... on Flood and Mind, part 2

1) ... on Flood and on Mind, part 1, 2) ... on Flood and Mind, part 2 , Interlude: ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version), 3) ... on Flood and Mind, part 3

video commented on:

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Even ignoring the fact that most plant species don't produce any form of driftwood, there's nowhere for them to take root. When the flood waters would recede the entire planet would have to be a salt plane."

No saltiness involved in Flood.

"You only have two choices with this:

• 1. The water produced is (somehow) exactly the same salinity as sea water and all species of fresh water fish die.
• 2. The water is from underground and is thus fresh and hot, all freshwater and saltwater fish die."

Or a third, the water is both underground and above, fresh and not hot.

Oxygen comes down at least with the rainy part of the water.

Freshwater fish do not die. Saltwater fish were not yet developed into saltwater fish so, like the freshwater fish, they do not die.

The oceans weren't salt water before the flood (paraphrase correct).

"Not possible. Organisms simply can't adapt to an increase in salinity that quickly. Short of magically evolving all fish like Poke'mon, I'm afraid you're out of luck on this point as well."

The flood was 2957 BC. Which is 5000 years ago. MANY generations of fish have succeeded each other while oceans have grown SLOWLY saltier than back then.

The water for the flood was formed from a reaction between gaseous oxygen and hydrogen (paraphrase nearly correct, I did not say "a reaction" as with one single such).

"The reaction between oxygen and hydrogen is called a 'combustion reaction' for a reason child. What you're describing would require the entire planet to explode into a giant, hydrogen fueled fire ball. Fuck the flood, if you're going to set the fucking atmosphere on fire you don't need it."

It is a very quick combustion. Now, I was not suggesting ALL the atmosphere was a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen and ALL of it gave the water in one combustion reaction.

I am saying oxygen was below a certain barrier, hydrogen above it, barrier was temporarily removed and combustion reactions (plural!) very far up gave added water. Since they consumed much oxygen below and much hydrogen above the barrier, there is now a void so that even up there such reactions are no longer very likely.

Kent "Hovand" said that the mountains were lower than they were before the flood, so the water didn't go anywhere the constants are just higher (paraphrase correct except for spelling of Hovind's name).

"Not possible. Even ignoring the fact that it's not physically possible to raise mountains that quickly, continental crust isn't simply "higher" than oceanic crust they're entirely different in composition (with the most obvious trait being the different in density). In other words: it's not possible to raise and lower continents. Side note: it's not because he's a convicted criminal that I don't trust Kent Hovand, it's because he's a professional liar that I don't trust him."

In that case it is evolutionists that you should mistrust and - on this matter - him you should trust.

I do not agree with this alleged impossibility.

I have heard things like mountain ranges forming "where tectonic plates meet".

But supposing you have a point about density and such, that could have become an operative factor due to the new masses of water, and it could have taken the added weight some months to make that operative.

Oxygen lack? Rain water is pretty rich in oxygen. I would say

"You would say wrong."

Even where the rain hits the sea level and the drops unite to the waters below with splashes involving a chance of air getting mixed down in it?

Virus is not living organisms. Neither are prions. And I have never heard of bacteria dying from drowning

"First and foremost: bacteria can, in fact, die from drowning. Even ignoring the anaerobic species that will die on contact with oxygen, the lack of oxygen and increase in salinity of their environment will kill just about everything (their cell membrane would shriven and they'd die)."

If you admit anaerobic bacteria can die from contact with oxygen, you are admitting there is no lack of oxygen as long as it is not supposed to get into organisms needing it from lungs that would be flooded.

Increase of salinity is not an issue as explained earlier.

"It doesn't matter if viruses and prions aren't technically alive, they can still be killed if not given live tissue."

The thing is, they branched off later from the genomes and proteines of live tissue.

Heard of "traces of retrovirus in the genome"? Well, evolutionists say these points in the genome are traces of virus infections (that would have occurred in common ancestors since found in same or correspondinh places), a creationist would rather argue the reverse process, that virus branch off from such places in the genome.

Ever heard of baraminology? Some species are different species but still same kind. Ostriches and either Nandoos or Emus or even both are probably same kind

"You're going to have to use the correct terminology here or otherwise provide a definition, because there's no such thing as a 'kind' of anything in phylogenetics."

Baraminology is the creationist version of taxonomy. There is such a thing as kind in baraminology.

Now, there is even such a thing as kind in ordinary taxonomy, loosely speaking. "Genus" and "kind" are corresponding words in Latin and English and mean roughly the same thing. This does not mean Creationist baraminologists agree on every genus adn never anything either larger or smaller in extent being a created kind. But the genus level is one that does often come into play.

Thousands is overdoing it, as just said, and if he was five hundred years old when the flood came he was old enough to make "environmentally controlled habitats" from his zoological expertise.

"Old enough doesn't translate to smart enough. I'm afraid that the technology simply didn't exist for this kind of undertaking, regardless of the man's age."

You are assuming things about technology available there and you are also assuming things about the needs of organisms for such a venture.

If the issue is animals not eating each other, picking new born or new hatched specimens and aving them grow up together does help (in this case it would probably help if a cow, shegoat or ewe was not a baby). Plus the kind of expertise in zoology which a man old and smart enough would have.

If the issue is temperature and moisture, the wrong conditions do not kill that fast that they die off before getting off the ark. Penguins might have sweated and tigers might have been freezing, but probably they had had time to get acclimatised to conditions around where the ark was being built.

Plus you have no way to tell what kind of technology was available to him.

...you have no way to access what technology he did not have

"We know they were still dumb enough to make giant boats out of wood instead of steel. Pretty safe to say they couldn't have environmentally controlled enclosures or an active volcano on the ship."

Wood is lighter than metal.

Metal is great for braving the waves without breaking, up to a point, but the ark was not braving the waves but floating with them. (This was also covered by the man you just called a professional liar).

Active volcano has already been rejected as a requisite.

...he probably took small, young specimens, meaning things like puppies and kittens get along even if cats and dogs not brought up together usually do not

"Irrelevant. Even ignoring the fact that he obviously couldn't do this for all organisms (with a lot being fully dependent on at least one parent until adulthood) there's still not enough room. Sorry."

Organisms dependent on at least one parent until adulthood can obviously also survive until then thanks to good zoologists and the right number of different milk producing animals already adult.

And "still not enough room" is your fantasy. We do not agree.

"You either have an active volcano on-board or extremophiles are actually Poke'mon in disguise, the choice is yours."

It would obviously take a few generations to adapt - at least probably - to other environments than the usual ones, but adapting to new environments is actually one of the faster aspects of microevolution.

If grizzly bears and polar bears can interbreed - and they can - they are "same created species" and had a common ancestor on board the ark. Since then adapting to arctic conditions in one case or to appalachian conditions in the other has taken less than five thousand years.

The species that thrive in volcanoes are lots simpler than mammals and therefore live shorter and have had lots more generations to develop and adapt in since back then.

"You basically repeated what he said and added your own commentary to it, instead of presenting contrary evidence."

I usually use his evidence and show why it does not mean what he thinks it does.

" And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:12.

That's how the Bible says the flood was delivered to Earth. First off, in order to cover the highest mountain, 8.84 km above sea level, it would take 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water."

You missed two things.

• A) the Bible does not say ALL the water came from rain.
  
  [11] In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: [12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
  
  So water came both from above and below.
  
  (The Douai-Reims like the Vulgate say Noah was 600 years old, but LXX that he was 500 years old).
  
  
• B) I am only repeating a point already made by Hovind (and other creationists) that Mount Everest was not yet in existance or at least not yet anyway near as high before the flood. And I already made the point when answering the question where the water went.

"Now in order to get that water by the means of precipitation, the water vapors will need to be suspended in the air already, however, the change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapor for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide - would have rendered the air unbreathable. That, meaning we would literally drown by breathing."

You are presuming no new water was formed. I already answered that point too, water was being formed through combustion reactions consuming oxygen from below and hydrogen from above, which previously had not been meeting.

And it was formed continuously, so that there never was all that much water vapour dissolved. Never a case of "drowning by breathing".

"If the conditions were right for that much water to be in the atmosphere, Earth would have its atmospheric pressure at nearly 1000 psi (pounds per square inch) instead of the standard 14.7 psi. (Earth would basically become one big pressure cooker.)"

Since I do not think that much water vapour was dissolved, I feel no need for that kind of pressure. But I do think atmosphere was larger and richer in oxygen and in air pressure than now, until part of the oxygen was - at Flood - used up to make water which is now in Oceans.

Twice or four times the pressure would be feasible in my theory of this. 30 or 60 or 100 pounds per square inch. But not in order to have the water vapour suspended the way you figure.

"Also, the amount of water vapor suspended in the air would block off all sunlight, making it impossible for photosynthesis to occur, and yes, killing basically every plant species we have today."

I thought water was transparent and water vapour too. No, even in your hypothesis - which I do not share - about preconditions for the Flood, plants would have thrived.

"Freshwater fish cannot live in saltwater. Period. Yes it will kill every freshwater species on this planet, and there will only be saltwater species today. Water from the depth? Just so you know, there is no water in 'the depth.' The mantle lies below the crust, not water."

There may be no water in the depth NOW, if so it was all used up to make oceans during the Flood.

And Oceans were not at all as salty (at most brackish) and salt was lowered at both rain and deep water additions.

Saltwater fish developed - as answered to the other guy - their saltwater adaption as salinity slowly rose after the flood. It is still rising. Water in Mediterranean is pretty salt, when it evaporates no salt evaporates with it, but when water flows down to it, it brings along a little salt each time. Over years and centuries and so on, not just Mediterranean but even Oceans tend to get salty.

And the fact that Atlantic Ocean is not as salty yet as the Dead Sea means the Earth is not billions of years old.

Back to the Flood, there was no dramatic increase or decrease in salinity and the fish species that are now salt water species developed their salt water adaption as salinity slowly rose.

"Whales breathe air via their blowholes, they aren't saltwater or freshwater species."

Creationist reconstructions of the ark tend these days to include a basin in the middle where a water could meet the air under the roof of the ark. I find it possible that whales and dolphins or common ancestry of both survived there. I find it possible Ichthyosaurs went extinct because Noah considered them same kind as dolphins and did not take them along.

"Don't even go there. Basically everything that comes out of his mouth is nonsense (there are numerous videos debunking basically everything he says on youtube) and yes, the fact that he is in prison does matter."

You mean videos by people such as thunderf00t? VERY short clips of him followed up by more lengthy and coherent (or appearing to be such) debunkings by thunderf00t ... there are also videos where the videos he produced are reproduced and can be heard in full. Instructive stuff that give him credence as long as he stays off the topic of Catholicism and Geocentrism (he is a Protestant and a Heliocentric) ...

" 'muds of the flood' what mud? All of Earth was covered in water wasn't it? Plus if you are talking about mud at the bottom of the ocean at that time, the pressure of 4.5 billion cubic km of water would have distorted the whale to such a great extent that it would not be recognizable at all. It would be indistinguishable from a pile of minerals and oils."

It rains a heavy rain on the soil, you get mud even now. An event like the flood, you get lots of mud. Where sediments including fossils came from. And yes, squishing animals into oil or coals is perhaps more common than burying in a manner giving fossils. But that happened too.

"First of all don't say "want" because yes, you and I "want" oxygen, but in reality we need oxygen just as saltwater species need saltwater. They die in freshwater within an hour or two. And I'm actually glad you brought up adaptation because yes you are absolutely correct, species adapt to their environment to survive. Once you understand this concept of adaptation, biology will make a lot more sense."

I suppose you are not British, any Brit would have recognised "want" as a synonym or euphemism for "need", just as gardeners speak of plants "wanting" much and little water depending on species. When "need" is what is meant.

I am glad we agree on one thing, and then my explanation will make sense to you: a fish that would now die within an hour in freshwater descends from an ancestor back then who lived nearly in freshwater itself. The change over generations is an adaptation to change in salinity in the Oceans.

"Actually, the tallest mountain, Mount Everest (currently 8,848 m above sea level), grows at a rate of 0.1576 inches (about four millimeters) each year. Now take that and multiply by around 4000 years ago, and we get 16000 mm shorter than today."

UNIFORMITARIANISM ! HELLO !

No thanks, mountains rose quicker, continents drifted apart quicker or oceans between them got filled and got their deeps quicker at and just after the Flood.

"The oxygen you and I, and every other living species, breathe is molecular oxygen (O2). The oxygen in water is O, which is never found in nature by itself because oxygen is a diatomic molecule."

I did not say distilled water is rich in oxygen, I said rain water is.

A drop falling down through a vast length of atmoshere does pick up some molecular oxygen, O2. And if not, the splash it makes when hitting the sea level does tend to enrich waters with gasses from the atmosphere, including O2.

I was NOT suggesting anything was breathing the oxygen atoms of water molecules.

"All viral specimens need to spread their DNA to living cells in order to replicate their DNA. (Viral Replication)."

My point is the virus we have arose mainly as break offs from DNA in higher organisms after the flood. Precisly as prions (mad cow disease, you know) as break offs from proteines.

"And believe it or not, bacteria needs oxygen, as do all other organisms, but it can absorb it from dissolved oxygen in water. If the water is not saturated with the right amount of oxygen, the bacteria will drown."

I totally believe you. As is the case for fish. I also believe that during the Flood, at least in places, the right amount of oxygen was dissolved in the water. Right amount for such bacteria as were there both before and after flood, right amount for fish.

"Baraminology? Ever heard of pseudoscience? Because baraminology is categorized under that. It's a pseudoscience made up by creationists. Ostriches and Emus are completely different species. They are in different families, Emus are of the Dromaiidae and Ostrich are of the Struthionidae. The ostrich is also much bigger and have different feather colors than the Emu. Emus are found in Australia while ostrich are found in Africa. They also have different muscle structure, the ostrich can run up to 70 km/h while the Emu can only reach 51 km/h, and an ostrich has two toes while Emus have three toes in a tridactyl arrangement. They are very similar because of their common ancestors."

Wow, you admit the number of toes can vary after a common ancestor.

Well my point is that Struthioformes are pretty certainly one kind (Ostriches in Africa and a subspecies in Ethiopia or Somalia as well as Nandoos in South America) and ... was it Dromaeidae? ... possibly also.

So Nandoos and Ostriches had a common ancestor couple on the ark, I am not sure whether they also are ancestors of Emus or not. But if you have no problem of seeing them as having a common ancestor, why should I have so?

And if you think cats and dogs and dimetrodon have common ancestors as being synapsids, and do not take that for pseudoscience, why should I take baraminology for a pseudoscience?

"Humans didn't even know cells existed until the 1600's."

I am not at all sure 1600's was a first discovery or a rediscovery of cells. I would not like to underestimate expertise of pre-Flood man.

Noah was told to tend to the survival of Beasts such as found on earth and of birds such as found in the airs.

Some of the critters you mentioned could survive for months if not yet hatched.

"Furthermore, even if all the animals were taken as toddlers, there would still not be enough room on the ark. There are currently about 10,000 species of birds in the world."

You are counting SPECIES as classifed by zoologists today. Noah was told about KINDS. And there are far less of those than 10.000, that is for sure.

"And yes, Noah knew nothing of microbiology. It would require a computer microscope, and I am 100% sure that he did not know anything about nanotechnology."

For bacteria, optical microscopes do suffice. And I do not share you 100% assurance about Nano-Technology lacking in his days. I usually agree with Haydock comment, but the following remark is a bit disingenious in my eyes:

"Noe's family, and the birds, would probably occupy the room above, in which was a window all around, of the height of a cubit, without glass or crystal, which were not yet invented, but defended with lattice work of wood, like our dairy rooms. (Haydock)"

"which were not yet invented"? Why?

Borftats

+jbooks888 Thank you for actually responding to me.

"when God commands something to be, it be"

There is no disputing in this statement, because it cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. But I'm not saying that God is an absolute impossibility, because nothing is ever certain. But that does not mean that he exists. I can use your exact argument to defend any other god (replace the word God with Zeus, Odin, Allah, heck I can even replace it with my own name and you won't be able to disprove me). When these unfalsifiable concepts come in, there is simply no way to test it, leaving it out of science.

"Maybe you could also state that scientifically, something cannot come from nothing???"

I would assume that you are speaking of the Big Bang. Well when you have a simple math equation such as 1+-1=0 it is mathematically correct to state that 0=1+-1. The same concept applies to matter and antimatter. With a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter, the two will cancel each other out in a process called annihilation, to make nothing. That being said, the process was reversed from nothing, to a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter. Researchers have been using the KEK particle accelerator to create special particles called B-mesons. Mesons are particles which are made up of one quark, and one antiquark. They’re bound together by the strong nuclear force, and orbit one another, like the Earth and the moon. Because of quantum mechanics, the quark and antiquark can only orbit each other in very specific ways depending on the mass of the particles. A B-meson is a particularly heavy particle, with more than 5 times the mass of a proton, due almost entirely to the mass of the B-quark. And it’s these B-mesons which require the most powerful particle accelerators to generate them. In the KEK accelerator, the researchers were able to create both regular matter B-mesons and anti-B-mesons, and watch how they decayed. They observed how the B-mesons decay as opposed to how the anti-B-mesons decay, and found small differences in these processes. In the first few moments of the Universe, the anti-B-mesons decayed differently than their regular matter counterparts. By the time all the annihilations were complete, there was still enough matter left over to give us all the stars, planets and galaxies we see today.

"You forgot that God is the one who established all the laws of the Universe. They are subject to Him, not the other way around."

Again, this is another unfalsifiable hypothesis. If you are saying that God is outside of the laws of physics (supernatural), then he has no place in science. There will never be "we have to accept it as a mystery" in science. If God is just another "mystery" then that's all he'll ever be.

"Bless you borftats!"

Thank you jbooks888!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Why don't you answer my comments?* I mean, I'm not trying to anger you at all but you seem to just ignore every scientific thing I say, and since, I presume, you do think that you are very scientifically illiterate, why are you shying away from my replies? This was not to be offensive by any means. I would appreciate it if you replied to this and my previous comments. Thanks.

[*I did, but I did not well delimit the ending of my answers to Capybara and the beginning of my answers to Borftats.]

VampiricDarkDragon

+jbooks888 "Blah blah blah. SHOW ME THE PROOF. No one has EVER seen mutations lead to another kind of creature. Most mutations are lethal and destructive."

Actually we have, even by your bible's "definition" of a "kind". In fact you mentioned a passage yourself:

"God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds."

Notice how it states that livestock, such as cattle, sheep, dogs, pigs, chickens, etc... are described as being different kinds than their wild counterparts, such as the aurochs, mouflon, gray wolves, Eurasian wild boars, red junglefowl, etc... As it is well known that we domesticated the former from the latter, we therefor have proof of evolution of one "kind" into another.

Also most mutations are actually benign and go unnoticed (look it up, you've got quite a few compared to your parents). While some can be lethal/destructive, these tend to be weeded out. The beneficial ones also exist, like resistance to disease, and are passed on.

GreedyCapybara7
[I missed this one earlier.]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Let's deal with your stupidity as per usual.

"No saltiness involved in Flood"

As discussed before that's not possible. You can't flood the planet without raising salinity, we've already discussed this asserting otherwise doesn't magically make it true.

"Or a third, the water is both underground and above, fresh and not hot.

Oxygen comes down at least with the rainy part of the water.

Freshwater fish do not die. Saltwater fish were not yet developed into saltwater fish so, like the freshwater fish, they do not die"

No, you can't have both I've already discussed this. You can pick one or the other, do freshwater fish die or salt water fish? Fish aren't Poke'mon you can't have them evolve so dramatically that quickly, sorry.

"The flood was 2957 BC. Which is 5000 years ago. MANY generations of fish have succeeded each other while oceans have grown SLOWLY saltier than back then"

Unless we're talking about Poke'mon I'm simply afraid organisms don't evolve that quickly. Asserting otherwise doesn't magically make it true.

"It is a very quick combustion. Now, I was not suggesting ALL the atmosphere was a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen and ALL of it gave the water in one combustion reaction"

Not possible. In an open system it's not possible to have one section react without having it all react. You can either turn the entire atmosphere into a fire ball of not have the water, pick one.

"I am saying oxygen was below a certain barrier, hydrogen above it, barrier was temporarily removed and combustion reactions (plural!) very far up gave added water. Since they consumed much oxygen below and much hydrogen above the barrier, there is now a void so that even up there such reactions are no longer very likely"

Unfortunately no such barrier exists.

[Paraphrase] "Kent Hovind isn't a liar evolutionists are"

I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories. When the man asserts that Australopithecus is known from a single specimen, asserts that there are six types of evolution and that evolution covers the origin of life, nuclear fusion, the universe and everything he's a liar. No if's, and's, or but's

"But supposing you have a point about density and such, that could have become an operative factor due to the new masses of water, and it could have taken the added weight some months to make that operative"

This doesn't make sense, I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

"If you admit anaerobic bacteria can die from contact with oxygen, you are admitting there is no lack of oxygen as long as it is not supposed to get into organisms needing it from lungs that would be flooded"

I said no such thing, don't misrepresent me. Anaerobic species die on contact with oxygen, I didn't say that was an issue for the flood. Obviously the opposite would be true since such a flood would make oxygen concentrations so incredibly low anaerobic species would thrive in locations where they otherwise would not.

"Increase of salinity is not an issue as explained earlier"

No you didn't "explain earlier" you ignored my explanation and simply asserted that salinity wasn't an issue. Don't lie, you'll make baby Jesus cry.

"The thing is, they branched off later from the genomes and proteines of live tissue.

Heard of "traces of retrovirus in the genome"? Well, evolutionists say these points in the genome are traces of virus infections (that would have occurred in common ancestors since found in same or correspondinh places), a creationist would rather argue the reverse process, that virus branch off from such places in the genome"

Not possible. You may not be aware of this but we can actually track the emergence of certain viruses because they become embedded in gamete cell genomes and are unable to replicate. These form genetic markers and are one of the reasons we know that all eukaryotes have a common ancestor, but even ignoring that there's no doubting that viruses have been around just as long as eukaryotes if not longer. In other words: the creationist may argue what he/she likes they're still demonstrably wrong.

You really don't understand the scope of your stupidity do you? Simply put: asserting that something isn't an issue doesn't make it true, I go through the trouble of explaining things to you, just because you ignore my explanations doesn't give you freedom to make shit up.

Will, "The Truth is hard to believe for some"

+VampiricDarkDragon You're making up things here buddy. It's well established in the field of biology the events at which the taxonomy of one species transitioned into another, exemplified in millions of species including whales.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I know you're just here to flash your junk at everyone and not actually debate or discuss anything, but to clarify, Viruses aren't typically considered living organisms because the definition of living organisms hasn't changed since the 70s. Viruses are generally accepted to be living matter due to the way they behave, evolve, and react to their environment in a partially sentient manner.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Honestly you discredit yourself when discussing a young earth if you seriously think a world consuming flood happened. It is, by definition, intentional ignorance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Borftats, as to ""Why don't you answer my comments? I mean, I'm not trying to anger you at all but you seem to just ignore every scientific thing I say"

I can only ask you to read my comment series again. It started with answering GreedyCapybara7 whose arguments are roughly parallel but not totally coinciding with yours. THEN I went on to answer much of yours, including points perhaps already answered when made by Greedycapybara7.

Read again, come back. With arguments rather than complaints about "no answers" when answers have in fact been given.

VampyricDarkDragon, as to this "Notice how it states that livestock, such as cattle, sheep, dogs, pigs, chickens, etc... are described as being different kinds than their wild counterparts, such as the aurochs, mouflon, gray wolves, Eurasian wild boars, red junglefowl, etc... As it is well known that we domesticated the former from the latter, we therefor have proof of evolution of one "kind" into another."

You misread. If dog and wolf are same origin, they are same kind. BUT a) we do not know whether wild or domestic was first and b) the dog is still a different kind from the cat, and the wolf is still a different kind from the lynx. I e both livestock and wild beasts have different kinds.

Will, I invest my credibility FOR the Flood.

Having more of it, in your eyes, for ANOTHER purpose after ditching the truth, is simply not interesting.

VampiricDarkDragon

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And yet you have no evidence for a global flood that left only mountaintops uncovered outside of a book filled with inaccuracies.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Except that is not what the passage said, it specifically referred to livestock as belonging to their own kinds, not sharing them with their wild counterparts.

"God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
- Genesis 1:25

Would that really surprise you that ancient people might of thought that their god made the domesticated animals? I mean these are the people who claim that god said rabbits chew the cud and other such nonsense which isn't true.

jbooks888

+VampiricDarkDragon Read this and find out why the Bible is not as stupid as you think it is and why you are as stupid as I think you are.

AnswersInGenesis:
Contradictions: Do Rabbits Really “Chew the Cud”?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/02/14/contradictions-do-rabbits-chew-the-cud

VampiricDarkDragon

+jbooks888 Rabbits don't chew the cud. Here is why, which also helps show how stupid you are:

• 1. Rabbits swallow whole their feces. If swallowing feces is the same as regurgitating food, then god did a poor job of explaining it.
  
  
• 2. The same passage mentions the hyrax as also chewing the cud. The hyrax neither chews the cud nor swallows its own fecal matter. Therefore swallowing fecal pellets can't be chewing the cud.
  
  
• 3. The very next passage states that pigs don't chew the cud, yet pigs swallow their own fecal matter in the exact same way as rabbits. If simply swallowing ones own fecal matter was to be considered chewing the cud, then pigs must also do so, and yet the bible states they do not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"no evidence for a global flood"

There are Permian and Jurassic, Cretaceous and Triassic, Palaeocene and Carboniferous and a few more faunas that would not have been preserved to us at all except that through the Flood they were covered with mud very quickly.

Oh ... you suppose they were covered at different times, millions of years apart, do you?

Well, why has one never found a Permian bone bed beneath a Palaeocene one? If the bone beds that survive (excuse pun, bones are dead, of course) happen to be there because they happen not to have been eroded, why would not anywhere two layers of bones from very different eras not have been eroded?

Exception might be in NE Mexico, with first a land fauna (Cretaceous type) covered by mud and waters of Flood and next those waters getting a marine fauna which gets caught in the mud too. Or maybe NW Mexico. And on Isle of Wight exactly one fossil is supposed to be some milions of years older (Bajocian instead of Barremian, or, if you prefer the larger labels, Jurassic instead of Cretaceous) - than all the rest. I have not heard it was actually found below them, nor the opposite that it wasn't.

"that left only mountaintops uncovered"

That did not EVEN leave mountain tops uncovered until it abated ...

"it specifically referred to livestock as belonging to their own kinds, not sharing them with their wild counterparts."

It does not specify it does NOT share any kind between the two categories either. Sorry about your overdoing logic by overinterpreting what it says.

"Would that really surprise you that ancient people might of thought that their god made the domesticated animals?"

I still think that God made the domesticated animals. And that all animals were domesticated in Eden.

The thing is, I do not know if Aurochs is really the oldest form of bovine kind. Even if so, I suspect it went wild when men became less handy with it.

In other words, I do NOT believe your scenario that Aurochs must be oldest because found wild (dingos are wild and descend from domesticated dogs, mustangs are wild and descend from domesticated horses). Even if that were the case, which I do not think, the text would be referring to kinds that were domesticated and kinds that were wild back then. Never mind that some wild might have been domesticated since and some domesticated may have gone wild since.

"rabbits chew the cud and other such nonsense which isn't true"

Rabbits may not chew what they have puked up (current definition of chewing the cud) but they do chew what they have shat (you might grasp that Hebrew might have had a broader definition of chewing the cud).

• "1. Rabbits swallow whole their feces. If swallowing feces is the same as regurgitating food, then god did a poor job of explaining it."

God did not do any job of explaining it, Hebrew and Modern Scientific vocabulary are two different terminologies. All there is to it.

I pass on hyrax. Pig feces are not in same position as rabbit feces, since not pellets, not chewable.

VampiricDarkDragon

+Hans-Georg Lundahl “There are Permian and Jurassic, Cretaceous and Triassic, Palaeocene and Carboniferous and a few more faunas that would not have been preserved to us at all except that through the Flood they were covered with mud very quickly.

Oh ... you suppose they were covered at different times, millions of years apart, do you?

Well, why has one never found a Permian bone bed beneath a Palaeocene one? If the bone beds that survive (excuse pun, bones are dead, of course) happen to be there because they happen not to have been eroded, why would not anywhere two layers of bones from very different eras not have been eroded?”

Yes, because is what the evidence supports. A flood would not have created separate layers with separate fossils without overlap in between them. That is why you never find trilobites and poodles together, giant ground sloths and dimetrodons, or humans and dinosaurs (outside of birds). A sudden flood would have left one layer with everything mixed together. As for bone beds, you seem to have little understanding of how rare it is for fossils to actually form, or that while in some areas erosion has led to the exposure of some fossils, while in other areas sediment is deposited and leads to the formation of layers, the Grand Canyon being an excellent example. Where exactly did you think all the material being eroded away was going? Perhaps you should take a geology class, or at least do a little research into the subject before asking questions that have been answered beforehand.

“That did not EVEN leave mountain tops uncovered until it abated ...”

You do realize that makes things worse, not better right? The changes in atmosphere would kill most life on an ark, as well as the temperature drop. Also the whole loss of all plant life would cause a severe drop in oxygen, a rise in anaerobic species of microbes in places they shouldn’t be, and a whole lot of death of any fish that wasn’t killed by the influx of salt and freshwater.

There is also the little fact that several civilizations, like those of China, the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the Indus Valley civilizations, etc… were all around before and after the supposed flood and made no recordings of it (even though they should have all drowned). And don’t argue flood myths, cause they don’t actually match the one described in the bible and in fact seem to correlate well with stories often told by civilizations that were built along rivers… where floods happen. They also have creation myths, as well as a whole bunch of others, that I know you'll deny.

“It does not specify it does NOT share any kind between the two categories either. Sorry about your overdoing logic by overinterpreting what it says.”

That’s how the passage is written, as well as its translations. You can’t deny that.

“I still think that God made the domesticated animals. And that all animals were domesticated in Eden.”

Then you’re an idiot who knows nothing of the process of domestication and the history we have of it. Just look up the silver fox, which has been domesticated recently.

“The thing is, I do not know if Aurochs is really the oldest form of bovine kind. Even if so, I suspect it went wild when men became less handy with it.

In other words, I do NOT believe your scenario that Aurochs must be oldest because found wild (dingos are wild and descend from domesticated dogs, mustangs are wild and descend from domesticated horses). Even if that were the case, which I do not think, the text would be referring to kinds that were domesticated and kinds that were wild back then. Never mind that some wild might have been domesticated since and some domesticated may have gone wild since.”

Perhaps you should do some actual research instead of making guesses.

"Rabbits may not chew what they have puked up (current definition of chewing the cud) but they do chew what they have shat (you might grasp that Hebrew might have had a broader definition of chewing the cud).”

That still doesn’t match the fact that the hyrax doesn’t eat its own fecal matter but the pig does, but the bibles states the former chews the cud while the latter doesn’t.

“God did not do any job of explaining it, Hebrew and Modern Scientific vocabulary are two different terminologies. All there is to it.”

Then your god lied to them when he said that.

[Lying and using a terminology not meant for zoologist scientists but for people dealing with animals practically are two different things!]

“I pass on hyrax. Pig feces are not in same position as rabbit feces, since not pellets, not chewable.”

Rabbits don’t chew their feces; they swallow them whole because they’re so small. And I seriously doubt you knew anything about pigs eating their own waste until I mentioned it here.

[He was right on that one, I did not.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

seems ground sloths have a history favouring south america and dimetrodon was found in germany or something ....

VampiricDarkDragon

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Never found in the same layer of rock, as you always find dimetrodons in older rock than ground sloths. If you want a better example in the same location, then you never find giant ground sloths with giganotosaurus'.

Will, "The Truth is hard to believe for some"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl There is not enough water on the planet to cover the earth, I'm sorry if that's too hard for you to understand.

101 Reasons Why Noah’s Story Doesn’t Float
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

This article lists EVERY reason why Noah's flood is absolute nonsense, not that you'll care to even open the damn link you sham of a creationist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There is not enough water on the planet to cover the earth"

ALREADY ANSWERED.

I wonder if you, plus two more, have not been copy-pasting from that link.

"as you always find dimetrodons in older rock than ground sloths"

SURE, if you trust the idea you can date fossils [a rock] by ... wait, what was it again? ... the fossils found in it.

Ground sloths favour South America, as do sloths in the trees nowadays. Dimetrodons favour Texas and Germany.

The rocks are considered "older" for reasons other than "younger" lying on top of "older", and most of the time, when it comes to rocks found with fossils in them, not at all for that reason.

Did open ... it bases more than one argument on ignoring ours that earth was simply flatter before the flood meaning less water was needed for the task. Same as with its ignoring our argument that oceans were less salty and our saltwater fish have adapted to saltiness while it rose after the flood. As for cleaning out the litter, I think Woodmorappe has answered the point in a feasabilty study.

It gave ONE argument you have not already covered.

"Ignoring all these factors working against humans surviving the forty days of utter chaos, Noah’s family also lacked a sufficient gene pool to guarantee continuation of our species once the ark landed. Even if we assume that they were successful in surviving against these unprecedented odds, could we have all descended from only eight original members? Genetic markers, such as DNA, are excellent timekeepers to determine the interval back to a common ancestor. Since delving into the subject in sufficient detail would require a book in itself, just understand that it’s possible to observe the deviation of DNA strands by retroactively measuring them to a common strand. This period back to a common ancestor has been determined to be tens of thousands of years, an age remarkably consistent with the ones established for human civilization remains through previously mentioned dating methods. We do not see the five thousand years that our DNA would reveal if all humans descended from the sole survivors of God’s flood."

First of all, I would not be surprised if genetic markers were pretty poor when it came to telling the time at all. But even if changes were pretty constant in rate over all populations, and over time, it would have been very ill calibrated by people saying the present variation can have come from a bottle neck but this must have been earlier. Since it would have been calibrated among other things on misdated stone age genomes.

It [the page] starts off with a very bad equivocation.

Evil EXISTS among men since the flood also, not just before it. But the situation was it CORRUPTING ALL FLESH. If I understand that point correctly, the flesh of innocent people, not yet grown enough to make their own decisions, was oversexualised, overfed, overaccustumed to cruel scenes in entertainment, used to party hypnosis, used to overobedience to teachers and other human and often ungodly authority figures a bit like we see how year 2000 is different from 1900.

THAT has not been a world wide constant since the Flood.

And as for "waters of the deep", it misses the point that there may have been reservoirs (well above poison gasses and back then protecting us from them) which NOW are no longer in the deepths below earth crust but rather in the depths of the Ocean.

A bad case of uniformitarianism superimposed on a non-uniformitarian scenario.

A bad case of ignoring the opponents' points, as well.

And as the page is superinscribed with an "eye of Horus", one may consider it pretty certain it is backed by people also backing Egyptomania versus the Bible, such as most freemasons would be.

Argument from page:

"Regardless of the original amount present, half of isotope A will become isotope B over x length of time, where x depends on the specific properties of the isotope that one wants to measure. After the same x length of time, the present amount will reduce by half again, leaving one-fourth of the original amount of isotope A. The length of time required by the isotope to reduce its concentration by half is referred to as the half-life. We know that this process will continue indefinitely, but we can only take an accurate measurement while a sufficient amount of the original isotope remains. For example, we know that Rubidium-87 decomposes into Strontium-87 over time. To demonstrate the natural phenomenon of radiometric decomposition, we can begin by collecting and measuring a pure sample of Rubidium-87. After a specified period, we can again measure the sample and observe how much has converted to Strontium-87. Now there’s enough information to extrapolate the precise rate at which Rubidium-87 converts to Strontium-87. Many isotopes, such as the one mentioned in our example, have half-lives of several billion years."

In cases of halflives of several billion years, obviously it becomes very unpracticable to verify the half life by that precise method.

And suppose you found a sample with Rb/Sr prpoprtion (ignoring all other substances and) of 1:1, we would only know that the sample was 47 billion years old if we knew that all Strontium 87 originated by decomposition of Rubidium 87. Which we do not know. That is just a guess, convenient for people wanting this to be a "clock" available to "reliably" contradict Biblical chronology.

So, in order to get a half life for Rubidium 87, seeing that half if it is gone in 47 billion years, you obviously get 2*47 billion or 94 billion atoms and check if one year later one of them has become Strontium.

Looking for ONE single atom of Strontium among 94 billion atoms of Rubidium ... a year of making sure NO single atom of Strontium was mong the 94 billion atoms of Rubidium, c'mon ... did you say that the half life has been "measured"? Be real!

[Followed this up in this essay of mine:

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html]

I mentioned Woodmorappe as author of a feasibility study of the ark.

I was right, here is a relevant quote or resumé of argument from his book by Dr Jonathan Sarfati:

"It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour."

How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? by Dr Jonathan D Sarfati [with references to Woodmorappe's book] http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

The sloped floors or slatted cages technique I would not have been able to think of on my own.

Will, "The Truth is hard to believe for some"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl This still doesn't account for the mathematical and scientific impossibilities of the Ark.

[Which he repeats though I had already answered the point.]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you're questioning half-lives, then you need to take a physics class with focus in atomic and quantum mechanics in order to truly understand any of it, but if you'd like an actual explanation as to how half-lives were found, we can direct you to that. To simply make philosophical arguments is childish at best.

[Answered that one on this one as well:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/01/answering-bill-nye-science-guy-on-few.html]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually you didn't because you seem to have retardation when it comes to the reply button. If you answered it, then hit reply like a normal person, otherwise you cannot account for the fact that there simply isn't enough water to literally cover the entire surface of the earth.

You take the bible literally and most Christians consider people like you to be complete and utter idiots.

[As to reply button, when I hit it under my own comment, I have to delete my name, and I did that much when giving continuous comments on some videos, and when I do it under someone else's comment to answer, it no longer indicates the name automatically after a while. Someone called computers "artificial intelligence"?]

VampiricDarkDragon

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And this is why your not a paleontologist or geologist, as you assume there is only one method for dating. Also, if you actually read my comments, you would have noticed that I gave a better example, one of giant ground sloths and giganotosaurus, which both inhabited south america and yet you never mind their fossils together in the same layer.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Several flaws with that theory for waste management on the ark.

• 1. Your sloped floor/slatted cages would require the animals being placed in cages/pens only along the outer walls of the ark, which is not only a waste of space, but one would hope the ark wasn't built with layers, otherwise waste would fall on the other animals.
  
  
• 2. Earthworms don't do well in pure waste. Also they are a poor substitute for the diets of most carnivores.
  
  
• 3. The bedding would become a haven for diseases and such if left unchanged for such long periods of time, which would in turn wipe out plenty of species. Made worse given that all disease-causing microbes and parasites should be on the ark as well.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If there was enough "waters of the deep" to help completely flood the surface of the earth, the heavier portions of the crust would have sunk a long time before that. If your arguing for a magic ice shield known as the firmament holding water in space, then you have the problem of what happens to objects falling from great heights: they produce heat and energy, enough so to kill/destroy just about anything in its path when falling.

[Not true for water which melts and evaporates and thus looses momentum, which thunderf00t ignores, but I was not arguing from Kent Hovind's Ice Shield.]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Corrupting all flesh? Your saying the newborns and the fetuses were so corrupt that your god just had to kill them and send them all to hell? Isn't that going against the idea of free will and instead favoring predestination? And your an idiot when it comes to history. Violence has always been a form of entertainment, just look at the coliseums and such, where men fought each other on foot and in boats, as well as many wild beasts.

You do realize that most of the violence, abortions, hate crimes, etc... are performed by christians here in the USA, as statistics show? Kind of weird if they're supposed to be the godly ones...

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If the earth was flatter as your attempting to justify your beliefs, then how come mountains and valleys are mentioned? How come most of the bible, even the parts before the flood, describe the earth in terms of it appearing as a normal earth we see today, with no implications of it being flat at all (other than its shape, which the bible supports, as well as being unmoving and with the sun rotating around it.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This still doesn't account for the mathematical and scientific impossibilities of the Ark."

It does.

"If you're questioning half-lives, then you need to take a physics class with focus in atomic and quantum mechanics in order to truly understand any of it, but if you'd like an actual explanation as to how half-lives were found, we can direct you to that."

I can actually give one myself.

Problem is, if calibrated on historical objects (wood or mummies from known pharao's grave with supposedly exactly known how long before Christ he reigned), C-14 would be slightly off if the pharao's historical dating was wrong by some centuries. His mummy would anyway have been more than half a halflife old, when it comes to C-14 half lives as given in manuals.

But for "clocks" calibrated on geologically "dated" rocks, the half life would probably be very wrong, since the geological dates we started with are very wrong.

The theory of finding half lives as given on the page you gave would only work for isotopes with very short half lives. Much shorter than C-14.

If you call that philosophical or not as an argument - I do - it is still a good argument.

"you seem to have retardation when it comes to the reply button"

Sorry, but on the Bpi Georges Pompidou, the computers there, when I hit reply to anyone, their name does still not appear. It just posts as a normal comment. Will try on this computer next reply, though (in another town).

[Came up with other explanation, as seen above.]

+Will, "The Truth is hard to believe for some" - ah, it worked here!

If "most Christians" consider people taking the Flood account literally "utter idiots", well, then "most Christians" have ceased either to be or in this aspect to think like Christians are supposed to think.

+VampiricDarkDragon, where did I ever assume "there is only one method of dating"?

I would say that most fossil finds are dated in only one or two ways, but the way that is not geochronological after - other, previously known - fossils belonging supposedly to such and such an age is usually not the same one in each case. In Olduvai where Leakey found a fossil dated 1 or 2 million years old and in Hueyatlaco where what's her name Cynthia NN found artefacts of great perfection dated to 500.000 years ago, the dating method was fission track dating.

Now, fission track dating involves counting fissures in obdisian, then exposing it to radioactivity and heat to make all uranium make fissures. This presupposes that since it was formed the scientist is the first to expose it to these things so as to hasten the fissions whereof fissures are the tracks.

As for gigantosaurus (one obsolete term for behemoth, if it is diplodocus/brontosaurus kind) I think ground sloths might have avoided it.

BBL for rest

... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version)

1) ... on Flood and on Mind, part 1, 2) ... on Flood and Mind, part 2 , Interlude: ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version), 3) ... on Flood and Mind, part 3

video commented on:

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

Editing rationale:

What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting

Or shorter and more schematically:

• 1 A, B, C
• 2 A "1", 2, B "1", 2, C "1", 2
• 3 A "2", 3, B "2", 3, C "2", 3

BECOMES a semifictionalised but snappier dialogue but also one logically inherent in the actual ones:

• A
  • -1
  • -2
  • -3
• B
  • -1
  • -2
  • -3
• C
  • -1
  • -2
  • -3

In this case the actual dialogues are from replies between me and capybara in parts 1 and 2 of the series, so you can compare them, and in part from my last replies to his last reply, which I did not find before editing part 2.

Prologue

GreedyCapybara7

+Hans-Georg Lundahl What the hell are you talking about?

Of course fish, plants, insects and oceanic creatures needed to be housed on the ark.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not according to what the Bible story tells, and I will return to your pretentions.

GreedyCapybara7

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Let's deal with your stupidity one claim at a time again.

"Not according to what the Bible story tells, and I will return to your pretentions"

Yet another thing the Bible got ass backwards.

End of Prologue.

I

GreedyCopybara7

In the event of a global flood with flood waters not receding for a year insects can't stay aloft for all that time (ignoring that not all insects can fly at all) so they'd drown, fresh water fish would die from the sudden rise in salinity, shallow water organisms (i.e. most of the life in our oceans) would die out as their habitat went from coastal environments to open oceans, and everything else in the oceans would die from a sudden lack of oxygen as it diffused throughout the now huge volume of water (ignoring the obvious questions of "where did that water even come from?" and "where did it go?"). More to that, plants drown just like any other terrestrial organism, so they're just as fucked.

Answer divided:

• Hans-Georg Lundahl α
• Hans-Georg Lundahl β
• Hans-Georg Lundahl γ

Hans-Georg Lundahl α

Fleets of driftwood could preserve plant species (though individual plants certainly drowned or were otherwise buried and gave us coal, and insects could survive on those. If a man had tried to survive on those, he would have died or swooned from lack of appropriate food and fallen down into the depth.

GreedyCopybara7

No they can't. Even ignoring the fact that most plant species don't produce any form of driftwood, there's nowhere for them to take root. When the flood waters would recede the entire planet would have to be a salt plane.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No saltiness involved in Flood.

GreedyCapybara7

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Let's deal with your stupidity as per usual.

As discussed before that's not possible. You can't flood the planet without raising salinity, we've already discussed this asserting otherwise doesn't magically make it true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+GreedyCapybara7 I noticed I owed you some replies not yet given.

Except if salinity is still trapped in minerals and only later flows down through rivers into the seas and oceans.

Plus I think someone argued salinity was being catastrophically lowered for salt water fish some while ago.

End of Hans-Georg Lundahl α subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl β

"... fresh water fish would die from the sudden rise in salinity, shallow water organisms (i.e. most of the life in our oceans) would die out as their habitat went from coastal environments to open oceans,"

As to rise of salinity, this supposed ocean water or water from the depth was salty back then. Habitat losses would of course kill off some populations, but not necessarily whole species. We still have whales, though a whale caught in the muds of the flood has been found in Upper Austria in Linz and another one in Nether Austria in Nussdorf, just outside Vienna.

You might wonder where fishes that want salt water lived before the flood if oceans were not salty, I answer they have become saltier since, as to the oceans and the relevant fish have become less adapted to sweet water and more adapted to salt water since.

Answer divided:

• GreedyCopybara7 θ
• GreedyCopybara7 ι

GreedyCopybara7 θ

"As to rise of salinity, this supposed ocean water or water from the depth was salty back then"

Irrelevant. You only have two choices with this:

• 1. The water produced is (somehow) exactly the same salinity as sea water and all species of fresh water fish die.
• 2. The water is from underground and is thus fresh and hot, all freshwater and saltwater fish die.

In either case, all organisms that don't live in open water would die off, and all organisms that extract calcium or oxygen from the water (i.e. everything but marine mammals) would still die out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Or a third, the water is both underground and above, fresh and not hot.

Oxygen comes down at least with the rainy part of the water.

Freshwater fish do not die. Saltwater fish were not yet developed into saltwater fish so, like the freshwater fish, they do not die.

GreedyCapybara7

No, you can't have both I've already discussed this. You can pick one or the other, do freshwater fish die or salt water fish? Fish aren't Poke'mon you can't have them evolve so dramatically that quickly, sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My pick is: neither die, all were pretty much fresh water or brackwater fish, and saltwater fish have since then shown some Pokémon talents, i e evolved into needing other things to survive.

End of GreedyCopybara7 θ subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 ι

[paraphrasing]
"The oceans weren't salt water before the flood" [paraphrase correct/HGL].

Not possible. Organisms simply can't adapt to an increase in salinity that quickly. Short of magically evolving all fish like Poke'mon, I'm afraid you're out of luck on this point as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The flood was 2957 BC. Which is 5000 years ago. MANY generations of fish have succeeded each other while oceans have grown SLOWLY saltier than back then.

GreedyCapybara7

Unless we're talking about Poke'mon I'm simply afraid organisms don't evolve that quickly. Asserting otherwise doesn't magically make it true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is a phrase I'll have to remember next time you pull something from [well, you can imagine ...]

End of GreedyCopybara7 ι subthread and of Hans-Georg Lundahl β subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl γ

"... and everything else in the oceans would die from a sudden lack of oxygen as it diffused throughout the now huge volume of water (ignoring the obvious questions of "where did that water even come from?" and "where did it go?")."

Where did it come from? Fountains of the deep plus gates above were opened. Hydrogen is, if you trust spectrography, found all through whatever is visible of the Universe. I have my theory that both atmosphere with Oxygen and a Hydrogen vault were made as the air (oxygen) separated waters below the firmament (H2O) from waters above it (mostly H2 which is "instant water" if you add oxygen and a spark) and that some of both atmosphere and hydrogen layer were used up to make flood water.

Where did it go? Kent Hovind has answered that one. I mean, you may not be trusting him as he is in prison, but you could at least be aware of his arguments. His explanation is still pretty standard among YEC community.

Mountains were very much lower and seas very much shallower before the flood. To make it abate part of the water was drained into deeper seas whereas land rose in other parts of the globe.

Oxygen lack? Rain water is pretty rich in oxygen. I would say.

Answer divided:

• GreedyCopybara7 κ
• GreedyCopybara7 λ
• GreedyCopybara7 μ

GreedyCopybara7 κ

[paraphrasing]
"The water for the flood was formed from a reaction between gaseous oxygen and hydrogen" (paraphrase nearly correct, I did not say "a reaction" as with one single such).

The reaction between oxygen and hydrogen is called a "combustion reaction" for a reason child. What you're describing would require the entire planet to explode into a giant, hydrogen fueled fire ball. Fuck the flood, if you're going to set the fucking atmosphere on fire you don't need it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is a very quick combustion. Now, I was not suggesting ALL the atmosphere was a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen and ALL of it gave the water in one combustion reaction.

I am saying oxygen was below a certain barrier, hydrogen above it, barrier was temporarily removed and combustion reactions (plural!) very far up gave added water. Since they consumed much oxygen below and much hydrogen above the barrier, there is now a void so that even up there such reactions are no longer very likely.

Answer divided

• GreedyCapybara7 σ
• GreedyCapybara7 τ

GreedyCapybara7 σ

It is a very quick combustion. Now, I was not suggesting ALL the atmosphere was a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen and ALL of it gave the water in one combustion reaction.

Not possible. In an open system it's not possible to have one section react without having it all react. You can either turn the entire atmosphere into a fire ball of not have the water, pick one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are presupposing oxygen and hydrogen are mixed all through it, you haven't noticed that hydrogen is way lighter?

End of subthread GreedyCapybara7 σ

GreedyCapybara7 τ

"I am saying oxygen was below a certain barrier, hydrogen above it, barrier was temporarily removed and combustion reactions (plural!) very far up gave added water. Since they consumed much oxygen below and much hydrogen above the barrier, there is now a void so that even up there such reactions are no longer very likely"

Unfortunately no such barrier exists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except for weight. And thus distance. Or how do you explain oxygen in earth atmosphere is not reacting with hydrogen beyond atmosphere?

[I could also have cited the firmament whatever it was - not excluding Kent Hovind's canopy f water - as a barrier and flood as an occasion it got removed.]

End of GreedyCopybara7 τ subthread and of GreedyCopybara7 κ subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 λ

[paraphrasing]
"Kent Hovand said that the mountains were lower than they were before the flood, so the water didn't go anywhere the constants are just higher"

Not possible. Even ignoring the fact that it's not physically possible to raise mountains that quickly, continental crust isn't simply "higher" than oceanic crust they're entirely different in composition (with the most obvious trait being the different in density). In other words: it's not possible to raise and lower continents.

Side note: it's not because he's a convicted criminal that I don't trust Kent Hovand, it's because he's a professional liar that I don't trust him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case it is evolutionists that you should mistrust and - on this matter - him you should trust.

I do not agree with this alleged impossibility.

I have heard things like mountain ranges forming "where tectonic plates meet".

But supposing you have a point about density and such, that could have become an operative factor due to the new masses of water, and it could have taken the added weight some months to make that operative.

Answer divided

• GreedyCopybara7 υ
• GreedyCopybara7 χ

GreedyCopybara7 υ

[Paraphrase] "Kent Hovind isn't a liar evolutionists are"

I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories. When the man asserts that Australopithecus is known from a single specimen, asserts that there are six types of evolution and that evolution covers the origin of life, nuclear fusion, the universe and everything he's a liar. No if's, and's, or but's

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Neither my nor his fault evolutionism has changed terminology since.

End of GreedyCopybara7 υ subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 χ

"But supposing you have a point about density and such, that could have become an operative factor due to the new masses of water, and it could have taken the added weight some months to make that operative"

This doesn't make sense, I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Recall of relevant dialogue:

Greedy:

continental crust isn't simply "higher" than oceanic crust they're entirely different in composition (with the most obvious trait being the different in density). In other words: it's not possible to raise and lower continents.

HGL:

But supposing you have a point about density and such, that could have become an operative factor due to the new masses of water, and it could have taken the added weight some months to make that operative.

Greedy:

This doesn't make sense, I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

I was in other words pointing out that previous oceanic plates may have grown denser with added weight on them before drying after flood as being - miraculously at least for quickness - raised above water levels.

__________________________

I think I might owe you an apology on one item:

"This doesn't make sense, I can't even tell what you're trying to say."

I was supposing the plates of the continents are denser and became so because they were squeezed under new deposits and flood water during flood. I just realised the general geological consensus view is that instead the plates under the oceans are denser. Plus of course that plates in the mantle are denser either than both or at least than those in the continents.

Now, this means my answer might not be much help. The previous one.

So, what about plates in the oceans getting denser and sinking for that reason, thereby letting waters from flood sink into them?

And, another matter, how exactly is the density of the one or other kind of plates known? Is it just a case of "if higher up, then floats better, then less dense" according to the view plates are all floating on magma?

End of GreedyCopybara7 χ subthread and of GreedyCopybara7 λ subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 μ

"Oxygen lack? Rain water is pretty rich in oxygen. I would say"

You would say wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Even where the rain hits the sea level and the drops unite to the waters below with splashes involving a chance of air getting mixed down in it?

End of GreedyCopybara7 μ subthread, of Hans-Georg Lundahl γ subthread and of thread I.

II

GreedyCopybara7

Not only that but in addition to a hundreds of different greenhouses for all the plant life, different aquariums for almost all sea life (with tools to control temperature, pressure, dissolved oxygen, salinity, dissolved calcium, etc.), environmentally controlled housing for all the animal species, the ark would also need to encapsulate microbiology facilities for all manner of microscopic organisms, living tissue cultures for viral samples, live hosts for all manner of parasites and volcanically active sections for any organisms that make their home in hot springs or near volcanic vents.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Virus is not living organisms. Neither are prions. And I have never heard of bacteria dying from drowning.

GreedyCopybara7

First and foremost: bacteria can, in fact, die from drowning. Even ignoring the anaerobic species that will die on contact with oxygen, the lack of oxygen and increase in salinity of their environment will kill just about everything (their cell membrane would shriven and they'd die).

It doesn't matter if viruses and prions aren't technically alive, they can still be killed if not given live tissue.

Answer divided

• Hans-Georg Lundahl π
• Hans-Georg Lundahl ρ

Hans-Georg Lundahl π

"First and foremost: bacteria can, in fact, die from drowning. Even ignoring the anaerobic species that will die on contact with oxygen, the lack of oxygen and increase in salinity of their environment will kill just about everything (their cell membrane would shriven and they'd die)."

If you admit anaerobic bacteria can die from contact with oxygen, you are admitting there is no lack of oxygen as long as it is not supposed to get into organisms needing it from lungs that would be flooded.

Increase of salinity is not an issue as explained earlier.

GreedyCopybara7 ψ

"If you admit anaerobic bacteria can die from contact with oxygen, you are admitting there is no lack of oxygen as long as it is not supposed to get into organisms needing it from lungs that would be flooded"

I said no such thing, don't misrepresent me. Anaerobic species die on contact with oxygen, I didn't say that was an issue for the flood. Obviously the opposite would be true since such a flood would make oxygen concentrations so incredibly low anaerobic species would thrive in locations where they otherwise would not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Then I missed out on what you meant by this:

"Even ignoring the anaerobic species that will die on contact with oxygen"

Here is another one:

"No you didn't 'explain earlier' you ignored my explanation and simply asserted that salinity wasn't an issue."

I also explained why, namely because seas have gotten their present salinity since the flood, not before nor even - at least not all of it - during it.

End of GreedyCopybara7 ψ subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 ω

"Increase of salinity is not an issue as explained earlier"

No you didn't "explain earlier" you ignored my explanation and simply asserted that salinity wasn't an issue. Don't lie, you'll make baby Jesus cry.

End of GreedyCopybara7 ω subthread and of Hans-Georg Lundahl π subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl ρ

"It doesn't matter if viruses and prions aren't technically alive, they can still be killed if not given live tissue."

The thing is, they branched off later from the genomes and proteines of live tissue.

Heard of "traces of retrovirus in the genome"? Well, evolutionists say these points in the genome are traces of virus infections (that would have occurred in common ancestors since found in same or correspondinh places), a creationist would rather argue the reverse process, that virus branch off from such places in the genome.

GreedyCopybara7

Not possible. You may not be aware of this but we can actually track the emergence of certain viruses because they become embedded in gamete cell genomes and are unable to replicate. These form genetic markers and are one of the reasons we know that all eukaryotes have a common ancestor, but even ignoring that there's no doubting that viruses have been around just as long as eukaryotes if not longer. In other words: the creationist may argue what he/she likes they're still demonstrably wrong.

You really don't understand the scope of your stupidity do you? Simply put: asserting that something isn't an issue doesn't make it true, I go through the trouble of explaining things to you, just because you ignore my explanations doesn't give you freedom to make shit up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You may not be aware of this but we can actually track the emergence etc. ... [ignoring the insult]

I have already heard of that, and my reply is precisely that the "embedded viruses" are not embedded viruses, but points in our genome designed by God, whereas non-embedded viruses may well have branched off from such things.

You are very quick to raise the objection "impossible" or "not possible".

End of Hans-Georg Lundahl ρ subthread and of thread II.

III

GreedyCopybara7

Even ignoring that there isn't enough room on the ark for all the animal species alone, even ignoring that Noah didn't have the technology to build any of the thousands of environmentally controlled habitats needed, even ignoring that he had no concept of live tissue cultures or anything even remotely related to microbiology; the ark would have to have at least one active volcano on board.

Do you understand the scope of your stupidity now?

Answer divided:

• Hans-Georg Lundahl δ
• Hans-Georg Lundahl ε
• Hans-Georg Lundahl ζ
• Hans-Georg Lundahl η

Hans-Georg Lundahl δ

"Even ignoring that there isn't enough room on the ark for all the animal species alone"

Ever heard of baraminology? Some species are different species but still same kind. Ostriches and either Nandoos or Emus or even both are probably same kind.

GreedyCopybara7

You're going to have to use the correct terminology here or otherwise provide a definition, because there's no such thing as a "kind" of anything in phylogenetics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Baraminology is the creationist version of taxonomy. There is such a thing as kind in baraminology.

Now, there is even such a thing as kind in ordinary taxonomy, loosely speaking. "Genus" and "kind" are corresponding words in Latin and English and mean roughly the same thing. This does not mean Creationist baraminologists agree on every genus and never anything either larger or smaller in extent being a created kind. But the genus level is one that does often come into play.

End of Hans-Georg Lundahl δ subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl ε

"even ignoring that Noah didn't have the technology to build any of the thousands of environmentally controlled habitats needed"

Thousands is overdoing it, as just said, and if he was five hundred years old when the flood came he was old enough to make "environmentally controlled habitats" from his zoological expertise.

Plus you have no way to access what technology he did not have. Plus, as said, he probably took small, young specimens, meaning things like puppies and kittens get along even if cats and dogs not brought up together usually do not.

Answer divided

• GreedyCopybara7 ν
• GreedyCopybara7 ξ
• GreedyCopybara7 ο

GreedyCopybara7 ν

"Thousands is overdoing it, as just said, and if he was five hundred years old when the flood came he was old enough to make "environmentally controlled habitats" from his zoological expertise"

Old enough doesn't translate to smart enough. I'm afraid that the technology simply didn't exist for this kind of undertaking, regardless of the man's age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are assuming things about technology available there and you are also assuming things about the needs of organisms for such a venture.

If the issue is animals not eating each other, picking new born or new hatched specimens and having them grow up together does help (in this case it would probably help if a cow, shegoat or ewe was not a baby). Plus the kind of expertise in zoology which a man old and smart enough would have.

If the issue is temperature and moisture, the wrong conditions do not kill that fast that they die off before getting off the ark. Penguins might have sweated and tigers might have been freezing, but probably they had had time to get acclimatised to conditions around where the ark was being built.

Plus you have no way to tell what kind of technology was available to him.

End of GreedyCopybara7 ν subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 ξ

"...you have no way to access what technology he did not have"

We know they were still dumb enough to make giant boats out of wood instead of steel. Pretty safe to say they couldn't have environmentally controlled enclosures or an active volcano on the ship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wood is lighter than metal.

Metal is great for braving the waves without breaking, up to a point, but the ark was not braving the waves but floating with them. (This was also covered by the man you just called a professional liar).

Active volcano has already been rejected as a requisite.

End of GreedyCopybara7 ξ subthread.

GreedyCopybara7 ο

"...he probably took small, young specimens, meaning things like puppies and kittens get along even if cats and dogs not brought up together usually do not"

Irrelevant. Even ignoring the fact that he obviously couldn't do this for all organisms (with a lot being fully dependent on at least one parent until adulthood) there's still not enough room. Sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Organisms dependent on at least one parent until adulthood can obviously also survive until then thanks to good zoologists and the right number of different milk producing animals already adult.

And "still not enough room" is your fantasy. We do not agree.

End of GreedyCopybara7 ο subthread and of Hans-Georg Lundahl ε subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl ζ

"even ignoring that he had no concept of live tissue cultures or anything even remotely related to microbiology"

Even if true - which you have no way of knowing - this is no big issue. Bacteria do not drown.

GreedyCopybara7

Yes they do. Their cells burst from a decrease in salinity, shrivel from an increase in salinity, species anchored to the sea bed would die from a lack of sunlight and aerobic species would die from a lack of oxygen.

This is as close to "drowning" as individual cells can get, in either case they're still dead.

End of Hans-Georg Lundahl ζ subthread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl η

"the ark would have to have at least one active volcano on board."

Extremophile species would either have survived the flood anyway or developed their predelection of habitat after it.

GreedyCopybara7

Not possible for reasons I've already outlined. You either have an active volcano on-board or extremophiles are actually Poke'mon in disguise, the choice is yours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would obviously take a few generations to adapt - at least probably - to other environments than the usual ones, but adapting to new environments is actually one of the faster aspects of microevolution.

If grizzly bears and polar bears can interbreed - and they can - they are "same created species" and had a common ancestor on board the ark. Since then adapting to arctic conditions in one case or to appalachian conditions in the other has taken less than five thousand years.

The species that thrive in volcanoes are lots simpler than mammals and therefore live shorter and have had lots more generations to develop and adapt in since back then.

End of Hans-Georg Lundahl η subthread and of thread III.

Epilogue:

GreedyCopybara7

Do you understand the scope of your stupidity now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

After my answers, you might consider the question, as to this topic, boomeranged.

GreedyCopybara7

No. The stupidity of your answers only serves to magnify the scope of your ignorance.

Not yet answered the last reply from Greedy Copybara.

Started posting quotes from his final replies on new thread on video. With my answers. Which are now all inserted in appropriate subthreads.

... on Flood and Mind, part 3

1) ... on Flood and on Mind, part 1, 2) ... on Flood and Mind, part 2 , Interlude: ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version), 3) ... on Flood and Mind, part 3

Video commented on:

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
"We never ever see order coming out of chaos without a mind getting involved. NEVER!"

Really? Let's see...

Magma is, basically, molten rock, ie. an amorphous blob of mineral molecules with no order or pattern of any kind. The molecules are all randomly distributed. It's completely chaotic.

Then a volcano erupts and some ejected magma starts to slowly cool off somewhere (thermodynamics in action.) Sometimes something peculiar happens: Crystals form inside this blob of cooling lava.

A crystal is a mineral where the molecules are extremely ordered and form clear patterns (which is the reason why crystal have such peculiar properties.)

So first there was an amorphous blob of chaotically placed molecules, and now there's a highly-ordered patterned structure of those molecules. Order has come out of chaos. So, which mind, exactly, was involved in this process? Magical magma fairy pixies from outer space?

jbooks888

+WarpRulez
OK - We never see intelligence come from non-intelligence.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
Moving goalposts now, are we?

Define "intelligence".

jbooks888

+WarpRulez
Not moving goal posts - restating my thoughts in a better way. I still stand by order out of chaos only comes about by intelligent application of energy. This is not my invention, but scientists say this. Are you trying to pick a fight, you idiot? Coz now you're fighting with your own people, those you hold in high esteem - the scientific community.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
Let me guess: "Order does not come out of chaos because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics"? Did I guess right?

Firstly, nowhere do the laws of thermodynamics talk about "intelligence". You (like all creationists) are pulling that from your ass. An "intelligence" in this universe is exactly as much bound by the laws of thermodynamics as anything else, and it cannot break those laws. The famous 2nd law applies to "intelligence" like to everything else.

The 2nd law does not say "entropy never decreases except if affected by an intelligence". Or can you point me to the part that says anything like that?

Secondly, the laws of thermodynamics do not forbid order increasing locally. The only thing that the 2nd law says is that the total entropy of a closed system never decreases. This means that if entropy decreases in one part of the system, it increases by at least that much in another part. There's nothing forbidding this from happening.

My crystallization of rock example is a perfect demonstration of this. Thermodynamics happens, and order increases significantly. What the 2nd law is telling us is that entropy increased by at least as much as a consequence (typically in the form of released heat.) "Intelligence" has absolutely nothing to do with this.

If you refuse to understand this, then you are just being dishonest.

I have a question for you: If you think that "intelligence" can only come from another intelligence, then what do you suggest is the source of our intelligence?

jbooks888

+WarpRulez God is the source of our intelligence.

BTW I never brought up the 2nd Law of dynamics. You guessed wrong, sucker.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 If intelligence can only come up from a higher intelligence, then where did God's intelligence come from?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I expect jbooks888 to agree with my answer:

If intelligence COMES FROM anywhere, it must come from a higher one. Not from matter.

But the intelligence that God is, does not come from elsewhere to Him.

jbooks888

+WarpRulez Stupid question. you might as well ask where God came from or why is the sky blue.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 It's not a stupid question. Your premise was that intelligence cannot appear on its own, that it has to come from somewhere. You then say that our intelligence comes from God. The natural question is to ask where did God get it from. Your premise says that it has to come from somewhere and cannot appear on its own.

jbooks888

+WarpRulez It is indeed a stupid question. A very stupid question. Do you really expect to be able to understand God?

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 Oh, so that's your answer to a logical contradiction? "We just can't understand God." Then you have the guts to say that it was my question that was stupid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

jbooks sorry for interrupting, but you are not answering very well, mind if I bump in?

Warp, the premise "intelligence cannot APPEAR on its own, but if it appears it needs to come from a higher one" is correct.

The premise "EVERY intelligence needs a higher one" is not correct.

Your supposed logical contradiction is none such, since the two premisses are not synonymous.

There are indeed things where we must say we do not understand God, but this is not one of them.

WarpRulez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl That didn't really answer the question of where God's intelligence came from.

(And this isn't even going to the fact that "intelligence can only come from intelligence" is demonstrably untrue. It's a complete ass-pull.)

jbooks888

+WarpRulez God's intelligence didn't come from anywhere. It always was, just as He always was. God invented time and space. And everything we know. How can you ask such questions.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 And your evidence for this is... what, exactly?

Or at the very least could you explain to me how information and intelligence can "always exist"? What exactly is the process or phenomenon that allows it to "always exist"? Can you describe it to me?

"How can you ask such questions"? Why shouldn't I be asking such questions? You are making rather extraordinary claims. Why wouldn't I ask what the basis is for such claims? How do you know that your claims are true? Are you telling me that I should simply accept what you are saying without any inquiry? Tell me one single reason why I shouldn't be asking such questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[@Warp]

"where God's intelligence came from."

Is a question based on a premise I have already said is false, namely that every intelligence comes FROM some other thing.

"the fact that 'intelligence can only come from intelligence' is demonstrably untrue."

If your demonstration, so called, is that our intelligence comes from brain matter or comes from instincts of our not yet human ancestors, I hold that to be an unproven and even impossible myth of materialists as such in the one case of brain matter and evolutionists as such in the case of the supposed ancestors in biology but not intelligence.

If you want to base that on any evidence, or try to, do so.

"Or at the very least could you explain to me how information and intelligence can 'always exist'?"

Because SOME intelligence has to have always existed. Because if ANY particular intelligence came from something other than itself (as we know to be tha case of our own), then that other than itself must also have been an intelligence. But you cannot have an infinite series of intelligence after intelligence depending on the previous one, so you must have a first eternal one, which is called God.

Or since our experience of having an intelligence and what in it proves this to have had in our case a beginning are two distinct aspects.

Understanding a thing does not equate to begin to understand it, we understand it equally well second, third, fourth etc time we go back to an understanding. As long as it was really such.

"What exactly is the process or phenomenon that allows it to 'always exist'?"

Self subsistence. As in what you think that "matter and energy" or simply "energy" has. "Can neither be created nor destroyed" I think one of your own thinkers expressed it as.

We affirm that of mind. But NOT of matter.

Now, if you affirm that mind arose out of matter, I call THAT a very extraordinary claim.

[@jbooks]

"God invented time and space. And everything we know. How can you ask such questions."

He can ask such questions because he is not starting as a Christian. Neither did I even if I got them answered pretty early.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You still have assume the role of a believer - in other words you have to hypothetically say that IF God exists, and start from there. You have to put yourself in the position of a believer. If God is who the Bible says He is, then those questions are ridiculous, childish - naive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is of course one way of looking at the debate. It assumes the atheist opponent is knowledgeable about the Bible. Can that be hoped for these days?

Even if it can be hoped for that some are, can that be assumed of everyone?

Besides, you were defending "existence of God" on a philosophical plane, i e as discoverable through common human experience even without the Bible (as Romans chapter 1 indeed confirms He is), and so must take the debate without assuming Bible knowledge in the opponent, because even if he has such, he would not be ready to accept its relevance for the philosophical question.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
God is only knowable in as much as He makes Himself known.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

True.

He does so in two ways. Clearest one in Revelation. Most widespread one as to access to starting points in Creation.

When we discuss whether a mind can come from something other than a mind, we are discussing God as revealing Himself by the minds He gave us. Minds that are themselves finite but cannot be tracked to a merely finite mind as origin (one man's mind coming from another man's mind is clearly both on same level and does not adress the basic question) nor to a merely material infinite (since the mindless matter cannot explain the mind). This reasoning is not a Bible text. It is a piece of philosophy and should be conducted so, that is it should not presume familiarity with the Bible in the one one is adressing.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually, this reasoning is in the Bible. Jesus said:

Matthew 10
24 "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is a parallel to the argument, but not identical.

Matthew 10:24-25 is about mind CONTENT, the reasoning here is about mind AS A CAPACITY

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, OK. But I don;t think Jesus needed to use reasoning. He knows truth absolutely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He knows and knew truth absolutely, he also needed to reason. He is true God and true man. Knowing truth absolutely belongs to His being God, reasoning to get it anyway belongs to His being Man. True God, true Man.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whatever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+jbooks888
That is also a response to good Theology ...

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is a response to you always having to prove you know more than me.

[He is not the first working class man I have ticked off like that.]

Hal Barbour

Your post is interesting to say the least, I would have to say since you are engaging with admitted atheists what possible worth is it to quote bible myth to them, most have bibles that they have read over and over again. You still have not explained what a "kind" is, say a lion and a tiger? an eagle and a sparrow? a snake and a lizard? The bible explaines this kind thing by saying "each kind" but a tiger and a lion are seperate "kinds" even though they are both cats.

And yes the study of what has happened and how it relates to the species and beings alive then benefits the beings and species alive today. DNA, the same science that cures genetic diseases is the one who conclusively linked our genome to that of the great apes, you can't site the science of DNA as real without it's contributions to the genetic linking to ALL living things on the planet.

I am surprised that you would ask such a question, it is easily answered by googling the link between evolution and medical breakthroughs, simple.

jbooks888

+Hal Barbour
I want to set this straight once and for all, because it drives me up the fecking wall when mindless bullshit like you've just posted goes unchallenged. I'm sick of it!

Because DNA has similarities amongst all kinds of creatures does not mean that they are related or share common ancestry. It merely means that God used the same method of design in all His creatures, because it is a powerful and versatile mechanism. Just because all cars have wheels, does that imply they were all made by the same manufacturer and came from the same factory? DO YOU GET THAT? Hmmm - do you get it?

You cannot draw any conclusions about heritage, going back in time, on the grounds of DNA. It is mere speculation and completely unprovable. It may be true, but then again, Genesis 1:1 may be true, right? They are equally untestable, unprovable, hypotheses.

Besides, how much DNA do scientists actually have of earlier species? Isn't it non-existent? Does DNA survive millions of years?

I quote the Bible passages to anyone and everyone because it is the truth.

I don't care if atheists don't believe it. They are fools, and the only way for them to be elevated from their folly is by hearing the truth, even though most of them won't respond to it.

Just google it, you say? Then I would get a plethora of sites that push the 'scientific' evolutionist agenda. The schools indoctrinate students with it, the media supports it fully and promotes it, and anyone who tries to challenge it with legitimate questions or problems with evolution are immediately and publicly lambasted and lampooned, or fired from their academic positions. This is fact and can be proven, unlike the evolution theory. Just because a theory is useful and explains certain things and may be able to make certain predictions does NOT mean it is what actually happened! There could be alternate explanations. And evolution has many areas that it's predictions were false and many things it simply cannot explain. It is far-fetched. it is unscientific in the sense it cannot be repeated, cannot be observed and it cannot be falsified. Evolution is, by that criteria, just another man-made religion.

Accept this or shut up. I am not interested in any further debate about it. I have argued the issue for years. The facts remain. There is not one iota of evidence that one kind of animal changed into another kind through evolution. And besides all of that, you expose yourself as ignorant when you even use the term evolution without qualifying it. There are several kinds of evolution. Cosmological, chemical, biological and finally, adaptation. Only adaptation, or variation with a kind is demonstrated to be true.

As for the Big Bang and abiogenesis - I'll leave that to another time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+jbooks888
I am not trying to prove I know more than you, I am trying to give a better answer than you. WHEN I think yours fails, which is not always. 

+jbooks888
For instance I liked your answer to Hal thoroughly.