... on Flood and on Mind, part 1

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

jbooks888

That plethora of 'species' you rattled off was quite comical. But your conclusion that creationism has to identify the various kinds... what is so hard about creation?


Genesis Chapter 1
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
...
25 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 then Noah's ark:

Gen 6:20
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Clearly, since Noahs ark, the 'kind' have expanded their populations with variation.

A lot of these 'species' you rattle off - are they all alive today, or have you pieced them together from fossilized bones?

And can you tell me what good it does to know about what crawled the earth in years gone by? I mean, will it help to cure prostate cancer? Will it help to do ANYTHING? Has it helped anyone to produce ANY TECHNOLOGY that benefits us today. I'm really curious to know.

Evolutionists can't be trusted. I still remember Lucy.

But please, keep rattling off all those amazing tongue twisting names - it makes you sound SO ridiculous.

bruce thomas

RE: "what is so hard about creation?"
-- " it makes you sound SO ridiculous."
-- Creation?
-- I have no probs with it, it happend 4.5 bil yrs ago,..
-- "SO rediculous?"
-- So me YOUR "proof"

If one believes with no proof on a subject = the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, knowledge is the Devils work etc... There is more evidence on evolution than almost anything else "on earth"...proof?

jbooks888

+bruce thomas
"PS, I have no probs with belief until someone tries to discredit another"

Well you must be outright disgusted by AronRa because all he does is mock the Bible and Christianity.

+bruce thomas
You forgot about the floating witches...

mock on

SpaceTimeMachine
(clicking link to his channel is not recommended to pure and innocent souls, he is watching videos a Christian does well to avoid unless well grounded in morals)

I think it's important to mention that nearly all highly educated Christians accept theistic evolution. Science is not the same as atheism, although many scientists are agnostic. Creationists can never define "kinds" and when they attempt to do so, the creationist argument falls apart. Do you mean subspecies, species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom or domain? What is your standard for differentiating one "kind" from another "kind'? I don't think any Creationist could answer that question without invaliding the Creationist argument.

When speaking with a Christian who is skeptical of evolution for because of religion, I tend to recommend Francis Collins book the Language of God. He was the head of the Human Genome project and a born again Christian who accepts the evidence of evolution. Ken Miller is a Christian, scientists and educator who testified in the Dover trial against Creationism, simply because it is unscientific. I happen to be an atheist, but I would much prefer Christians to be educated about science. The only reason to deny empirical evidence is for unscientific reasons.

Scientific ignorance should be troubling to any rational person.

jbooks888

+SpaceTimeMachine
Scientific ignorance is extremely troubling to me. And you don't seem to even know the significance of the terms you are bandying about! LOL. What a joke. Sorry, but I have to laugh at you because you think more highly of yourself than you ought.

The word 'evolution', is a grossly generalized, and therefore meaningless buzz word.

I do not reject the idea of molecules to man 'evolution' over 4.5 billion years because of religious beliefs.

As for giving an alternate explanation, and defining 'kinds' as taught in the Bible... I don't have to establish any of that to know that evolution is not the right answer.

For me to say "God did it" is not a scientific statement. It is a statement of belief.

For a scientist to say "it did itself" is also not a scientific statement, but one of belief.

The visible, observable, measurable, testable material reality before us today has so much order and obvious design, that it is irrational to try and believe that it came about by chance, without a mind to direct the process.

We never ever see order coming out of chaos without a mind getting involved. NEVER! And yet, we are to believe that a huge explosive expansion, resulted in the astonishing universe, and the even more astonishing array of earthly creatures.

The most rudimentary cell defies evolution.

The hummingbird blows evolution out of the water and into the deepest pit of hell, where it belongs.

Science cannot, by its very definition allow there to be a supernatural force. This to me is idiotic, because the origin of the natural must be something greater, above, outside, not subject to, the natural.

Science has no business trying to explain origins.

That's why I resent and reject 'evolution'. It's promoted as a fact, but it is NOT a fact by a long stretch. It's just the best 'model' that science has come up with so far...

I do not want to get involved in a drawn out debate, because I've been doing this for more than 10 years, I've been studying the pseudo science of evolution for even longer and I have come to the conclusion that it is not an argument that can we won by human reasoning.

If God is real, as the Bible reveals Him, then He is going to have to intervene in the heart of the individual to remove the blanket of deception.

Have a great day.

+bruce thomas
Cool, man. I appreciate that.

This new commenting system can be confusing. I just saw your post saying you believe creation did happen - 4.5 billion years ago.

What about the Big Bang at 13.something billion years ago? How would that fit in?

Bless you.

["This new commenting system can be confusing." - Indeed, I did not find the comment by bruce thomas that jbooks888 was answering here!]

SpaceTimeMachine

+jbooks888
"I do not reject the idea of molecules to man 'evolution' over 4.5 billion years because of religious beliefs."

Well, for starters, evolution doesn't say anything about molecules to man, it only describes the development of life once it began. A more accurate description would be any gradual change in a population over generations. This gradual change produces variation, which is selected for by nature. Species change and develop over time.

"As for giving an alternate explanation, and defining 'kinds' as taught in the Bible... I don't have to establish any of that to know that evolution is not the right answer."

No one is unable to give any explanation of the Biblical term kinds. Because there is no specific meaning of the word. In addition there is nothing in the Bible that says one kind of animal can't develop or change over many generations and be distinctly different from it's ancestor.

"For me to say "God did it" is not a scientific statement. It is a statement of belief."

Correct, it's not based on empirical evidence.

"For a scientist to say "it did itself" is also not a scientific statement, but one of belief."

Incorrect, evolution doesn't say "it" did it, it doesn't point to an ultimate cause at all. Evolution simply describes the physical processes of reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection. It explains the way that species develop and adapt to their environment and it also makes predictions about the kind of story the fossil record will tell. The predictions of evolution have been confirmed by multiple fields of science, often by Christians. Scientific method is the pursuit of empirical evidence and the formulation of theories based on facts. The theory of evolution does not comment on the existence or lack of existence of any deity.

Google the term theistic evolution before you comment further. Most scientists are theists (Christians being an example) and most Christians accept theistic evolution. The scientists who first worked out evolution where Christians and many of them that continue to work in applicable fields are also believers. Science does not comment on god one way or the other. That is your strawman argument and it's not accurate.

"Science has no business trying to explain origins."

• A) Evolution does not explain the origin of life
• B) Science is in the business of explaining nature.
• C) Most scientists are theists, who want to understand how nature works

I would seriously suggest you take a moment to actually read what I have written. I am not making an anti-religious argument. I am stating the facts that science is the pursuit of empirical evidence about the workings of nature and many scientists in history and today are Christian. The claims and arguments you have made are confused and inaccurate.

+bruce thomas I appreciate you initially saying you had no problem with what I wrote, since I'm advocating the statements of Christian scientists, theistic evolutionists and Christian philosophers who accept the empirical evidence of evolution. Theistic evolution is accepted by mainstream Christians and Christian scientists alike.

jbooks888

+SpaceTimeMachine
Thank you for going to such lengths with your response. I'm assuming you are being sincere in what you say and so I want to answer you as carefully and clearly as I can. It appears that you have misunderstood my intended meaning on a couple of important points, and that's probably my fault for not being a good communicator. I know what I mean. Now all I have to do is get you to know what I mean, if you know what I mean.

Give me a day or two to have another look at this 'theistic evolution' idea. I know what it is, but I haven't researched it in years. It will be interesting to see what those crazy kids are saying these days. I will get back to you via your inbox.

Love will win the day.

TONY

SpaceTimeMachine

+jbooks888 You are very welcome. I'd be happy to try my best to answer any questions you might have about theistic evolution. If you want recommendations on the subject I have two authors in mind.

Francis Collins is an Evangelical Christian and geneticist who mapped the Human Genome, on the subject of theistic evolution he wrote a book called The Language of God. He argues that science does not contradict faith, for him it increases it.

Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic scientists and teacher who wrote Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, wherein he argues that evolution does not contradict religious faith.

But I'd still be willing to talk about it further.

bruce thomas

+jbooks888 you are right, sorry, brain fart. my mistake.

I guess this is an argument as well, but it may be worth a watch, I liked it.

Top Documentary Films : Evolution and Irreducible Complexity
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/evolution-irreducible-complexity/

jbooks888

+bruce thomas I watched your qualia soup videos - already seen them, by the way. Lots of assertions, no hard evidence.

My brain farted.

bobbbbEE

+jbooks888
You say that you've researched the "pseudo-science" of evolution for years, but you don't seem to understand the basic principles of evolution which shows me that either you are lying or you have only looked on creationist sources. Don't you think that is dishonest too? Evolution has tons of evidence that cannot be explained by a biblical creator. If you really look at evolution it IS random. You have no problem saying that the traits a child inherits are random right? Also, you think that Aronra is merely spouting a bunch of random names, but he is explaining cladistic taxonomy which WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE WITH A CREATOR. Evolution isn't unfalsifiable unlike your creator. Evolution could easily be falsified if the evidence could disprove it, but that hasn't happened yet. Just like creationists always say how it's such a coincidence for things to be able to evolve in such a way, it's even more of a coincidence for all of the evidence to keep matching up with evolution over and over again. Creationists started looking into the classification of life and they kept finding peculiar coincidences like how very similar we are to apes. Seeing that you're a creationist, I'm pretty sure you only care about the fossil record because that's all creationists seem to understand, but there is far more evidence for evolution that the fossil record.

SpaceTimeMachine

+bobbbbEE Well, criticizing his spiritual philosophy probably wont result in a productive conversation about scientific evidence. The fact is most who accept the evidence of evolution also believe in a higher power, which is a much more subtle point to make. That means that theists like the Pope and most Christian scientists are able to square their philosophy with scientific facts of evolution. As we can all agree the overwhelming evidence for evolution is valid, I don't see the problem with myths and legends. Everything you said was true, but the way you said it probably wont have the results you might have hoped.

bobbbbEE

+SpaceTimeMachine
The main problem with people who don't accept evolution and do accept creationism as "science" is that they don't know how to think scientifically. I try to explain evolution in the most scientific way possible. The only way for evidence to work for one theory is if it does not work for the other. I didn't say anything specifically against theistic evolution, I said it against creationism although theistic evolution is also unscientific. 

john smith

+SpaceTimeMachine isn't the most common creationist definition of 'kind' roughly the same as 'species', ie, animals of the same kind are those that can bring forth?

+jbooks888 "Science cannot, by its very definition allow there to be a supernatural force."

which definition of science are you referring to here? and can you link me to the source please?

[Probably an atheistic science teacher's homemade one ... HGL answering]

+jbooks888 if you have been studying this for ten years how do you explain the fusion of the chimp chromosome 2a and 2b into human chromosome 2? and how do explain ERV's?

john smith

+SpaceTimeMachine " Most scientists are theists"

yeah? how do we know this?

+SpaceTimeMachine how can evolution (random genetic mutations / natural selection) be reconciled with theism? if a god or gods either directed the process, or 'interfered' at certain key stages, then the mutations part of the process would not be truly random.

+bobbbbEE " If you really look at evolution it IS random."

yeah? isn't only part of the process random, ie, the mutations part? and the other part, the natural selection part, is non-random?

bobbbbEE

+john smith
I'm saying random as in can't be predicted. There is no single mutation that is the only one that can cause evolution, there are many mutations and since mutations happen randomly, the mutation that happens and is selected is random.

jbooks888

+bobbbbEE
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.

All you have is a far-fetched story of what might have happened. You;re holding fast to your sinking ship of evolution, cos ya don't want to believe in God!

SpaceTimeMachine

+jbooks888 Mate, you know that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. If you really want evidence of evolution today, I can provide it to you, but you have to be willing to give the evidence a chance. Does that sound fair?

We have several documented examples of new species diverging from an ancestral population in our lifetime. That's actually how evolution produces new species. I don't think even creationists denies micro-evolution, but macro-evolution (change on the level of diverging gene pools and species) has also been observed and documented extensively.

We have observed speciation in sexual reproducing animals, such as worms, beetles, flies. The Weinberg, et al. 1992 study demonstrated that a new species of worm had evolved from an ancestral population. I'm providing a link to an article which sites several examples of observed speciation:

The TalkOrigins Archive : Observed Instances of Speciation
by Joseph Boxhorn
Copyright © 1993-2004
[Last Update: September 1, 1995]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Therefore, populations can and do turn into new species and we can observe this happening in animals (not just bacteria and viruses). We've also observed this divergence of species in nature, which are called "ring species" because of their mating patterns. Ring species show how sexual isolation leads to the development of entirely new species of animals over time. It starts with micro-evolution and leads to macro-evolution (new species).

As far as mutation, I can also show you how that works as well. Most harmful mutations actually terminate the offspring before it's born; of those that don't cause a miscarriage, only the least detrimental tend to get passed on, because the animal has to survive long enough to compete for a mate. Sexual competition tends to prevent an inferior animal from reproducing. That means many of the mutations that get passed on tend to be neutral or weakly beneficial. Even when a weakly harmful mutation does get passed on, it can mutate to provide a benefit (such as a mutation of sickle cell anemia that prevents malaria). Here is a list of documented useful mutations in humans.

• - Resistance to HIV virus infection in humans due to a CCR5 mutation.
• - Resistance to West Nile virus infection in humans due to a CCR5 mutation.
• - Resistance to atherosclerosis due to gene mutation.
• - Mutation of sickle cell anemia that provides a resistance to malaria
• - Mutation that causes myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy (super strength)
• - Mutation that causes tricho-dento-osseous syndrome (extra dense bones)

Yes, some harmful mutations get passed on, (sickle cell anemia) but the really bad ones tend to terminate the organism before it can reproduce, or strongly reduce the changes of reproducing otherwise. This is natural selection. Honestly, most mainstream Christians accept the scientific evidence of biology, but assume their deity works through natural processes. As an atheist I have no problem with this theistic interpretation of science, but I find denying evidence to be an obnoxious trait of fundamentalists. Look into theological evolution.

Don't deny evidence that's presented to you.

jbooks888

+SpaceTimeMachine I don't have time to answer your shit-fest of a post right now, but I will in the next week or so.

So much bullshit to refute.

Cheers, mate.

SpaceTimeMachine

+jbooks888 That's an unconventional Christian attitude to have, my friend. But you're going against your fellow mainstream Christians by continuing to deny empirical evidence. You also never got back to me on theological evolution. I guess you couldn't be bothered to research it.

I guess I wont hear back from you.

AirCooledMan2006

Genesis 1 has Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen. 1:27), yet Gen. 2 has God make Adam first, then the other animals, then Eve (Gen. 2:7, 18-22). These are two conflicting accounts!

jbooks888

+AirCooledMan2006
Wrong - read it again more carefully.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+AirCooledMan2006 Gen. 1:27 is one verse. Genesis 2:7 - 22 is one story.

Could it possssssssibleeeee be that one is a resumé of the other? Hint: the resumé I mean is not in Genesis 2.

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

What you just said is like hearing a blind man try to describe why red is not really red. You obviously can't see, so why bother trying? You even brought up Noah's ark, which could not have possibly carried 2 of every kind of animal. No matter how much you break it down, Noah's ark wouldn't have been able to support the populous of animals it claims to.

Amazing tongue twisting names? You mean the actual names of the species? Do the words Derivative, Integral, Fractal, Quadratic, Quintic, Geometric, Trigonometric, Analytic, Concavity, Curvature, Addition, Subtraction, Division, Multiplication, Exponentiation, Inverse, Prime, sub-Prime, Prime-squared, negative, positive, imaginary, Supplementary, Truncation, superscript, subscript, antidifferentiation, partial differentiation all sound ridiculous to you? Because they are all used in high order calculus, saying that WHAT he said sounds ridiculous makes YOU sound like a complete idiot. You don't understand biology, you don't grasp any of it's concepts, and all you can say is "Du-HUR!, Mmmm, that guy made a bunch of funny sounds, GOurd thing my god explains everything in my bible thingy."

jbooks888

You're a bigger loon than him! LOL +Will, "The Truth is hard to believe for some"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You even brought up Noah's ark, which could not have possibly carried 2 of every kind of animal.

If Tyrannosaurus Rex is one kind, another Tyrannosaurus (if there is any) another kind and each Allosaurus species a kind of its own we have one scenario. If all of these are the kind called Leviathan we have another one. Similarily if Diplodocus, Brontosaurus and the rest are different kinds or all of them belong to the single kind called Behemoth. And we have a different scenario again if Ostriches and Nandoos are two differnet kinds or the same one. There are also a certain amount of genera and species which are no longer considered valid taxa. They have been reconsidered younger synonsyms for other taxa.

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

+jbooks888 Again, you're broadcasting how much of an idiot you are and you seem to be proud of it. I hope you don't reproduce, it'd be a burden on them to have such a horrible father to teach them about such basic concepts.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No matter how much you subdivide, Noah's Ark could not have carried 2 of every kind. It's not possible by any stretch.

Even then, again you face the problem of not knowing where to draw the line between taxa. Each individual species can be said to be a "kind" of another, but where do you draw the line? Can you give a complete list of species "kinds" even though it isn't even a scientifically accepted idea in the first place?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Also, it is not really a matter of only how many kinds there were aboard, but also of what age the specimens were when aboard. If Noah took cubs and kittens and so on rather than adult animals likely to go into rut and reproduce on board the ark, some logistics problems are diminished.

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

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Logistics? How about simple physics? The ark wouldn't have been able to support the weight of "2 of each kind" in any stretch, period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You forget both the restricted number of species and the probably fact most were babies.

You might also be forgetting that fish and sea living creatures, insects and plants had no need to get on ark. If insects did, they served as food for the birds.

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

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It still wouldn't matter, the boat still wouldn't have been able to hold the load.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not agree.

After all it did, we are here.

[Not answered, but meant as a parallel to a science teacher saying "of course evolution works, it did produce us, we are here".]

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

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you can't accept basic mathematics, then there is nothing I can help you with, it's your problem really.

There is no evidence of a world-engulfing flood, or an ark that saved all the land animals, or noah, or 90%+ of the Bible, if you choose to have faith that's fine, but when it comes down to arguing facts you haven't a leg to stand on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Whoa, you gave no mathematics whatsoever!

And the mathematic changes are pretty important between calculations where:

• specimens are on board from adult age or from small newborn or newhatched age
• from Nandu and Ostrich as separate kinds or from a common ancestor of them if they are one kind (and so on for pretty many other kinds)
• from land and air vertebrates only or from plants, insects, fish as well.

The one mathematical fix point is of course the dimensions of the ark.

You claimed up to now to have definite mathematical evidence against the account of the Bible, now you seem however to change in favour of asking what evidence there is for it, which is another matter.

A matter of trusting tradition or not.

GreedyCapybara7

You're not all that smart are you?

The "amazing tongue twisting names" AronRa is using are a consequence of having to classify organisms without contradiction. Common names are great for everyday use but they very by location and language, and many places may have many names for a single species or a single name for many species. Thus if we wish to categorize organisms we need these "amazing tongue twisting names" because they're not subject to how people perceive the animal.

What's the purpose of this? It allows us to track and test evolution. When mapping taxa you quickly find that organisms are grouped together based on common ancestry. By taking this map and comparing it to the pathway of evolution revealed in the fossil record and ancestry determined through genomic markers, we can not only confirm that evolution takes place independently from the fossil record and genomic evidence, but we can also map (with surprising accuracy) exactly how we arrived at the forms we have today.

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

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You seem to be making up things that I didn't say, but if you'd like me to debunk the bible I'd be more than happy to direct you to the only resource you need, GOOGLE.

Borftats

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "You might also be forgetting that fish and sea living creatures, insects and plants had no need to get on ark. If insects did, they served as food for the birds."

What about freshwater fish? 41.24% of all known species of fish live in fresh water and wouldn't have been able to survive even one day in salt water. And regarding plants, I hope you realize that not all plants are aquatic, and most land plants would have died off. Insects as food for the birds? Sure that might work, but eating only insects for the entirety of the trip would have killed off most of the birds due to malnutrition. Furthermore, in order to completely cover Earth in water, that is, reaching up to the highest mountain, it would require 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water. The ark would be floating at 8.84 km above sea level, where the air pressure is about 1/3 the air pressure at sea level, resulting in the availability of only about a third as much oxygen to breathe, decreasing the blood oxygen saturation to lethal levels. The low levels of oxygen and high altitude will lead to High Altitude Cerebral Edema and High Altitude Pulmonary Edema, which both often lead to death. Also, the temperature at these altitudes ranges between -19° C (-2° F) to -36° C (-33° F) and can drop as low as -60° C (-76° F). This being said, the probability of a healthy adult human being surviving 40 days at said altitudes with limited provisions is around 6%, not to mention the fact that you are talking about a 600 year old man wearing rags and having to tend two of every species in existence everyday.

Here is a full article, made in a Wikipedia format for convenience, debunking the Global Flood, including cites for every statement and argument.

Rational wiki : Global Flood
rationalwiki.(remove this annotation)org/wiki/Global_flood

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. 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.

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.

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?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

"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, ... More to that, plants drown just like any other terrestrial organism, so they're just as fucked."

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.

"... 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.

"... 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.

"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."

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"Do you understand the scope of your stupidity now?"

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

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.

"Fleets of driftwood could preserve plant species..."

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.

"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.

[paraphrasing]
"The oceans weren't salt water before the flood"

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.

[paraphrasing]
"The water for the flood was formed from a reaction between gaseous oxygen and hydrogen"

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.

[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.

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

You would say wrong.

"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).

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

"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.

"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 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.

"...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.

"Bacteria do not drown"

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.

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

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.

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

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

Borftats

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Before I say anything else, I just wanted to point out that throughout your whole 'quoting and responding' formatted reply, you didn't actually answer or present any valid arguments. You basically repeated what he said and added your own commentary to it, instead of presenting contrary evidence.

"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. 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. 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.) 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.

"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."

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

"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."

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.

"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."

Spectrography? That's not a field of science. A Spectrograph, however, is an instrument that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum, but that wouldn't sound correct in your sentence either.

"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."

Not only is this sentence grammatically incorrect, its also scientifically incorrect. However, I'm assuming that you meant to say the hydrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere can bond to create water. The balanced chemical equation of water from hydrogen and oxygen is 2H2+O2 ---> 2H2O. Our current atmosphere is 20.946% oxygen and 0.000055% hydrogen. To get two water molecules, because oxygen is a diatomic molecule, two molecular hydrogen must bond with one molecular oxygen. Even if all of the 0.000055% of hydrogen in our atmosphere bonded with the oxygen in our atmosphere, there would not even nearly be enough water to cover Earth (plus if all of the hydrogen bonded with oxygen, and there is no more hydrogen left in our atmosphere, no organic compounds can form anymore).

"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."

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.

"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."

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. Convert that to meters (16 m) and subtract it to 8,848 m. You will then have the height of the tallest mountain 4000 years ago (8,832 m), which is not much of a difference in regards to extreme temperature (-60 C) and saturation of oxygen in the atmosphere (1/3 saturation to that of sea-level). It would also still take 4.5 billion cubic km of water to cover that height. Currently the ocean has about 1.4 billion cubic km of water, which means there is 3.1 billion cubic km of water missing, and as we know by the law of conservation of mass, matter doesn't disappear.

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

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.

But I assume you already knew that because that's basic chemistry and biology.

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

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

"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."

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.

"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."

Humans didn't even know cells existed until the 1600's. Sure he has zoological expertise, but he would not been able to tend microorganisms such as tardigrades and nematodes, (it is very easy to cross-contaminate even for scientists today with modern day technology) not to mention the many pathogens he had to tend to, which many of them die within hours if not feasting on a host. And also, the Bible says how God told Noah to take male and female animals, yet many taxonomic groups of animals are hermaphrodites, and many unicellular organisms asexually reproduce. This only shows the ignorance (and no, that's not a bad thing) of people, during the times the Bible was written, in many fields of science.

"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."

Honestly, I have no idea why you even wrote this section because it doesn't really do anything at all. In fact, if anything, this attacks at your own argument because most organisms require maternal care in their adolescence, and depriving them of it usually kills the animal. 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. Since he was ordered to gather two of every kind, there would be 20,000 birds, and every bird would weigh on average around 1.5 pounds, some weighing a lot more, and usually, the heavier ones are the flightless ones. The birds alone would weigh 30,000 pounds. But of course, that's only the birds. Not to mention the numerous species of land animals.

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

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning bacteria, and yes they can drown, but if that's the only microorganism you know of, then best you not make such preposterous statements. 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.

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

Thermoacidophiles live in active volcanoes and hot springs, they often die when levels of pH in their surrounding environment reach above 5 and when temperatures drop below 40 C. Water has a pH of 7 and at such altitudes, a temperature of -60 C (which, by the way, is impossible for water to stay in a liquid state at that temperature).

Predelection is not a word. I'm sure you meant predilection

From how you answered those questions, I think you should touch up on your science before you make any more comments regarding it.

jbooks888

+Borftats
You are probably right about everything you've said here, scientifically speaking, but when God commands something to be, it be. Maybe you could also state that scientifically, something cannot come from nothing??? 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. Bless you borftats!

GreedyCapybara7

+jbooks888 That's quite the interesting claim you're making. Are you going to substantiate it with any form of evidence, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

jbooks888

+GreedyCapybara7
Bite me ...

GreedyCapybara7

+jbooks888 Shall I take it then you're talking out of your ...?

jbooks888

+GreedyCapybara7
You seem to be itching for a fight... like I already told you, bite me.

GreedyCapybara7

+jbooks888 That's not quite true.

Like anyone with more than half a dozen brain cells when one speaks of magic it's not particularly likely that I'm going to just take your word for it.

Shall I have something to say on this or not?

Stay tuned for next part ...