... 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.