Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 07:20 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(25-09-2013 12:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. No, but the mountain peaks were lower, under 10,000 feet.

2. Yes, I believe in Pangea.

3. No.

4. "Mt. Ararat" in the text refers to a range, the "mountains of Ararat". The great displacement of sediment during its sudden upthrust has brought many fossils to the plateaus at the base of the Himalayas.

1. Evidence to support your assertion or GTFO.

2. Why do you accept a non-biblical Pangea, but insist that mountains can't be more than 10,000 ft. difference in elevation?

3. Why do you accept a longer timescale for the separation of Pangea, but insist that mountains can't be more than 10,000 ft. difference in elevation?

4. You do realize that if that was true, then the sedimentary would not be layered and should include many different mostly modern animal species all mixed together in a hodgepodge, and not stratified by predictable uniformed layers?

1. There are anomalies in the fossil placement and record that are explained by sudden upheavals like the deposits around the Himalaya range. One of the reasons that are difficulties we haven't yet found the answers for in evolutionary and geological science is the uniformitarian bias IMO. It does the same thing for mDNA and DNA Adam and Eve. Assuming x billion years places mutations every Y years and make them 100,000 years ago and not--don't flame me, please--6,500 years ago.

2. I accept Pangea because it is logical/scientific to do so AND it is biblical to do so.

3. See your question above. You asked if it separated in one year only and not millions of years. I think it was neither.

4. That would seem logical, I agree, except for physical factors we know now like liquifaction that takes place during the earthquakes that would be triggered by the "shaking of the Earth" that accompanied the flood. Mass liquifaction and stratification by animal and plant densities, etc. would be explained as would entire layers of strata that are steeply or somewhat angled to other layers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:22 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(25-09-2013 12:52 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:37 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I haven't claimed ever to be strong in faith. I do claim I'm strong in knowledge, a knowledge that has resulted from exactly what you wrote--either the Bible is 100% true or it's rather useless.

Good thing it's so demonstrably false about so many things then. Thumbsup

So I take it you'll stop defending your god, hell, salvation, vicarious redemption, and needless suffering? Yeah, I didn't think you were that intellectually honest either... Drinking Beverage

You're making a general, sweeping (pissed off) statement about the Bible again. When presented with any Bible challenge, I tend to search the scriptures, logic and science to see what I might discern before consulting outside sources, and then, only rarely.

1. The Bible is like any other document, falsifiable, but has passed the many tests I've brought to it from challenges like those on this forum.

2. The Hell, atonement, suffering, etc. are not falsifiable ideas on an empirical basis since scientism is limited in its tools for metaphysics, feelings, etc. but again, you are making "gut judgments" here IMHO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:26 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(25-09-2013 02:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I apologize if my point wasn't more clear. The idea of an outside entity changing the Earth willfully is biblical and is also possible if not probable in a billions-of-years-old universe with many planets and evolution in many places. The difference is the Bible represents an omniscient being.

I believe Chas saw where I was heading and ducked, and you "covered" for him, too. If we are the products of intelligent design via space seed from an alien race and not the god of the Bible, it would still be logical for us to reach out for the progenitors.

I didn't duck anything. The only one ducking here is you. You bob and weave and shy away from evidence.

The idea that life did not originate on Earth doesn't change the problem. Life originated somewhere, evolution occurs.

There is absolutely no evidence for outside intelligent influence on the history of the Earth.

My allegory wasn't against evolution, rather, supporting it, but demonstrating that atheists are closed-minded to the idea of superior, intelligent life from elsewhere (watch as five atheists say they aren't NOW that this has been going back and forth for two days) doing anything because it undermines their uniformitarian conceits.

As for weaving away from evidence, it is a bit much to ask me to respond to every message every time someone gives bad evidence. You people are so uninformed none of you knew Japan moved eight feet closer to the US in one day recently and that the day's length is 1.8 milliseconds shorter today, for one obvious example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(25-09-2013 02:45 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  I thought that this horse was dead already, besides intelligent design has yet to account for social evolution. If we started off in the same place why aren't we the same as we were. How did we figure out all of these things. If our minds can change to understand and use new concepts why shouldn't bodies do the same thing.

Are you saying thoughts are matter as bodies are matter, rather than based on electricial and chemical energy reactions? Interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(25-09-2013 05:47 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. No, but the mountain peaks were lower, under 10,000 feet.

2. Yes, I believe in Pangea.

3. No.

4. "Mt. Ararat" in the text refers to a range, the "mountains of Ararat". The great displacement of sediment during its sudden upthrust has brought many fossils to the plateaus at the base of the Himalayas.

1- Same as EK, proofs, sources, links to studies?
2/3: All right then. How did for instance the australian kangaroo get to the ark and back to its natural habitat. Also when did continents reach their current positions?
4-Why can we not find one single instance of one single whale, dinosaur or elephant in the same layer as the much smaller and fragile trilobites? Why are they predictably always layered in the same order?

Be compassionate and respectful in your answer if you think it helps it conform with observation.

I bet you can think of ways that kangaroos could have left the ark and then gotten to Australia if you assume my assumptions. Have you tried it?

Liquification and sorting by body type/density in large part could explain the fossil sortation. What isn't explained by uniformitarianism are things like:

Why isn't the Grand Canyon river(s) delta the largest in the world? Where did the miles of cubic earth excavated go to?

Why are entire, multiple layers of strata in the record (including formations at the Grand Canyon) steeply angled to other layers?

How do you account for the physical limitations that shouldn't permit giant geologic plates to abut one another and move in the way geologists credit?

Etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:33 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 07:20 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One of the reasons that are difficulties we haven't yet found the answers for in evolutionary and geological science is the uniformitarian bias IMO. It does the same thing for mDNA and DNA Adam and Eve. Assuming x billion years places mutations every Y years and make them 100,000 years ago and not--don't flame me, please--6,500 years ago.

No one has to "flame" you. You do a great job of that yourself.
Who is this "we" you speak of ?
*As if* you actually were involved in ANYTHING except trying to justify the literal bullshit of an ancient mythological piece of literature. Your Genetics suck donkey dicks, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJokePamphletWriter. Maybe someday you will actually take a science class. That's not how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
But as usual you regurgitate the rote crap you were taught to spout.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 07:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. The Bible is like any other document, falsifiable, but has passed the many tests I've brought to it from challenges like those on this forum.

It will always be a passing grade when you let students score their own tests... Big Grin

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
26-09-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Pleasey likes to talk to himself. He's never once answered satisfactorily even ONE of the questions asked of him here about his Babble. Not. One.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 07:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:20 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One of the reasons that are difficulties we haven't yet found the answers for in evolutionary and geological science is the uniformitarian bias IMO. It does the same thing for mDNA and DNA Adam and Eve. Assuming x billion years places mutations every Y years and make them 100,000 years ago and not--don't flame me, please--6,500 years ago.

No one has to "flame" you. You do a great job of that yourself.
Who is this "we" you speak of ?
*As if* you actually were involved in ANYTHING except trying to justify the literal bullshit of an ancient mythological piece of literature. Your Genetics suck donkey dicks, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJokePamphletWriter. Maybe someday you will actually take a science class. That's not how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
But as usual you regurgitate the rote crap you were taught to spout.

You can start with Eve:

When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans diverged from chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 12,000 years.” Another incorrect approach began by assuming Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years gave another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.* This surprised evolutionists who believe that the first human female lived 6 million years ago.

A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times faster than had been estimated. Without assuming humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 6 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.**

*This widespread (and, I believe, incorrect) belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago should be contrasted with a completely different but highly mathematical analysis. [See Douglas L. T. Rohde et al., “Modelling the Recent Common Ancestry of All Living Humans,” Nature, Vol. 431, 30 September 2004, pp. 562–566.]

These authors believe that our most recent common male and female ancestor lived only a few thousand years ago, but the authors recognize that the many assumptions in their model—especially migration rates and realistic mating patterns—could alter that number by a few thousand years.

Therefore, it seems very unlikely that the mitochondrial Eve could have lived 100,000–200,000 years ago. A similar conclusion can be reached for the genetic Adam.

**“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated [previously] that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Vol. 279, 2 January 1998, p. 29.

“If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites [occurs at a constant rate at all sites], such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.” Laurence Loewe and Siegfried Scherer, “Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 12, 11 November 1997, p. 422.

“Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses [evolution studies]. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an average age of the mtDNA MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of only ~6,500 y.a. [years ago], clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.” Thomas J. Parsons et al., “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 15 April 1997, p. 365.

Evolutionists who understand this new discovery are shocked. They are now trying to explain why measured mutation rates of mtDNA are so fast, but their inferred mutation rates (based on fossil dating and the evolution of man from apelike creatures) are so slow. Perhaps, they say, mutations occur rapidly at only a few points on the mtDNA molecule, but later correct themselves. Therefore, many mutations are counted, but the net change is small. This “hot spot” hypothesis, is basically a “special pleading”—something imagined to solve a problem. Tests have shown the “hot spot” hypothesis to be invalid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 08:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Pleasey likes to talk to himself. He's never once answered satisfactorily even ONE of the questions asked of him here about his Babble. Not. One.

Now you're special pleading. I'm one of the most "popular" writers here and because I constantly do you the service of answering your Bible "attacks" whether or not they come in the form of questions.

I understand the Bible and I will try to show you more love in the future as I confound your speculations. Mazel tov.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: