A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(22-02-2016 09:44 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 09:21 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Like babes in the woods.

Ah, yes. Surrounded by wolves, completely unprotected against the elements, and with a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving until morning.

Startlingly apt analogy, really.

Thanks.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 10:38 AM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(22-02-2016 08:41 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I can't WAIT to see Q weigh in on this....... Popcorn

I have him on ignore, so I won't really know (unless you guys quote him), but I can hazard a guess:

"Baraminology isn't the true or correct interpretation of the Bible. The flood might have happened before (or during?) the ice age, but I'm not going to actually state when I think it was. I'm just going to throw out seeds of doubt in any counterargument without making an argument of my own."

I'm pretty sure that's an accurate combination of three different things I've read from him in the past.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
22-02-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
Quote:Can you imagine the earthquakes the entire planet would have been experiencing during this wild ride?

They'd be about magnitude 10. That has nothing to do with the religious BS, it's the upper limit to how big a quake can be. You can only contain so much stress in rock before it simpy shatters and generates an earthquake.

"Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" is the term that the ICR uses and you have to give them credit for getting at least one word right. Normally, crustal plates move at about the speed that your fingernails grow, but depending on the exact nonsense you feed into the model this moves them anywhere between a fast walk and highway speeds. There's little difference, because at those speeds you don't have tectonic plates. Not for very long. The "Ring of Fire" gets renamed the "Sea of Plasma", the resulting heat boils any water attempting to fall and the Earth glows like a dim star for forty days and forty nights.

Despite all of the obvious and glaring phyical problems with the whole flood myth, it's the theological problem that's always seemed most fatal to me. You have an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-loving god that drowns everything because he gets pissed about his favorite species is being wicked. It says something profound about the limits of omniscience that he was too witless to simply and harmlessly pop the sinners out of existence.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Paleophyte's post
22-02-2016, 04:13 PM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
Why kill all land animals but not the fish?
And why kill animals because humans are bad?
Is this "collateral damage"?
What did the fucking animals do to god to deserve (near) extinction, especially compared to all the fish?
Why not killing all animals, including the fish? At least that would have been more fair regarding the land animals and collateral damage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
22-02-2016, 06:42 PM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(22-02-2016 04:13 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why kill all land animals but not the fish?

Oh don't worry. The marine life gets it in the throat too. The change in salinity and pressure will be nasty and the suspended sediment pretty lethal. The magmatism generated by opening the Atlantic in a mere 150 days produces just a wee bit of hydrothermal activity that cooks the entire lot into the nastiest seafood gumbo ever.

On the bright side, all the nickel, chromium and vanadium should make it very colourful.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
22-02-2016, 07:39 PM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(22-02-2016 04:13 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why kill all land animals but not the fish?
And why kill animals because humans are bad?
Is this "collateral damage"?
What did the fucking animals do to god to deserve (near) extinction, especially compared to all the fish?
Why not killing all animals, including the fish? At least that would have been more fair regarding the land animals and collateral damage.

Just leave the fucking fish out of this Angry

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
22-02-2016, 10:26 PM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(22-02-2016 07:22 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  When did this shift happen? Did it start before or after the waters abated?
Well all you have to know is that "shift happens".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like mordant's post
23-02-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(22-02-2016 07:22 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Anyone who knows anything about the flood myth in Genesis knows that the story is impossible for a huge number of reasons. One of them being that the story gives us the dimensions of the ark. So, given how many animals Noah was told to gather, we can figure out how much volume on average each creature would have. Not only is there not enough space for them to survive until the water abated, they wouldn't have even fit.

This is where baraminology enters in. Baraminology is basically what you get when you take a sixth-grade understanding of evolution and combine it with a literal reading of Genesis and a very rules-lawyery interpretation of its use of the word "kind". Noah had to get two (or seven) of every kind of animal. So, rather than worrying about getting two lions, tigers, lynxes, pumas, panthers, cheetahs, ocelots, and house cats (and a shit-ton of other cats I'm not thinking about off the top of my head), he'd just get to cats and call it a day. Then, after they all get off the ark, the idea is that these cats would then evolve into every other type of "cat kind" we see in the world today, 5,000 years later. Also, given how old the stories in the Bible are, this evolution would have had to occur in less than a thousand years. Seriously.

So, we start with a bastardized version of evolution that flirts with the contentious boundaries of microevolution and macroevolution (there is no difference, except in creationist's heads) that involves hyper-fast speciation, and run into a problem of "how did everything get from Mount Ararat to where it is today?". Enter in a very weird notion of how fast continental drift happened. Basically, we take a sixth-grade understanding of geology and the notion that we used to have one "super continent" (Pangaea) that eventually spread into the seven continents we have today, and assume it happened really fast. I mean, we obviously have a problem if the ark opens up on Mount Ararat, and the world is void of all animal life other than right there. Sure, they could migrate across Asia to Europe and Africa, but how are they getting to the other four continents? I've been told numerous times that the flood caused the shift in the plate tectonics to cause the continental drift, and that everyone just went for a wild ride.

So, here's my question I promised in my thread title: When did this shift happen? Did it start before or after the waters abated?

If it started before, how did anyone get to those other four continents?

If it started after, how was it "caused" by the flood?

Now, I supposed you could weasel your way into the first answer by saying that it started first, but the plates were still close enough that the water between was really shallow. You could also weasel that it started after, but was caused by the waters receding (where did they go?). Either way, the continents couldn't have gone very far by the time the ark emptied, and they would have had to clear over 99% of the total distance after the fact. Can you imagine the earthquakes the entire planet would have been experiencing during this wild ride? This whole thing is incredibly stupid. The stated belief of baraminologists is that:
  • The flood happened, as stated in Genesis.
  • The animals emptied off and started fucking like rabbits (also, the carnivores weren't eating all the other animals, somehow).
  • The animals spread all over Pangaea during this relatively brief period.
  • The current seven continents flew apart at catastrophic speeds, and no one noticed or recorded these centuries long earthquakes!
  • The animals evolved at a rate no one has ever seen!
  • This evolution suddenly fucking stopped, and has since only been observed in controlled populations of gnats and bacteria, but it otherwise just doesn't happen.
Does this really help the creationist sleep better at night?

If someone has reasoned out this out to the extent you have, then the flood would have to be dismissed as a story with no factual basis.

If someone just starts creating excuses for a ridiculous story, then it never ends, they will not care or notice that their apologist excuses are contradictory and defy basic physics and/or contradict a god with omni qualities.

When I showed Q the impossibility of creating a boat that big,(The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark) he simply said god gave Noah the plans, so that's not a problem. Facepalm

Simply deny reality when it becomes inconvenient and invoke god magic.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
23-02-2016, 09:49 AM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(23-02-2016 09:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Simply deny reality when it becomes inconvenient and invoke god magic.

The magic defense is the greatest strength and weakness of flood apologia.

It's great, because it can "answer" any question. It's terrible, because it bets the question "why did Almighty God create the most intricate Rube Goldberg creation has ever seen, using magic to solve all of the impossibilities when he could have just used magic to directly kill all the wicked people?".

You end up with an extremely insane looking god who is "working in mysterious ways". I'm sure these "answers" are thought up just long enough to dismiss criticism and scrutiny, then quickly filed away for future skeptics without any further thought. I mean, who wants to dwell on the reasons Almighty God drowned babies when he could have just turned all the wicked people into pillars of salt of softened their hearts (yes, Romans 9 cuts both ways, bitches)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RobbyPants's post
23-02-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea
(23-02-2016 09:49 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Simply deny reality when it becomes inconvenient and invoke god magic.

The magic defense is the greatest strength and weakness of flood apologia.

It's great, because it can "answer" any question. It's terrible, because it bets the question "why did Almighty God create the most intricate Rube Goldberg creation has ever seen, using magic to solve all of the impossibilities when he could have just used magic to directly kill all the wicked people?".

You end up with an extremely insane looking god who is "working in mysterious ways". I'm sure these "answers" are thought up just long enough to dismiss criticism and scrutiny, then quickly filed away for future skeptics without any further thought. I mean, who wants to dwell on the reasons Almighty God drowned babies when he could have just turned all the wicked people into pillars of salt of softened their hearts (yes, Romans 9 cuts both ways, bitches)?

Haha! GMTA: Rewriting The Story of Noah

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: