evolution does not increase info, it makes it more specific"

Please explain further.

A link might help, if it isn't from a fundie site.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463

Evolution of biological complexity.

I'll admit, I can't follow the material.

This doesn't answer the OP's question, but it's interesting anyway...

The search for Noah's Ark has been going on for at least thirty years on a major scale. Quite a few expeditions have studied the mountain with varying degrees of success but always with great degrees of hardship and danger.

While the Ark has not been rediscovered, researchers have turned up many earlier reported sightings, seemingly hundreds of reliable people who claim to have seen the Ark. The research has also shown that a major earthquake on Ararat in 1840 caused physical changes to the glacial patterns high on the slopes. Since 1840 many people claim to have seen the Ark. The following list contains most of the major reported sightings:

1853: Three Englishmen were shown the Ark by two Armenian natives.

1883: Turkish avalanche investigators discovered the Ark while studying the effects of a recent earthquake. The find was published in newspapers around the world.

1887: John Joseph, Prince of Nouri, of Malabar, India, discovered the vessel by design on his third attempt. He presented his claims to the World Parliament of Religions at the Chicago World's Fair a few years later, but was unable to raise financial support for proper documentation.

1902, 1904: "Georgie," an elderly Armenian immigrant, who escaped the turmoil following World War I and fled to the United States, saw the Ark twice as a teenager. He died in 1972 but his comments and interviews are available on tape.

1915, 1916: Two Russian flyers sighted the Ark from the air. The Czar dispatched 150 Russian soldiers and scientists to verify the claim. The ground investigations found the remains and succeeded in entering the three-storied structure and documenting it fully. However, when the Communists gained control, the documents were presumably destroyed, but many of the participants escaped and lived to tell the story.

1917: Six Turkish soldiers, returning home after service in Baghdad, decided to climb the mountain. They accidentally discovered the ship.

1936: Hardwicke Knight, a New Zealand archaeologist, accidentally discovered a field of timbers, very large and obviously hand-hewn, on the upper slopes of the mountain. Mr. Knight still lives in New Zealand.

1941-1944: During World War II Mount Ararat was flown over hundreds of times by flights from the United States air base in Tunisia and the Russian facility in Erivan. At least three sightings were reported: 1) Two Australian pilots, 2) One Russian pilot, 3) Two USAF pilots, but many more were rumored. The USAF flyers took pictures of the Ark which appeared in the Tunisia edition of "Stars and Stripes."

1948: A Kurdish farmer named Resit accidentally discovered the Ark. Under his insistence many of the villagers also observed it.

1952-1955: Fernand Navarra, wealthy French industrialist, found a great mass of hand-tooled lumber under the ice at the 13,000 foot level. He dug down to it, chopped off a portion about 9" x 9" x 5' and brought it back for analysis. The wood has been shown to be of great antiquity. Mr. Navarra is still alive.

1953: George Greene, mining engineer for an American oil company, spotted the Ark about 1/3 exposed from a helicopter. He photographed it from a distance of about 90 feet. Although at least thirty people alive today remember the pictures, they can no longer be seen, for Greene was murdered in 1962 and his belongings were destroyed.

1954, 1958: John Libi, of San Francisco, and Colonel Sehap Atalay of the Turkish army discovered wood in the same area as the previous sightings. Both men are still alive.

1962: Wilbur Bishop and Lawrence Hewitt, studying the summit of the 17,000 foot mountain from an airplane, were surprised to see a portion of a wooden structure at the 14,000 foot level. These two men are also still living.

1969: Fernand Navarra returned to Mount Ararat and guided explorers from SEARCH, Incorporated, to the spot of his discovery in 1955. Again fragments of wood were recovered.

Source (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=68)

More interesting stuff about the survival of fish and plants:

Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals and birds were on the Ark (Genesis 7:14,15; 21-23). The sceptic's caricature that Noah had fish tanks on the ark is wrong.

We do not know how salty the sea was before the Flood. It may have been less salty than it is now. It may have been more salty. The Flood was initiated by the breaking up of the 'fountains of the great deep' (Genesis 7:11). What exactly these are is not certain but there are two likely possibilities: volcanoes and/or a subterranean water. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam and hot water.

Many estuarine and tidepool species are able to tolerate wide changes in salinity. Starfish will tolerate 16-18% of the normal concentration of sea salt indefinitely. Barnacles can withstand exposure to less than one-tenth the usual salt concentration of seawater.

There are migratory species of fish which travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn in freshwater and mature in saltwater. Eels reproduce in saltwater and grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. The Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon lives only in freshwater. Some of the fish orders with both fresh and saltwater species are the toadfish order, garpike order, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish orders. Indeed, most of the extant orders have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate wide changes in salinity could have been present in most fish at the time of the Flood. Specialisation may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.

Hybrids of wild trout (freshwater) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland (New Scientist 146:22, May 27, 1995), suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind with the kidneys of freshwater species excreting excess water (low salt concentration urine) and those of marine species excreting excess salt (high salt concentration urine). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. Sawfish species which move from saltwater to freshwater increase their urine output twentyfold and the blood urea concentration decreases to less than one-third.

Aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been well-placed to survive the Flood, not being dependent on clean water to breathe.

Many marine creatures would have been killed in the Flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life with 95% of the fossil record accounted for by marine creatures. This is consistent with the Bible's account of the Flood beginning with the breaking up of the 'fountains of the great deep' (i.e. beginning in the sea?).

There is a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the earth. Freshwater can sit on top of saltwater for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.

Survival of land plants? Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.

Ironically, Charles Darwin himself performed experiments floating snails on, and submerging seeds in, salt water, convincing him that they could have survived long sea voyages on driftwood and the like.

Source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp)

It is thought by some that plants would have been unable to survive the Biblical flood. However, plants have adaptive abilities that surpass all other multicellular organisms, and are therefore perhaps the most difficult to completely exterminate of any organism on earth. This is due to an extraordinary ability to reproduce during times of stress, and also because unlike other sexually reproducing organisms, most plants can self fertilize and therefore are able to alter their genome more dramatically without the worry of being able to find a sexually compatible mate.

All plants respond to stress by reproducing through either sexual or vegetative reproduction. Plants will sacrifice all metabolic reserves to rapidly set seed when the conditions indicate winter or draught is coming. Seeds that were set before the flood could easily have survived the event because they are designed to weather a period of hardship and not germinate immediately after maturation. Seeds enter a state of dormancy and are equipped with a seed coat possessing sufficient density to prevent precocious germination during the winter or dry season. The seed coat must decompose or be breeched so water can penetrate and break dormancy before the seed will germinate. Such decomposition is typically accomplished by bacteria and fungi, which like plant embryos are not metabolically active at temperatures expected during the flood. In addition, some seeds (such as cherry) will not germinate for years unless they pass through the digestive tract of an animal first.

Although seeds could survive the flood, no plant needs to generate seed to reproduced. Most plants readily undergo vegetative propagation. It is well known that plants send out runners and reproduce through vegetative nodes, but a more remarkable ability exists. Plants can spawn a clone of itself from any cell. Through the process known as organogenesis or somatic embryogenesis, a plant will emerge from a mass of wound tissue. Regeneration through this mechanism demonstrates a level of survivability not possessed by any other group of organisms.

Plant genetic transformations are now being performed with regularity. The success of these techniques is in part due to the development of strategies to regenerate an entire plant from a single cell. This is required to obtain a transformant that is not a genetic chimeric, and ensure the inheritance of the transgene. Regeneration strategies have now been worked-out for most plants, and it is relatively certain that all plants can reproduce without seed or reproductive organs.

Organogenesis can occur when a cell mass called callus forms crude plant organs and shoot apical meristem can emerge. However, the development of a functionally mature plant from these regenerants is frequently morphologically challenged. To obtain a normal reproducible plant the researcher should isolate a proper embryo. Out of a colony of plant tissue, a perfect embryo can be isolated which resulted from the metamorphosis of a single cell through somatic embryogenesis. Although hormonal induction of embryogenesis is most common, other strategies simply stress the plant cell lines to trigger the reproductive response. Frustrating cells lines from tissue formation or growing cultures in the dark or along-side necrotic or dying material will also frequently induce somatic embryogenesis.

It is likely that the post-flood world was recolonized both from seeds which remained dormant during the flood, and from vegetative propagation of one form or another. Plants as individuals can become extremely well adapted to specific conditions making them sensitive to rapid changes in conditions. Perhaps it is for this reason that they were equipped with reproductive mechanisms not found in any other multicellular organism. If there had been a need to store seeds along with the animals on the ark, this directive would have also been given to Noah. However, as we have seen following many such catastrophes, God's creation possesses an amazing ability to reestablish itself, and such biological recovery always begins with the appearance of plants.

Source (http://www.nwcreation.net/plantsurvival.html)

What was it again that made the dinosaurs and other extinct organisms sink faster in the flood waters than the creatures that are still alive today?

Why did the flood kill giant ferns but not little ones? Or giant dragonflies, but not little ones? (maybe they sink faster too)

Or why did sabertooths and mammoths die but not mountain lions and elephants?

I think it's impossible that there could have been such a flood. It would be impossible, for a start, to have such a diverse range of racial groups that we have today if everybody was descendant from Noah. Secondly it would impossible for Noah to have preserved and repopulated the World with the range of species that we have on the planet. It's just not feasible.

It is also impossible for the Earth to have been completely flooded even over the highest Mountains. That's just not possible, and wouldn't the plant life have been destroyed, with exception to under water plants? Also, where did all the water go?

It's just not possible.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Creationist answer I have heard:

A flood... (no explanation on how these seeds survived a flood that supposably created all the oil in the world and carved the grand canyon).



That is the most absurd, and ridiculous thing I have ever heard or seen. I pray to god your aren't "american"

PS: the colorado river carved the grand canyon after millions of years.

It was actually Noah and his 3 sons and their wives.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Xtreem: Why don't you actually answer his question instead of ignoring a perfectly valid question to drag an old strawman around in the dirty. If creationism is a science that is equal to evolution (as so claimed by creationists) you shouldn't have to dodge valid questions.

Why don't you let him answer in whatever way he sees fit, and stop pretending like you really care in order to mask your true purpose in posting, which is to insult him ?

quote:Originally posted by bushy:

PS: the colorado river carved the grand canyon after millions of years.

PS: No, it didn't...rivers cannot BEND rock.

GLOBAL FLOOD (http://tinyurl.com/qv82l)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

PS: No, it didn't...rivers cannot BEND rock.

GLOBAL FLOOD (http://tinyurl.com/qv82l)

The grand canyon is composed 5,000 feet of granite and shale (very hard rock). You aren't going to cut that much rock, that deep, by flowing a massive amount of water over it all at one time.

WATCH THE FRICKIN' VIDEO...THEN RESPOND, PLEASE.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

WATCH THE FRICKIN' VIDEO...THEN RESPOND, PLEASE.

Watched it.

Creationism = pseudoscience.

He finds it so ammusing that things are capable of traversing multiple strata layers (like those trees). He failed to consider that surface petrification would allow a tree to stay upright (or upside down) for the millenia required to form the strata surrounding it. A polar shift or *gasp* a meteor collision could have caused the mass, seemingly instant deaths of the dinosaurs.

The guy is not a scientist. He has an extremely restricted paradigm and refuses to consider alternate causes before making his conclusions, or to meticulously critique his conclusions before declaring them true.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why don't you let him answer in whatever way he sees fit, and stop pretending like you really care in order to mask your true purpose in posting, which is to insult him ?

Why don't you stop trying to commit false witness. Don't put words in my mouth to try and pretend I'm evil so you can ignore the questions as well.

Can you answer the questions yourself without forcing us to watch a video? (which wouldn't work BTW)

Whoever believes this story literally is an idiot.

man Can not find every singe animal x 2

man simply could not "catch" some animals

man can not build a ship to fit all of the species on it

Hell, I don't even know if the world's biggest ship could carry all those animals...

You stopped believing in Santa and elfes but you can't stop believeing in those stories haha

[This message has been edited by ohhi (edited 03-17-2006).]

Ohhi, God brought the animals to Noah, Noah didn't have to go catch them. Noah might have only needed 2 dogs, and those two dogs are the root of all the dogs. After a couple thousand years there are lots of dogs that live in different parts of the world, and have adapted to many different kind of dogs. There have been many people that have proven that it is possible (Ken Hamm is one example).

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Ohhi, God brought the animals to Noah, Noah didn't have to go catch them.



Right, all 30 million of them?

And I was kind of joking about catching them all (because it's impossible) He still would have to take them into their cage and then lock the cage...no?

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Noah might have only needed 2 dogs, and those two dogs are the root of all the dogs.

So in few thousand years, both Chihuahuas and St. Bernards were derived from the same dog, but evolution is impossible?

...right. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

So in few thousand years, both Chihuahuas and St. Bernards were derived from the same dog, but evolution is impossible?

...right. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)[/B]

I wasn't even going to bring that up to avoid usless argument. But yes. Evolution is impossible apparently. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by ohhi (edited 03-17-2006).]

Just a random fact...they found the ark on the top of mount Ararat, and it was exactly the length, width, size, etc. that the Bible states...the Turkish government is not Christian or jewish and they denied access to that mountain so that no search parties can explore it further...that says a lot to me.

Ok, first off....That guy in the video is really fucked up....but thats not my point

its....well that guy is really, REALLY fucked up.....dammit....thats not my point..



I have read a theory on what happened during the "global" flood....Noah was a simple dude, his entire world consisted of what he knew of, like most people, and evidence of a flood HAS been found in the area where he was believed to have lived. hence, a flood that covered all of what someone knows as their world would be constrewed as a global event, and there is evidence to back this up.

Oh, and Noah didnt take 2 of every animal.....its gets even more nuts than that....its 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal....or so ive heard.

Just a random fact: That the ark has been found is total BS and those that say they have found it oddly can't provide any evidence or lead anyone back to the site. Many have been discredited by trying to fake artifacts and evidence.

Saying the ark was Exactly the size the bible says should be a huge alarm as the measurement used in the bible can vary by quite a bit.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Just a random fact: That the ark has been found is total BS and those that say they have found it oddly can't provide any evidence or lead anyone back to the site. Many have been discredited by trying to fake artifacts and evidence.

Saying the ark was Exactly the size the bible says should be a huge alarm as the measurement used in the bible can vary by quite a bit.

Either way Digital_Savior came with a source.

Why do you think I'm talking to DS with that comment, and what source would that be, the "watch creationist movie" source?

quote:Originally posted by HARDMAN:

So Noah took 2 of each animal onto the ark to save them from drowning. But about the plants?

Well, its conceiavble that Noah took onboard seedlings with him for some of the plants native to his immediate area. But, we also know that:

"Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth." -Gen 8:11

That means that the earth was germinating at that time.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

PS: No, it didn't...rivers cannot BEND rock.

GLOBAL FLOOD (http://tinyurl.com/qv82l)

He also says that it only stopped raining after 40 days and says that flood has been going on for a long time after that, yet bible states:

Genesis 8:14

In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

what about the animals who can swim, like ducks and fish? Wasnt the flood supposed to wipe the earth of evil? there must be a lot of evil ducks, evil geese, evil fish and such still around.

</joke>

Also how would you explain the existance of different races?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

What was it again that made the dinosaurs and other extinct organisms sink faster in the flood waters than the creatures that are still alive today?

Why did the flood kill giant ferns but not little ones? Or giant dragonflies, but not little ones? (maybe they sink faster too)

Or why did sabertooths and mammoths die but not mountain lions and elephants?

First of all, not all extinct animals necessarily had to die out in the flood. Alot of extinct animals have died out relatively recently, in the grand scheme of life on earth. But the question has been raised by theists and atheists alike, 'why were animals so much bigger back in the day?' I've never heard an evolutionist argument for it, (especially when things were supposed to be getting bigger, stronger, more highly intelligent, etc). But a theistic argument is that the earth was possibly more highly oxygenated, so they were healthier, and lived longer. We know from reptiles, that they rarely stop growing. So, the older they are, the bigger they can become. Likewise, a couple of Japanese scientists were trying to maximize efficiency for their crops because they have so many residents. They have supplemented their efforts with hyperbaric chambers. The end result is some enormous produce. Where this ties into the Bible is that its believed there was a vapor canopy that oxygenated and created a temperate, lush enviornment over the surface of the entire earth, and not just by where we find it today, which is on or near the equator. In fact, we've found many instances of tropical plants that once lived in Antarctica and into the North Pole. So, the question is, 'how did tropical plants exist when there was supposed to be an ice age?'

quote:Originally posted by ohhi:

He also says that it only stopped raining after 40 days and says that flood has been going on for a long time after that, yet bible states:

Genesis 8:14

In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

What she is saying, is that already calcified rock can't bend, because its already hardened, but sediment from a Flood has not hardened yet and can conform to the shape of the water flow. Once the water recedes and the sediment dries, it forms rock. The question is, how else can rock form this way? It couldn't be caused by a flowing river because it would never allow for the loose sediment to harden, and furthermore would errode it away, sending it downstream. But in the Food theory, after the water has already flowed, it sits still and eventually evaportaes.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

First of all, not all extinct animals necessarily had to die out in the flood. Alot of extinct animals have died out relatively recently, in the grand scheme of life on earth. But the question has been raised by theists and atheists alike, 'why were animals so much bigger back in the day?' I've never heard an evolutionist argument for it, (especially when things were supposed to be getting bigger, stronger, more highly intelligent, etc). But a theistic argument is that the earth was possibly more highly oxygenated, so they were healthier, and lived longer. We know from reptiles, that they rarely stop growing. So, the older they are, the bigger they can become. Likewise, a couple of Japanese scientists were trying to maximize efficiency for their crops because they have so many residents. They have supplemented their efforts with hyperbaric chambers. The end result is some enormous produce. Where this ties into the Bible is that its believed there was a vapor canopy that oxygenated and created a temperate, lush enviornment over the surface of the entire earth, and not just by where we find it today, which is on or near the equator. In fact, we've found many instances of tropical plants that once lived in Antarctica and into the North Pole. So, the question is, 'how did tropical plants exist when there was supposed to be an ice age?'



That has been refuted. Again:

"This argument is self-refuting. The creationist argument is that the Christian God created the beasts, and that the characteristics of these beasts were specifically created by him. If the pre-flood world was tropical, then that would preclude the existence of species which require a specific type of weather to survive. Not only that, but even among those species that would still be able to survive the tropical climate, the different adaptations they would have would be rendered meaningless, and sub-optimal. There would be absolutely no need for thick fur, blubber, and the like. Thus, this argument refutes biblical creationism. You simply cannot have a world-wide tropical climate while also preserving all the species on Earth, and the facade that these species were created by an intelligent being.

As for the various “examples” you cite, you will have to provide evidence. There are countless (that is an understatement) examples of faulty creationists claims and just plain bold faced lies when it comes to “findings”. I'll provide you with some examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part4.html

Even then, even if what you say was found is true, that still proves nothing. Not only were Earth's land masses distributed differently, but the successive melting and freezing of glaciers, coupled with their movements, can produce similar results."

-- http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056-3.html

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The question is, how else can rock form this way? It couldn't be caused by a flowing river because it would never allow for the loose sediment to harden, and furthermore would errode it away, sending it downstream. But in the Food theory, after the water has already flowed, it sits still and eventually evaportaes.



The already hardned rock is eroded away by the river, that is how the Canyon is shaped.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

What she is saying, is that already calcified rock can't bend, because its already hardened, but sediment from a Flood has not hardened yet and can conform to the shape of the water flow. Once the water recedes and the sediment dries, it forms rock. The question is, how else can rock form this way? It couldn't be caused by a flowing river because it would never allow for the loose sediment to harden, and furthermore would errode it away, sending it downstream. But in the Food theory, after the water has already flowed, it sits still and eventually evaportaes.





What? I was talking about the buddy that talks funny from that clip.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

Either way Digital_Savior came with a source.

1. That video is a "theory". DEFINE THEORY. Dictionary.com defines "Theory" as, "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.", or "Abstract reasoning; speculation" THAT IS NOT A VIABLE SOURCE.

2. THE BIBLE. I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE, SO WHEN YOU USE SCRIPTURE OR THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY DISCREDITED. WHY? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT REAL. END OF STORY. SORRY. IT'S FAKE!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That has been refuted. Again:

"This argument is self-refuting. The creationist argument is that the Christian God created the beasts, and that the characteristics of these beasts were specifically created by him. If the pre-flood world was tropical, then that would preclude the existence of species which require a specific type of weather to survive. Not only that, but even among those species that would still be able to survive the tropical climate, the different adaptations they would have would be rendered meaningless, and sub-optimal. There would be absolutely no need for thick fur, blubber, and the like. Thus, this argument refutes biblical creationism. You simply cannot have a world-wide tropical climate while also preserving all the species on Earth, and the facade that these species were created by an intelligent being.

As for the various “examples” you cite, you will have to provide evidence. There are countless (that is an understatement) examples of faulty creationists claims and just plain bold faced lies when it comes to “findings”. I'll provide you with some examples: http:// www.talkor (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/ce/ 3/part3.ht ml) igins.org/ faqs/ce/3/part3.html http:// www.talkor (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/ce/ 3/part4.ht ml) igins.org/ faqs/ce/3/part4.html

Even then, even if what you say was found is true, that still proves nothing. Not only were Earth's land masses distributed differently, but the successive melting and freezing of glaciers, coupled with their movements, can produce similar results."

-- htt p://www.to tse.com/bb s/Forum15/HTML/005056-3.html (http: //www.tots e.com/bbs/ Forum15/HT ML/005056- 3.html)



You forget that certain animals did not necessarily have to exist in the antediluvian world. For instance, a chihuahua didn't exist in the antediluvian, that's a product of breeding that came way later. In the beginning there were likely only one form of canine, maybe three at the most. Same thing could apply to any animal from any taxonomy. That's why people think that Noah had more animals on the ark than necessary. That isn't necessarily the case. So animals that seem geared toward cold weather means very little, when I've seen Mammoth bones at the bottom of a lake in Florida. Aside from that, it doesn't matter what you or talkorigins tries to rationalize, when the fact of the matter is that the evidence points to a warm, lush earth that spans from Pole to Pole.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

You forget that certain animals did not necessarily have to exist in the antediluvian world. For instance, a chihuahua didn't exist in the antediluvian, that's a product of breeding that came way later. In the beginning there were likely only one form of canine, maybe three at the most. Same thing could apply to any animal from any taxonomy.

All dogs are from the same species, which allows you to make the claim that there were only one set of dogs in the beginning which led to other dogs, which would be within the same species. You, however, cannot begin to claim that of other species which survive only in cold climates. You'd have to show how on set of a particular species which can survive tropical climates led to other organism of the same species, that need cold climates to survive. In other words, you'd have to show, without the use of speciation, how a set of organism which can survive optimally in a given climate, evolved to not survive in that climate at all. Until you do, your argument is both self-refuting and baseless.

quote: So animals that seem geared toward cold weather means very little, when I've seen Mammoth bones at the bottom of a lake in Florida.

They mean a whole lot. If we see adaptations which are optimal for cold climates, but sub-optimal for tropical ones, it would completely refute the idea of an intelligent designer/creator.

quote:

Aside from that, it doesn't matter what you or talkorigins tries to rationalize, when the fact of the matter is that the evidence points to a warm, lush earth that spans from Pole to Pole.



It does? Then please, by all means. Provide the evidence.

'You said that the evidence supports a higly oxiginated, worldwide tropical climate, and the claim that the earth is young. You made a very bold statement, and now its time to lay the cards on the table. I call bluff.'

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

wow you really have to want to believe it before it makes any sense.

All dogs are from the same species, which allows you to make the claim that there were only one set of dogs in the beginning which led to other dogs, which would be within the same species. You, however, cannot begin to claim that of other species which survive only in cold climates. You'd have to show how on set of a particular species which can survive tropical climates led to other organism of the same species, that need cold climates to survive. In other words, you'd have to show, without the use of speciation, how a set of organism which can survive optimally in a given climate, evolved to not survive in that climate at all. Until you do, your argument is both self-refuting and baseless.

I already gave you examples. You assumed that every specie that is here right now, was there in the days of Noah... But there was no such thing as a Chihuahua in Noah's day, only the progenitor of canines. Aside from that, an animal such as a Polar Bear is optimal in cold weather, but it can survive in warm weather, and does so in zoos all over the world. Furthermore, all there was needed to be was one kind of Ursine. Meaning, its concievable that Polar Bears came after, when different climates arose on earth.

They mean a whole lot. If we see adaptations which are optimal for cold climates, but sub-optimal for tropical ones, it would completely refute the idea of an intelligent designer/creator.

How so? Are you presumming to know the mind of the Creator? The fact is, the entire world was tropical, or at least, sub-tropical at one time. You keep glancing over that and throwing in an assine argument instead of asking yuorself why the earth was tropical.

It does? Then please, by all means. Provide the evidence.

I did. How can you explain that tropical plants are found in Polar regions if it wasn't tropical? Aside from that, how could cold-blooded animals survive in these regions if it weren't true? A common place T-Rex has been found is in Montana, a very cold place in the Fall and Winter months. Obviously, it was much warmer at one time.

'You said that the evidence supports a higly oxiginated, worldwide tropical climate, and the claim that the earth is young. You made a very bold statement, and now its time to lay the cards on the table. I call bluff.'

I already gave you several instances which you already commented on, but gave no real response to.

Hyro: Just out of curiousity are Whales and Dolphins part of the same kind? Would you include Wolves and Hyenas with the Dog kind?

In otherwords exactly what criteria are you using for these smaller groups?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I already gave you examples. You assumed that every specie that is here right now, was there in the days of Noah... But there was no such thing as a Chihuahua in Noah's day, only the progenitor of canines. Aside from that, an animal such as a Polar Bear is optimal in cold weather, but it can survive in warm weather, and does so in zoos all over the world. Furthermore, all there was needed to be was one kind of Ursine. Meaning, its concievable that Polar Bears came after, when different climates arose on earth.



No, you gave an example that is meaningless. Meaningless because we already explain the evolution of dogs by other means, and because dogs can survive in cold and tropical climates. Moreover, even if we consider it valid, that would be one instance. One instance for which evolution already has an explanation for.

For your argument to be at all substantiated, you must show how all the organisms alive today which cannot live in tropical climates (or at least a substantial amount of them), evolved to that point from being able to live optimally in tropical climates; all of that, without using speciation (i.e. without arriving at the conclusion that the organism changed species).

Until you do so, your claim remains baseless and self-refuting.

quote:

How so? Are you presumming to know the mind of the Creator? The fact is, the entire world was tropical, or at least, sub-tropical at one time. You keep glancing over that and throwing in an assine argument instead of asking yuorself why the earth was tropical.

I don't need to know the mind of the creator to know that there would be suboptimal adaptations in the tropical climate. The suboptimality of those adaptations refutes the the possibility of an intelligent designer.

Not to mention that to do so would be circular logic. You're claiming that the alleged "intent" we see in design is evidence of a designer, but now want to me use the designer, as evidence of the intelligent intent. You can't do that as it presupposes the intelligent designer exists to begin with... which you haven't shown at all.

quote:

[b]

I did. How can you explain that tropical plants are found in Polar regions if it wasn't tropical? Aside from that, how could cold-blooded animals survive in these regions if it weren't true? A common place T-Rex has been found is in Montana, a very cold place in the Fall and Winter months. Obviously, it was much warmer at one time.

You provided evidence? Then please point it out to me because I simply cannot see it. You making claims does not equal evidence.

Show me the instance of the T-Rext. Show me evidence that the whole earth was tropical, and that the earth is only a few thousand years old. You're making assertions without providing anything to substantiate your claims, and that is not evidence.

quote:



I already gave you several instances which you already commented on, but gave no real response to.

No. You made baseless assertions, and I responded to your baseless assertions. Nowhere do you post proof or evidence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

"In a region of everlasting ice and snow they have been exploring luxuriant tropical forests. Far to the north of the Arctic circle they have been studying a flora consisting of palms, tree ferns, and other plants belonging properly to the neighborhood of the equator.... Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country. That is proved absolutely by the remains of an extensive tropical flora which are found there... Together with the palms and tree ferns, there were trees related to the giant sequoias of our own west coast; also representatives of the "gingko," the sacred tree of Japan and of the Eucalyptus family, which today is restricted to Australia... Another object was to study the marine animals whose contemporaneous remains are associated with these ancient plants. Of these a large number were collected, including mussels, sea-snails, sea-urchins, ammonites and baculites. The ammonites and baculites were cephalopods related to the modern nautilus; no descendants of theirs are living at the present time...They secured seventy species of mollusks, corals, trilobites, etc. The trilobites were especially interesting inasmuch as they were crustaceans of a type long ago extinct, the ancestors of modern lobsters and crabs. Mr. Schuchert dug up several very old graves, which were merely heaps of rocks covered with thin slabs of sandstone. They contained perfectly preserved skeletons... All the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that climates all over the world in that ancient epoch were pretty much the same...There was a uniformity of vegetation in all parts of the earth. Nobody can say just why this was, although several theories have been advanced to account for it. One theory is that the atmosphere in those days was heavily charged with watery vapor, so that warmth was readily distributed through it, and the sun's rays did no have a chance to strike the earth uninterrupted, making differences in climate by the degree of their slant. In the course of time the atmosphere thinned gradually, and then there can to be climatic variations marking a series of zones around the globe."

http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/losttribes/Jan131897Boston.htm

Once again, my sources are secular in nature, so that the evidence is always presented in an unbiased view, unlike every single one of yours which sets up your theory as absolute.

quote:Once again, my sources are secular in nature, so that the evidence is always presented in an unbiased view, unlike every single one of yours which sets up your theory as absolute.

AHAHAHAHA, say it again, say it again. HAHAHAHA.

Sorry, that added nothing to this thread but just had to be said.

To add sometime I would agree the earth has been more tropical in the past, as well as much colder. The land masses have also moved around. What this has to do with Noah or his flood I don't know (besides a bit of talk about Carl's unsubstantiated Canopy theory which is not only laughable but ignored by the majority of the creationist community).

yes, there is global climate change and yes, the continents do move around on a geological time scale. all of this is accounted for in current scientific theories. trying to twist the facts around to support the biblical flood, which is in many religious texts that are not christian at all, is asinine.

not to mention to support this ultra-evolution after the flood that is impossible according to current scientific theories (the ultra-evolution) contradicts the creationist argument against speciation.

Hyro:

1. That's not evidence of anything.

I asked for evidence that the earth is young, that the atmosphere was "richly oxiginated" and that the whole Earth was tropical.

That link does not do any of those, so I suggest you try again.

2. You did not deal with my other points. If the whole Earth was tropical then the adaptations for living in cold climates that we see in species would have been suboptimal, and even life threathening, in a tropical climate.

Either deal with that or admit that it is evidence against an intelligent designer.

Alfred Wegener provided much evidence in support of continental drift. In fact, my Geology professor gave a 2 hour lecture on the topic of continental drift and the evidence in support of it. If someone would like me to provided a basic outline of the evidence out there, I'd be more than happy to.

Oh, and this same Geology professor will be lecturing for 2 hours regarding the age of the Earth this week :-D

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 03-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Once again, my sources are secular in nature, so that the evidence is always presented in an unbiased view, unlike every single one of yours which sets up your theory as absolute.

AHAHAHAHA, say it again, say it again. HAHAHAHA.

Sorry, that added nothing to this thread but just had to be said.

To add sometime I would agree the earth has been more tropical in the past, as well as much colder. The land masses have also moved around. What this has to do with Noah or his flood I don't know (besides a bit of talk about Carl's unsubstantiated Canopy theory which is not only laughable but ignored by the majority of the creationist community).

Why is it laughable? Its theoretical. I, nor anyone that I know, asserts that its 100% true. The point is, all the physical evidence points to the earth being very warm and lush. As well, some amber, which is fossilized tree resin, have been discovered. When the resin hardened it left pockets of air, trapping it. When extracted the percentage of oxygen was higher than what is currently found on earth. Currently, the oxygen level is at about 21%. If it dips to about 17%, we die. If it is as high about 40%, a spark might ignite the entire planet on fire. Nonethless, we know that more oxygen does wonders for aging, as well as allowing for plants, and possibly organisms to grow very large. Does that neccesarily mean that the earth was more highly oxygenated? No, it doesn't. But its just one more piece of circumstantial evidence to build a case. But lets not detract. The point is, there is much evidence that earth was a whole lot warmer than it is now, which obviosly would allow for exothermic reptiles to survive. So now evolutionists and creationists alike are interested in why that is.

I asked for evidence that the earth is young, that the atmosphere was "richly oxiginated" and that the whole Earth was tropical.

Its called an inference, and inferences based on evidence aren't baseless. If the extreme southern and northern poles were tropical, then what would possess you to think that the whole earth wasn't tropical when the other land masses are even closer to the equator? Think about it.

2. You did not deal with my other points. If the whole Earth was tropical then the adaptations for living in cold climates that we see in species would have been suboptimal, and even life threathening, in a tropical climate.

I understand what you're saying, but I think your point is moot. It happened. The evidence suggests that the earth was a lot warmer. Now, you can make whatever inference you want as to what naturalistic mechanisms caused that, but nonetheless, it happened. So what are you arguing about? For as much as I could say this corroborates the Biblical accouint, you could just as easily give naturalistic reasons for this occurance. So, I'm a little confused as to why you are even arguing about that.

Either deal with that or admit that it is evidence against an intelligent designer.[/QUOTE]

Your conjecture means nothing because you're attempting to assign God's logic. That's completely circular and unfounded.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Its called an inference, and inferences based on evidence aren't baseless. If the extreme southern and northern poles were tropical, then what would possess you to think that the whole earth wasn't tropical when the other land masses are even closer to the equator? Think about it.

What your article shows is that the Earth was once more tropical than it is now; which is a non-issue because I know that the earth was once more tropical - the earth has gone trhough various climate changes and that's not what you're trying to prove. Anything else besides what exactly the article says is merely an assumption on your part, and since you provided no evidence to show that assumption is true, it remains baseless.

quote:

I understand what you're saying, but I think your point is moot. It happened. The evidence suggests that the earth was a lot warmer. Now, you can make whatever inference you want as to what naturalistic mechanisms caused that, but nonetheless, it happened. So what are you arguing about? For as much as I could say this corroborates the Biblical accouint, you could just as easily give naturalistic reasons for this occurance. So, I'm a little confused as to why you are even arguing about that.

I'm arguing that it disproves an intelligent design and the fact that you keep avoiding the issue shows to me that you understand it, yet are unwilling to accept it.

You argument is self-refuting if a tropical climate renders organisms suboptimal. If you cannot refute this, then it remains self-refuting.

quote:

Your conjecture means nothing because you're attempting to assign God's logic. That's completely circular and unfounded.



Wrong, its neither of those things. To expect an allegedly intelligent being to act intelligently is neither circular nor unfounded - it's a necessity. The fact that his supposed creations would be suboptimal would render your assertion that species were intelligently created, null and void.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-20-2006).]

I know that the earth was once more tropical - the earth has gone trhough various climate changes and that's not what you're trying to prove.

You asked me to prove to you that the earth was more warm and lush because you didn't believe it... And I showed that. Then, because I proved you wrong, you decided to change your tune to conform with partiality. You then said, "I said prove the whole world was warmer." And now, you are again changing your tune by agreeing that the earth was more lush, which was the only point, and I even said that we were getting off track. I brought the topic back to evidence of a warmer enviornment. So now that you have finally conceded I will just leave that one alone.

I'm arguing that it disproves an intelligent design and the fact that you keep avoiding the issue shows to me that you understand it, yet are unwilling to accept it.

I never even mentioned that... You brought it up and decided to play God and assign His thoughts, which is completely erroneous to the immediate premise of the earth being warm or not.

Wrong, its neither of those things. To expect an allegedly intelligent being to act intelligently is neither circular nor unfounded - it's a necessity. The fact that his supposed creations would be suboptimal would render your assertion that species were intelligently created, null and void.

Rust, the earth was warmer at one time, and animals that appear adapted to cold weather have been found in warm climates, such as Florida. So, once again, your point is moot. Furthermore, you attempting to assign God's rationale is circular because you are making assumptions about the Creator. I've heard a similar ridiculous argument using human logic that if there is an intelligent designer, He should have made testicles on the inside because all other human organs are on the inside.... What? First of all, there is a reason why testicles are situated where they are. Sperm cannot survive if its too hot, they don't produce correctly, and its the same if they are too cold. That's why on a hot day, (a little graphic) they hang low, away from the body and when its cold, they restrict to gather body heat... If anything, that shows intent that nature alone cannot account for.

Anyway, gotta go to work now.

p.s. God rules and you're subpar... But He loves you anyway.



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



You asked me to prove to you that the earth was more warm and lush because you didn't believe it... And I showed that. Then, because I proved you wrong, you decided to change your tune to conform with partiality. You then said, "I said prove the whole world was warmer." And now, you are again changing your tune by agreeing that the earth was more lush, which was the only point, and I even said that we were getting off track. I brought the topic back to evidence of a warmer enviornment. So now that you have finally conceded I will just leave that one alone.

I never said that it wasn't partially warm before, that is a bold face lie. I know that it was, I was contesting your assertion that it was completely tropical before. That's what I question. Anything else is a fabrication on your part. The fact remains that you've provided absolutely nothing to show that.

Hell, it's not even about the world being completely tropical; I couldn't care less if it is as that neither refutes evolution, nor supports biblical creationism. I want you prove that it was both completely tropical and that the age of the earth is that of 6,000 - 12,000 years (or whatever you claim it to be). I simply want you to start somewhere; you sadly haven't.

quote:

I never even mentioned that... You brought it up and decided to play God and assign His thoughts, which is completely erroneous to the immediate premise of the earth being warm or not.

I know you didn't mention that, because you are willing to ignore instances where your assertions refute your own position. I brought up the fact that your scenario results in suboptimal and even fatal adaptations which in turn refutes an intelligent designer, and now I want you to justify your position. Again, until you do, your argument is self-refuting.

quote:

Rust, the earth was warmer at one time, and animals that appear adapted to cold weather have been found in warm climates, such as Florida. So, once again, your point is moot. Furthermore, you attempting to assign God's rationale is circular because you are making assumptions about the Creator.



My point is nothing close to moot; you're merely avoiding it.

1. That animals in with adaptations for cold environments have been found in warmer climates does not refute the theory of evolution. It refutes intelligent design as those adaptations would prove to be suboptimal and even fatal to those organisms.

2. You're the one using circular logic.

You're using intelligence allegedly seen on earth to prove that an intelligent being designed/created those things, yet when the "intelligence" of the adaptations is questioned, you then use the existence of the very god you were trying to prove in order to say that those adaptations are intelligent. That's the very definition of circular logic.

3. I can call those adaptations unintelligent if they are suboptimal and even fatal, which they would be.

If I cannot do so because I would be "assigning god's rationale", then you cannot call them intelligent to begin with because you would be "assigning god's rationale" as well.

Either we can both decide whether something is intelligent or unintelligent based on human understanding, or we cannot. On one hand, your argument is refuted, on the other, your argument is rendered utterly worthless. Which one is it?

quote:

I've heard a similar ridiculous argument using human logic that if there is an intelligent designer, He should have made testicles on the inside because all other human organs are on the inside.... What? First of all, there is a reason why testicles are situated where they are. Sperm cannot survive if its too hot, they don't produce correctly, and its the same if they are too cold. That's why on a hot day, (a little graphic) they hang low, away from the body and when its cold, they restrict to gather body heat... If anything, that shows intent that nature alone cannot account for.

Strawman. Stick with trying to refute what I have said, not what others not involved in this conversation have.

quote:

p.s. God rules and you're subpar... But He loves you anyway.



I am subpar! Thank you. That's exactly what makes your claims so ridiculous. I'm glad you finally understand how suboptimality refutes an intelligence designer.

P.S. Should I make a cute-quip about "theists consulting their handbooks and resulting to insults"? It sounds like something a particular someone around here would do, if he would have been insulted...



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If everything evolved from those single-celled organisms, then there had to have been more genetic info already there... evolution does not increase info, it makes it more specific.





Not true, single-celled organisms are really basic. But there is a thing called endophagocytosis that occurs that allows genetic variation without reproducing. Its pretty much how mitochondria have come about. Its what modern biologist use to multiply DNA codons by using phages(viruses) and bacteria. Its when one larger cells engulfs a smaller cell and they both create an endosymbiotic relationship. Its the technique that pretty much started the insulin industry for all you diabetics.

better flood question: how big of a dick did noah have to be to not tell any of his friends that a flood was coming? seriously, he's building this huge boat and of course everyone is going to notice. Its huge! Of course they're going to come over to where he's at and ask what the big boat is for. his own neighbors and friends. what did he reply back? "nothing, just bored. just felt like building a boat" ? noah has got to be the biggest asshole in the bible.

the first thing he does when he gets back on dry land... makes a whole bunch of wine to get drunk off of. not only is he an asshole, he's an alcoholic.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

"Once again, my sources are secular in nature, so that the evidence is always presented in an unbiased view, unlike every single one of yours which sets up your theory as absolute.

Unbiased? You added your own bias by conveniently leaving out parts of the article that don't agree with your views of a young earth.

From your site:

quote:"In a region of everlasting ice and snow they have been exploring luxuriant tropical forests. Far to the north of the Arctic circle they have been studying a flora consisting of palms, tree ferns, and other plants belonging properly to the neighborhood of the equator....

The next sentence:

These forests, however, and the trees and varied forms of plant life which compose them are exceedingly ancient. In fact, they disappeared from the face of the earth several millions of years ago, and only their fossil remains are found buried in the strata of the rocks….



I suppose you didn't read the next passage very carefully, as it lends creedence to the theory of evolution:



quote:... They secured seventy species of mollusks, corals, trilobites, etc. The trilobites were especially interesting inasmuch as they were crustaceans of a type long ago extinct, the ancestors of modern lobsters and crabs...

followed by:

The finding of the oldest hard-wood plant yet known in the world was perhaps the most interesting discovery of the expedition. It was a species of poplar, and the tree grew during the epoch already described, when Greenland was covered with tropical forests. This was in the early part of that age which geologists call the cretaceous--that is to say, not less in all probability than 5,000,000 years ago

I never said that it wasn't partially warm before, that is a bold face lie. I know that it was, I was contesting your assertion that it was completely tropical before. That's what I question.

Why don't you show how its impossible that the earth was warmer at one time? You said, "Oh really, then by all means, prove it!" And I did. If the two extremes have flora that are tropical, then what should stop the rest of the planet?

I know you didn't mention that, because you are willing to ignore instances where your assertions refute your own position. I brought up the fact that your scenario results in suboptimal and even fatal adaptations which in turn refutes an intelligent designer, and now I want you to justify your position. Again, until you do, your argument is self-refuting.

Rust, you just don't get it do you? It happened... And I already stated that an animal such as a Polar bear didn't even have to exist in the antediluvian world, just one type of Ursine. You are assuming that Polar bears existed when the earth was warmer, which interestingly, goes against the theory of evolution. Why? Because an evolutionist stance would be that when this tropical world existed was during the reign of dinosaurs, and no mammals existed back then. So, its you refuting yourself.

You're using intelligence allegedly seen on earth to prove that an intelligent being designed/created those things, yet when the "intelligence" of the adaptations is questioned, you then use the existence of the very god you were trying to prove in order to say that those adaptations are intelligent. That's the very definition of circular logic.

No, you are defining what God should be doing... I've already explained how animals existed in warmer climates, and obviously did just fine. This goes against your theory, not mine. It completely nullifies your argument.

Either we can both decide whether something is intelligent or unintelligent based on human understanding, or we cannot. On one hand, your argument is refuted, on the other, your argument is rendered utterly worthless. Which one is it?

We can decide whatever we want according to your relativistic thinking... You've expressed aversions towards absolutes, so what then gives the right to question me on what is logical and what is not? You have to abandon one of your rationales because they contradict one another.

I am subpar! Thank you. That's exactly what makes your claims so ridiculous. I'm glad you finally understand how suboptimality refutes an intelligence designer.

P.S. Should I make a cute-quip about "theists consulting their handbooks and resulting to insults"? It sounds like something a particular someone around here would do, if he would have been insulted...

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I won't do it again.

Unbiased? You added your own bias by conveniently leaving out parts of the article that don't agree with your views of a young earth.

Truck, I posted from a pro-evolutionist site to show that I'm not using "creationist lies." Of course they won't agree that the earth is young, which is an estimate on their part. You're conveniently glancing over the obvious part of the initial argument, which was for me to provide evidence of the earth being warmer. They give millions of years of age to go along with a preconcieved notion in their mind. What's important to note is the hard evidence that was discovered, which Rust was arguing against.

I wasn't ignoring the point you were making. I have no problem accepting the evidence of a tropical earth. There is much evidence to support the earth passing through several cycles of global warming/ice age.

I do have a problem with the picking and choosing of bits and pieces of evidence to support your beliefs while ignoring valid evidence that contradicts your position.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I wasn't ignoring the point you were making. I have no problem accepting the evidence of a tropical earth. There is much evidence to support the earth passing through several cycles of global warming/ice age.

I do have a problem with the picking and choosing of bits and pieces of evidence to support your beliefs while ignoring valid evidence that contradicts your position.



Truck, the point, the only point, was that Rust was arguing with me on whether or not the earth was much warmer. I provided that evidence. If you go back and read the dialogue I used a secular source to show that it wasn't some made up fantasy of creationists, which you know would have been questioned had used one. I know they think the earth millions of years old. I wasn't contending with that point. All I was doing was showing Rust that the earth was much warmer... Now that I've done so, everyone seems to be coming out of the woodwork and saying, "Oh yeah, I already knew that the earth was warmer at one time... Pshhh... Duh..."

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Hyro: Just out of curiousity are Whales and Dolphins part of the same kind? Would you include Wolves and Hyenas with the Dog kind?

In otherwords exactly what criteria are you using for these smaller groups?

I thought I would bump this question.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Why don't you show how its impossible that the earth was warmer at one time? You said, "Oh really, then by all means, prove it!" And I did. If the two extremes have flora that are tropical, then what should stop the rest of the planet?

1. Why would I want to show that it is impossible that the earth was warmer? I'm never said that it was impossible, and more importantly, that's not what you're arguing. Stop making strawmen and avoiding the arguments.

2. You didn't prove what I asked you to. You "proved" something else entirely.

quote:

Rust, you just don't get it do you? It happened... And I already stated that an animal such as a Polar bear didn't even have to exist in the antediluvian world, just one type of Ursine. You are assuming that Polar bears existed when the earth was warmer, which interestingly, goes against the theory of evolution. Why? Because an evolutionist stance would be that when this tropical world existed was during the reign of dinosaurs, and no mammals existed back then. So, its you refuting yourself.

1. You can't say that it happened without proving it first, which you haven't. Until you do, your statement are worthless assertions.

2. You giving one or two examples does not support your assertion. I've already covered this. Your assertion does is not supported if you only explain one or two instances of suboptimal adaptations; you need to explain all of them.

3. Whether mammals existed during the era of the dinosaurs (something I never claimed to be true or false - this is an instance of you putting words in my mouth) does not refute evolution at all.

4. I should also mention that your example of bears fails. If you claim that a set of Ursine evolved into the bears we see today, then you have just admitted to macro-evolution.

quote:

No, you are defining what God should be doing... I've already explained how animals existed in warmer climates, and obviously did just fine. This goes against your theory, not mine. It completely nullifies your argument.



1. No. What I'm doing is scrutinizing what you supposedly claim is an intelligent design, and seeing that it wouldn't be intelligent at all. I am supposed to do that because you claim that the designer/creator is intelligent. That's a requirement for you as well, since you can't claim he's intelligent if his creations are not intelligent. As soon as you give him that qualification, then all his actions must be judged to be intelligent, if they are not, then an intelligent designer doesn't exist.

2. You conviniently ignored that you're using circular logic when you use the very god you were trying to prove existed to support the idea that the adaptations were intelligent... which you are using to prove the intelligent god exists! That's circular, and you know it, which is why you ignored my point completely.

quote:

We can decide whatever we want according to your relativistic thinking... You've expressed aversions towards absolutes, so what then gives the right to question me on what is logical and what is not? You have to abandon one of your rationales because they contradict one another.

You're putting words in my mouth. Stop doing so.

If we both can determine whether or not an adaptation is intelligent, then the mere fact that these adaptations would have been suboptimal and fatal in warm climates proves they are not intelligent, and therefore they refute an intelligent designer.

quote:

[b]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I won't do it again.

Don't flatter yourself; I'm merely amusing myself by showing your blatant hypocrisy.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Truck, the point, the only point, was that Rust was arguing with me on whether or not the earth was much warmer.

That's a lie and you know it. I already explained to you very clearly that I was never arguing that the earth was not warmer. I acknowledge that it the earth has gone through many climate changes, and I told you that exactly.

What I was arguing was against your two-fold notion that the earth was young, and that soon-after (if not in the very instance of creation) it was completely tropical.

Please stop conjuring bullshit out of thin air.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Creationism = pseudoscience.

Quoted for truth.

Oh and hey, how about this one: If there is a God, why would he let arguments like this one happen? If you were God, would you not make it obvious to everything that you created that you exist? Yet I have seen no proof of one. Also, if you christians are about to say "that's why he created the bible, to let us know about his glory," then why did he create people who are unable to believe the religion, one way or another. I was born to one of the most religious families you have ever seen. I had the bible read to me at night. I read the bible two times over, cover to cover, when I was twelve, and was unable to believe it, no matter how hard I tried. I wanted to believe it, but it seem too absurd. Why would a just and loving god create me without the ability to believe in his supposed word? Face it, tons of people are born physically, mentally, or geographically unable to obtain christian literature or knowledge. Are you saying that these people were created by god, yet since they do not believe in him, they are damned to hell? Why would a just and loving god create a creature, judge it before it is even born, and place it on earth only to be damned to hell?

To all of the non-believers out there, I'm with you, but you might as well stop. Until we prove that the earth is millions of years old, the creationists won't shut the hell up. Even then, they'll make up some more bullshit like saying it's an ungodly science or that god purposefully made it appear like that to spite atheists or some bullshit.

Oh, and for the million of years old thing, we've already done that with things like astronomy and carbon dating, but christians shot that down calling them ungodly sciences or inaccurate. But if a christian gets thyroid cancer and needs to have radioactive iodine treatments, thank god humans created the technology and thank god for creating the iodine, eh?

www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com)

Ah, the creationist version of the white flag.

AiG are liars (or they are too stupid to understand what they are doing, your choice) who don't practice science,

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

In other words they will ignore (even lie about) evidence if it doesn't match their preconcieved conclusion. Quality work there.

Come on all you Christians, don't put some biased link and expect us to believe you. YOU have the burden of proof. ENLIGHTEN ME. PROVE to me, right here, right now, that what you say is true. Answer my question directly: why would a just and loving god create people who are mentally retarded, born deaf and blind, are completely unable to have faith in your religion even if they want to, or born in secluded areas where access to christianity is impossible, or any situation where someone cannot, in the end, believe in your religion,

only to damn them to hell when they have done nothing?

Answer the question. If I read a book about something my whole life, I would hope I would be able to answer a simple question. If you are true Christians and Christianity is true and the Bible is the word of your God, this task should be nothing.

If you cannot answer the question, maybe you will turn to your bible. After all: Theology, sir, is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small." -Reverend Hale, The Crucible, page 67.

[This message has been edited by ChaosSlayer (edited 03-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Truck, the point, the only point, was that Rust was arguing with me on whether or not the earth was much warmer. I provided that evidence. If you go back and read the dialogue I used a secular source to show that it wasn't some made up fantasy of creationists, which you know would have been questioned had used one. I know they think the earth millions of years old. I wasn't contending with that point. All I was doing was showing Rust that the earth was much warmer... Now that I've done so, everyone seems to be coming out of the woodwork and saying, "Oh yeah, I already knew that the earth was warmer at one time... Pshhh... Duh..."





Sorry hyro, but none of this is big news.

Global warming/cooling is not a newly discovered phenomena.I recall the subject being discussed in my high school science class more than thirty years ago.To be honest, I cannot recall specific details. Too many years ago. But I do remember the discussion taking place.

Thanks to the oil industry core samples, the existance of the plant fossils in the Arctic and Antarctic has been known about for decades.

By the way ,the subject of a young earth has been a large part of this thread. Although you haven't posted comments related to young earth creation in this particular thread, anyone who frequents this forum knows your stance on the issue. Rust questioned you on three occasions in this thread about evidence for a young earth. Therefor there is at least has the appearance that you purposely omitted the parts of the article that disagree with YEC.

I know this Is kind a off topic but I Have a couple of questions.

1: Did “God” Create the universe and the stars at the same time that he created earth?

2:How is it possible that Noah disturbed all the animals around the world.?

3:Why are “God” never specific in his prophetions?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Originally posted by Beta69:

Hyro: Just out of curiousity are Whales and Dolphins part of the same kind? Would you include Wolves and Hyenas with the Dog kind?

Well, it is a bit ambiguous as to what a 'kind' really is. I suppose one could group whales and dolphins together through taxonomy. They share the same Kingdom, Phylum, Class, and Order. But they differ from the rest of the taxonomy.

But a Hyena isn't in the canine family at all. Hyena's are really interesting because they have their own Family. As far as its 'kind' would go, I would assume that its the most related to either the mongoose family or the feline family, as strange as that seems. They appear more dog-like than anything else, but they actually have nothing to do with canines.

In otherwords exactly what criteria are you using for these smaller groups?

I'm not sure what I said previously that lead to this question. I'll have to look for an earlier post to see what you mean. I'll edit the post if I find what you're looking for.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



Sorry hyro, but none of this is big news.

Global warming/cooling is not a newly discovered phenomena.I recall the subject being discussed in my high school science class more than thirty years ago.To be honest, I cannot recall specific details. Too many years ago. But I do remember the discussion taking place.

Thanks to the oil industry core samples, the existance of the plant fossils in the Arctic and Antarctic has been known about for decades.

By the way ,the subject of a young earth has been a large part of this thread. Although you haven't posted comments related to young earth creation in this particular thread, anyone who frequents this forum knows your stance on the issue. Rust questioned you on three occasions in this thread about evidence for a young earth. Therefor there is at least has the appearance that you purposely omitted the parts of the article that disagree with YEC.



I posted an entire section dedicated to the evidence in another thread. We've been over it already many times. They gave a counter argument, I gave a response. And back and forth it went... Now there are four pages worth. I've provided many instances of YEC, so I'm not sure what you mean.

I ommited the parts that were only circumstantial. I said there is direct evidence that the earth was warmer, which was, for the thousandth time, the only premise of that particular argument. Rust said, "Oh really, prove it!" Furthermore, if I was trying to 'hide' that fact, 1. I wouldn't have posted a secular post, and 2. I wouldn't have provided the link at all for everyone to read for themselves, if I was trying to 'hide' it... (I know you didn't say that outright, but you're implying it). All I was showing was the hard evidence... My argument was never with you, it was with Rust who didn't believe it. If you knew that the earth was warmer at one time, that's fantastic... But again, it wasn't directed to you.

Remember, post a response is much different from posting a refutation. The thread went on and on over the same topics because Hyro refused to accept errors or correct them. I still have a list of errors that have been pointed out in that thread but not corrected or acknowledged.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosSlayer:

ENLIGHTEN ME. PROVE to me, right here, right now, that what you say is true. Answer my question directly: why would a just and loving god create people who are mentally retarded, born deaf and blind, are completely unable to have faith in your religion even if they want to, or born in secluded areas where access to christianity is impossible, or any situation where someone cannot, in the end, believe in your religion,

only to damn them to hell when they have done nothing?

Answer the question. If I read a book about something my whole life, I would hope I would be able to answer a simple question. If you are true Christians and Christianity is true and the Bible is the word of your God, this task should be nothing.

If you cannot answer the question, maybe you will turn to your bible. After all: "Theology, sir, is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small." -Reverend Hale, The Crucible, page 67.



No one has answered my question yet. I don't want a link to www.godlovers.com (http://www.godlovers.com) or some other bullshit, just answer the question (if anyone can).

well chaos, i'm not christian, but the answer is that all those negative things you mentioned aren't negative in the long run. so god, in his all-knowing benovolence, passes out what we perceive as 'evil' treatment, but god miracuously turns it into 'good'

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I said there is direct evidence that the earth was warmer, which was, for the thousandth time, the only premise of that particular argument. Rust said, "Oh really, prove it!"





More lies; how fucking pathetic.

1. You didn't just say the earth was warmer. You said the earth was young, it had a very oxygenated atmosphere, and that it was completely tropical. "And|" as in, 'all of them must be substantiated', not 'I'll pick and choose which one to substantiate depending on which one is convinient'

2. I never once questioned that the earth might have been warmer before. In fact, I admitted that it had numerous times. I questioned the argument you gave, which was not that the earth was warmer, but that which was outlined above.

Now please, stop lying and answer what was said.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-23-2006).]

How to explain the races? He took two of every unclean animal. [/racist joke]

Obviously the flood was caused by people cruising around in their SUVs, making global warming melt all the ice, thus raising the sea level :/

quote:Originally posted by ChaosSlayer:

mentally retarded, born deaf and blind, or born in secluded areas where access to christianity is impossible

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

the answer is that all those negative things you mentioned aren't negative in the long run

Oh great, you can be the first to test them, then. Rip out your eyeballs, blow out your eardums, go get a lobotomy, and then go to a very secluded area and see how well you fare.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:



More lies; how fucking pathetic.

1. You didn't just say the earth was warmer. You said the earth was young, it had a very oxygenated atmosphere, and that it was [b]completely tropical. "And|" as in, 'all of them must be substantiated', not 'I'll pick and choose which one to substantiate depending on which one is convinient'

(My post) Aside from that, it doesn't matter what you or talkorigins tries to rationalize, when the fact of the matter is that the evidence points to a warm, lush earth that spans from Pole to Pole.

(Rust's response to this specific question). It does? Then please, by all means. Provide the evidence.

2. I never once questioned that the earth might have been warmer before.

Yes you did. As I have just shown you. You later went back to edit your post, because you knew I had shown it to you.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

(My post) Aside from that, it doesn't matter what you or talkorigins tries to rationalize, when the fact of the matter is that the evidence points to a warm, lush earth that spans from Pole to Pole.

(Rust's response to this specific question). It does? Then please, by all means. Provide the evidence.



And I already explained what I meant by what I said.

I was asking you for evidence (which is in and of itself not a position) and more importantly, as I already cleared up, it was evidence of your argument as a whole, which was more than just that. Your position had with it the claim that the earth was young as well; which is what I wanted answered - both of those claims. So while what I specifically quoted was you just saying that the whole earth was warmer - that's not just what I wanted evidence for. I explained myself already, yet you still deliberately ignored what I said. That's were your dishonesty comes in.

quote:

Yes you did. As I have just shown you. You later went back to edit your post, because you knew I had shown it to you.



1. I asked for evidence. That in and of itself is not a position; neither for nor against something.

More importantly, I explained my position afterwards yet you still saw fit to dishonestly portray what I meant.

2. I did not edit my post because of that at all. If I had, why the fuck would that statement of mine still be there?

You, once again, act dishonestly by accusing me of something you know is not true at all.

wasnt pangaea around the equator? this would certainly lead to warmer temperatures on a global scale, and there are also indications that there was at least 1 if not more then 1 great flood. and dogs whether its a pitbull or a chihuaha they all evolved from wolves and jackals while domesticated by people justlike cats,

quote:Originally posted by 123asdqwe:

wasnt pangaea around the equator? this would certainly lead to warmer temperatures on a global scale, and there are also indications that there was at least 1 if not more then 1 great flood. and dogs whether its a pitbull or a chihuaha they all evolved from wolves and jackals while domesticated by people justlike cats,

Yeah sure.......like 200 million years ago pangaea was around.......doesn't quite fit with the 6000 year old earth now does it?

-1 for young earth theory

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

PS: No, it didn't...rivers cannot BEND rock.

GLOBAL FLOOD (http://tinyurl.com/qv82l)



Everything he says in that video is refuted here, read parts A to P and click links if you must. (http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/)