It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You haven't falsified any of my statements. You've only posted what other geologists with a bias have to say about it.

Sure, geologists that agree with evolution will agree with each other and disagree on most anything contrary.
On the other hand, geologists that agree with creation will agree with each other and disagree on most anything contrary.

Even those like William Ryan and Walter Pitman, who don't necessarily agree with a biblical flood, were criticized for their black sea deluge theory. It seems as though any theory put forth that correlates to the biblical flood in any manner whatsoever is quickly criticized and regarded as false DESPITE the evidence from any archaeological findings.

A2D


Of course they were criticized...not because people doubted a flood, but rather because they doubted the magnitude of said flood. And research conducted after Ryan and Pitaman's research confirms those suspicions:



A February 2009 article reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".[10]
According to a study by Giosan et al.,[11] the level in the Black Sea before the marine reconnection was 30 m below present sea level, rather than the 80 m or lower of the catastrophe theories. If the flood occurred at all, the sea level increase and the flooded area during the reconnection were significantly smaller than previously proposed. It also occurred earlier than initially surmised, ca. 7,400 BCE rather than the originally proposed 5,600 BCE.


en.wikipedia.org...

Either way, it's a LOCAL flood. And neither the fossil record, or geology backs that up. You can repeat the contrary as much as you want, but until you post a specific quote rationalizing a global flood, you're speculating.

Prove us wrong, post a specific scientific quote that proves the global flood happened and that it's backed up by geology or the fossil record.
edit on 28-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


I mean, from what Ive seen , the (evolutionary)scientists seem to be working under the assumption that life "must have evolved" so their answers to questions are on the lines of "dunno, but evolutiondidit".


No, they're working from the conclusion based on 150+ years of scientific research that shows that evolution has occurred, it occurring now, and will continue to occur.


In all the 150+ years of research, has anybody managed to successfully "test" the claim that the single cell evolved into all the multitude of the lifeforms we see around us? Because you said earlier on (pg 8) that your claims regarding evolution are testable.

Or do the extremely long timespans involved make ToE untestable, thereby rendering your earlier claim of "testability" void?
Better yet, is there a loophole in all of this, that somehow exempts ToEs grand claim that "all life forms descended from the single cell" from being tested, but still allows ToE be accepted as a scientific fact, anyway?




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


There's several hypotheses as to how single cellular life turned into multicellular life. However, it's not really all that relevant, as the theory holds strong from then on. It doesn't matter how it happened...random mutation...chemical processes...genes...defects...environmental impacts...god...whatever. It still wouldn't invalidate the theory of evolution. Humans would still have a common ancestor with today's apes, birds would have still evolved from reptiles, and the mouse and elephant would still have a common ancestor.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


You have an interesting point of view, but you're entirely wrong about one of your crucial points.
Evolution does happen in leaps and bounds, in response to environmental factors, this is true.
But it doesn't happen over the course of years.
It happens over the course of generations.
Your "10-20 years" for multi-cellular animals and your "about a month" for bacteria (clearly stating that you have no clue as to how bacteria function) are so wrong that it nullifies your entire theory.
You can have your opinion, which is fine...whatever.
But when you're interjecting your opinion as fact, and being wrong about it...well, then there's an issue.


Please, stop being a stupid atheist and do some research, and stop assuming just because some people have read the Bible they don't know what they're talking about. Please stop using ad hominem like " you have no clue as to how bacteria function" when you're the one that is wrong.

I'm so wrong huh? That's what you said right?

New species of finch observed by scientsts
And I quote, "The species’ forefather was a medium ground finch, or Geospiza fortis, who flew from a neighboring island to the Grants’ island of Daphne Major, and into their nets, in 1981."

The new species no longer mates with the original. Published in 2009. So that's an entirely new species of bird in 28 years. Less time than I've been alive.

Nylon eating bacteria
And I quote, "In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935"

So in 40 years that's a new strain of bacteria. Let's try again.

Bacteria make evolutionary shift in the lab.
And I quote "But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."

Hmm, let's try again.

HIV mutation rate.
And I quote "This complex scenario leads to the generation of many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of one day."

When experimenting in a lab mutation of certain viruses can happen even quicker.

I wouldn't put forth things I hadn't read about and confirmed myself. Obviously it's the atheists that don't read and don't research their own beliefs. I seem to know more about current events in the advancements of evolutionary science than they do. Please, try and read some of the new stuff that's come out and what we've learned. We're a long way from Darwin people.

When this information was published, scientists and atheists were ecstatic. All this was even more evidence that evolution was true. As soon as creationists point out that this means evolution doesn't always take as long as some people think? Well, your atheist friends haven't mentioned it to you or brought it up since have they? Wonder why that is?

Generations? You forget that small animals, bacteria, and viruses don't live as long as humans. A span of 10 or 20 years is a LOT more generations of birds than it is humans. Remember, most animals mate once a year or more including the talked about finches. Many more generations available for mutation than in humans.

Given an environment change, such as moving to a laboratory environment or any change whatsoever, species can and DO evolve at rapid rates sometimes.

EDIT:
Also, just to show that's not it, the list goes on and on. There's many examples out there, I just wanted to show I had proven my case, but I don't have time to go over everything I've read on the topic, but to broaden out on the topic a little bit more.

Lizzard experiment shows rapid evolution.
And I quote, "An experiment with lizards in the Caribbean has demonstrated that evolution moves in predictable ways and can occur so rapidly that changes emerge in as little as a decade"



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 





But for extra credit: Does anyone know why you have to get a flu shot EVERY YEAR! I'll give you one good guess!


We've been using findings from the theory of evolution in modern medicine and gene technology for year...it's something the creationists ignore on purpose. Why? Because it's one of the things that make it blatantly obvious the theory's correct. What they're doing is like jumping up in the air, then falling back down again because of gravity...and then claiming gravity doesn't exist



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Irony: complaining about an ad hominem attack after telling someone to 'stop being a stupid atheist'.

...you do realize that your solution actually makes things worse for the case of Noah, right?

Why?

Oh, it's just genetics. Let's take the typical storybook version first. Noah takes 2 of every species. That means every single species is narrowed down to 2 members. 2. Incredibly small gene pool right there. Now, that's the sort of thing we would have evidence of. We already have evidence of a massive narrowing the gene pool of the cheetah about 10,000 years ago to the point where two cheetahs from different populations are more related than most human cousins. There should be evidence of this gene pool bottle neck in every species.

Now, narrow it down to 2 members of the same genus...so that multiple species all have the same great^x grandparents...and you get an even smaller bottleneck, which should be even more evident.

The further up the classification chain you take it, the smaller and smaller the genetic bottleneck, the more evidence there should be of the bottleneck.

Sir, I believe that sound is that of a tinfoil rear end getting given to you by hand.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well here's the problem. Can you blame them?

Genesis 1:11
"Then God said, “Let the LAND produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

Genesis 1:24
"And God said, “Let the LAND produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so."

So there ya go. Animals and plants evolved from the land. But then you get this.

Genesis 1:25 (SAME PAGE) "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." Wait what? That's like, different than what it just said!

What's going on here?

Genesis 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." Two of every animal huh?

Genesis 7:2 (THE SAME PAGE!)
"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


But we do see a bottleneck in the HUMAN population....correct?

In fact, it's a bottleneck that SUPPORTS the story of Noah's Ark....

A2D



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Irony: complaining about an ad hominem attack after telling someone to 'stop being a stupid atheist'.

...you do realize that your solution actually makes things worse for the case of Noah, right?

Why?

Oh, it's just genetics. Let's take the typical storybook version first. Noah takes 2 of every species. That means every single species is narrowed down to 2 members. 2. Incredibly small gene pool right there. Now, that's the sort of thing we would have evidence of. We already have evidence of a massive narrowing the gene pool of the cheetah about 10,000 years ago to the point where two cheetahs from different populations are more related than most human cousins. There should be evidence of this gene pool bottle neck in every species.

Now, narrow it down to 2 members of the same genus...so that multiple species all have the same great^x grandparents...and you get an even smaller bottleneck, which should be even more evident.

The further up the classification chain you take it, the smaller and smaller the genetic bottleneck, the more evidence there should be of the bottleneck.

Sir, I believe that sound is that of a tinfoil rear end getting given to you by hand.


I've already tried to debate with you on other threads, and it seems you're never willing to have an honest conversation. You love to set up straw men, use logical fallacies, never really read the other person's reply, and when your straw men arguments are pointed out, you accuse the other person of rambling! So it's pointless to debate with you. Personally if it were up to me I would just have you banned. But just to address this last straw man you have set up.

You imply in your post that no other species have genetic bottlenecks. That's basically your claim right?

However, you never showed any sources to prove that only cheetahs have genetic bottle necks? Is it because they're not the only animals that do?

Other animals do also. The cheetah is just more evidence for the hypothesis. Its population dropped out right about the time some people say the flood happened! The Cheetahs would just be more evidence for me. Not for you!

BUT the whole idea is that genetic variation can happen faster than previously thought. If it is indeed true then their tests for genetic variation wouldn't be valid. It would appear to have occurred much longer ago than they really did.

For example we used to think that species took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve. We now know that species can sometimes form in less than 20 years. If we see a genetic bottleneck in a plant for example that took 20 years to evolve but that we THINK took 200,000 years to evolve, our test isn't going to be correct now is it? Now that's an extreme example, but you should be able to get my point.

But the NUMBER one issue to consider is this. If you're claiming that a flood wasn't possible because there's no evidence of genetic bottlenecks occurring (which there are). You're actually claiming much more than you think.

You're no longer JUST claiming there was no flood. Now you're actually claiming there was no mass extinction events at all! You just didn't realize you were doing it.

Scientists know there have been other mass extinction events. Many of them and we're currently thought to be in the middle of one RIGHT NOW! 99% of documented species are extinct! You want a bottleneck? After the Toba supereruption it is thought that the human population could have been reduced to lower than 10,000. There's one of your bottlenecks my friend.

You should see the same bottlenecks you're looking for in species regardless if the flood happened or not. Why? Because the flood would have been just another mass extinction. So, if what you're claiming is true for the flood, then you should see it for ALL mass extinctions. Which we do.

Therefore, since we see genetic bottlenecks after ALL mass extinctions, that means the genetic bottlenecks you were looking for are right in front of your face. Yet you dishonestly imply they don't exist???? That's not very fair!

Unless you're implying that NO mass extinction has ever taken place or that genetic bottlenecks should only exist after the flood, but NO OTHER mass extinctions? But that wouldn't be fair either would it? Cause we know that's not true either.

First of all you must remember that I'm not a creationist. I've told you this time and time again, but I don't think you understand what that means!

I don't believe that if there was a flood it was only 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. I believe it's a much older story or stories that just got passed down and then was written down later. The story itself could be hundreds of thousands of years old or maybe even millions if it was first told by very early man. That is if they could talk.

You're trying to fit it into 6,000 -10,00 years because you need a straw man to argue your case. But I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years. That's your problem. If evolution happens faster than we think, then a million years is a long time for new genetic variation to show up. After all the Toba eruption was only 70,00 years ago and human diversity has already increased to the point where it's hard to test for the genetic bottleneck directly. To find it, we've had to test the genetics of human parasites cause it can't be found anymore in the human genes.

In smaller creatures if evolution can occur at faster rates than we think, any bottleneck that may have been there could be hard to trace. But we do know some still shows up in some creatures. Such as the Cheetah you so kindly mention.

But your number one problems is I don't believe in a worldwide flood. I said it was local remember? So a local flood that kills basically none of the species on the planet. Exactly why would that cause the genetic bottlenecks you speak of? Most animals would have survived the flood?

But we've had lots of mass extinctions. There's bottlenecks all over the place. The flood would have just been another one.
edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


But we do see a bottleneck in the HUMAN population....correct?

In fact, it's a bottleneck that SUPPORTS the story of Noah's Ark....

A2D


No it doesn't....show us exactly how it supports that ridiculous Noah's ark hypothesis. Nothing in terms of geology or biology backs it up



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


It just goes to show that there have been mass extinctions in the past that have caused biological bottlenecks to show up in different species. Even events that have dropped the human population down to less than 10,000 people fairly recently.

It's not proof of the flood, but it's just evidence of extinctions. There would be no way to look at bottlenecks and determine if there was a world wide flood or not. It would be an unreliable method.

What an atheist expects to see is that if there was a world wide flood is that ALL species have the same biological bottlenecks. But that's a very naive assumption. If we look further we can perhaps find a better answer.

It's a simple mistake to make for someone looking at just the flood itself. The problem however is that mass extinctions work just like a lossy compression algorithm. You lose data about what really happened each time we go through one. Just like if you keep re-saving a jpeg over and over. The problem is, we haven't had just ONE mass extinction event. We've had many. So our picture of what has happened has gotten fuzzy.

You actually wouldn't expect to see ALL species have the same biological markers showing a flood coming from the same time period even if the flood did happen. From what we know, you would actually expect to see the exact opposite. Here's why.

Extinction events affect different species differently and at different times. But to simplify the situation, let's just pretend there's only two species, cats and dogs. When the flood comes around most cats and most dogs die. Only the ones on the boat survive. So what you would expect to see is that you can trace both the lineage of cats and dogs back to a few surviving cats and dogs from the same time period right? Correct. But here's the problem.

What you'd be forgetting is all the other mass extinctions that could of happened later or sooner that mess things up. The next mass extinction may only affect certain animals while the rest are not bothered by it. For example they lived too far away from the event, or it could be caused by a virus that only affects certain species.

For example, say another mass extinction comes along 100,000 years later, but it only affects dogs! Most of the dogs die out AGAIN from the second mass extinction leaving only a few survivors that are immune to the virus.

Now when we go to trace the linage back what do we find? We find that dogs all come from a small bottlenecked population from 100,000 years ago, but cats weren't affected! So cats appear to have come from a much ealier time. Therefore we conclude there was no flood! But there could have still been a flood. There's no way to tell from the biological bottlenecks because the dogs got hit by another extinction event that the cats did not.

Now it's not proof of a flood, but it doesn't disprove it either. There is actually no way to tell. What you would expect to see is a staggered set of repeating biological bottlenecks for different species as they were all affected by different extinction events in their own time and in their own way. And that's exactly what we see. Humans at 70,000 years. Cheetahs and many other animals at 10,00 years. The Panda at 43,000 years ago and so on.

But since that's the case there would be no reliable way to determine if all the animals had also been victim to a flood that happened even earlier. Anyone that mentions it just doesn't really understand extinction events are happening all the time. To look at just the flood and expect to see only data from that, well they're making the same mistake that creationists make. There's just no way to tell.
edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Look, it's really simple....a global flood would leave global sedimental evidence behind. Fact is, there's NONE...ergo, the whole silly flood theory is beyond nuts



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


One of the main reasons I don't believe in a global flood myself. Even though other people argue against what you just said and take issue with it and make some points as to why there isn't sediment or that there actually is sediment and all kinds of arguments we don't have time to go over, but I don't find them convincing.

But I'm not here to prove the flood happened, cause like I said. I don't believe it. I'm just pointing out issues in other arguments. Cause you can't just put forth any crap argument you want, even if your final conclusion is right. You have to show the correct way to get to the conclusion. But I never said there was geological evidence of a global flood. So it shouldn't be a problem. I never made that claim.

Like I said I was just hypothesizing about things that may have happened had there really been a global flood. But I never really thought there was. That was one of the main reasons why.
edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

There is geologic proof that a world wide flood has not happened since life existed on the planet. The story of Noah came about in connection with the floods in Mesopotamia many thousands of years ago.

The river dwellers were accustomed to rivers overflowing their banks at certain seasons; these periodic floods were annual events in their lives. But new perils threatened the valley of Mesopotamia as a result of progressive geologic changes to the north.

For thousands of years after the submergence of Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean was brought to the level of the Atlantic the mountains about the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and those to the northwest and northeast of Mesopotamia continued to rise. This elevation of the highlands was greatly accelerated about 5000 B.C., and this, together with greatly increased snowfall on the northern mountains, caused unprecedented floods each spring throughout the Euphrates valley. These spring floods grew increasingly worse so that eventually the inhabitants of the river regions were driven to the eastern highlands. For almost a thousand years scores of cities were practically deserted because of these extensive deluges.

Almost five thousand years later, as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah’s flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.

The traditions of a time when water covered the whole of the earth’s surface are universal. Many races harbor the story of a world-wide flood some time during past ages. The Biblical story of Noah, the ark, and the flood is an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity. There has never been a universal flood since life was established on Earth. The only time the surface of the earth was completely covered by water was during those Archeozoic ages before the land had begun to appear.

But Noah really lived; he was a wine maker of Aram, a river settlement near Erech. He kept a written record of the days of the river’s rise from year to year. He brought much ridicule upon himself by going up and down the river valley advocating that all houses be built of wood, boat fashion, and that the family animals be put on board each night as the flood season approached. He would go to the neighboring river settlements every year and warn them that in so many days the floods would come. Finally a year came in which the annual floods were greatly augmented by unusually heavy rainfall so that the sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village; only Noah and his immediate family were saved in their houseboat.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join