... 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 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 ...