Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 04-05-2002, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:


Maybe between verses 1 and 2?

Genesis
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I mean where did the water come from? It means it was there before he decided to change Earth.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]

Please pay attention to what I wrote. We're talking about the date of the flood, not the date of creation.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

unworthyone · 04-05-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:


Please pay attention to what I wrote. We're talking about the date of the flood, not the date of creation.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

Right there could have been a flood before the flood in the bible. And animals too.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]

ps418 · 04-05-2002, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:


Right there could have been a flood before the flood in the bible. And animals too.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]

That's deep and all, but I'm not referring to some "flood before the flood," I'm talking about the one flood that's actually described in Genesis, the Noachian flood. Do you think that Genesis is consistent with Noah having lived 1 million years ago?

unworthyone · 04-05-2002, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:


That's deep and all, but I'm not referring to some "flood before the flood," I'm talking about the one flood that's actually described in Genesis, the Noachian flood. Do you think that Genesis is consistent with Noah having lived 1 million years ago?

I think I misread. I'm sorry. No actually I believe Noah lived less then 5000 years ago.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]

Ed · 04-05-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

MrD: ... But things like trilobites, brachiopods, various corals, and crinoid stem segments are extremely common fossils. ...
Ed:
That is my point, animals that were more mobile and in areas where the populations were low during the flood there would be few if any fossils. ...
LP:
A comment which makes me wonder whether Ed knows what a trilobite is, because trilobites have a feature that could enable them to escape the fate of crinoids and corals. I'll leave Ed to find out what that feature is; let's see how smart he is.
Ed:
I assume you are referring to their legs but they were rather slow footed and slow witted so they wouldnt get far.

lp: Ed proposes NO independent evidence that trilobites were slow-footed and slow-witted; even if they were, they could still be swept up into higher sediments by all the currents in the Flood. Consider how the Fountains of the Deep would have mixed up the Flood and its sediments. Imagine some trilobites being carried upward in some of the FOTD's.[/b]

Most paleontologists believe they were slow-footed and slow witted. Only a few would be swept into higher sediments and with such a small number fossilization is unlikely.

Quote:

LP:
The ecological-zonation hypothesis fails miserably, because organisms with similar tastes in habitat are found over big ranges of ages -- organisms that are sometimes very slow or stationary.
Ed:
Yes, but that is because they were already at the higher elevations.

lp: However, Ed presents no independent evidence for ecological zonation. The arguments of ecological-zonation critics like myself do present independent evidence: clues in the rocks and the inferred preferred habitats of the organisms. In fact, there has even been an abundance of work on inferring the details of paleoecologies.

The independent evidence is the sediments of any large flood even occuring today. If you take samples of the sediment you will see that organisms that are slower and lower in the topography are the ones that are lower in the sediments.

Quote:

Ed:
... But this is only if the fossil record is the result of the flood, some christian geologists think the flood left little or no evidence.
LP:
Little or no evidence? A very stupid hypothesis, because a worldwide flood would have produced a distinctive layer of mixed-up sediment.
Ed:
Maybe but given that it only lasted a year the layer may not be very thick within the billion year geological column. And Dr. Davis Young a geologist at UNC believes that hypothesis.

lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, have some common sense and look at what you have stated. You are now advocating a hypothesis DRASTICALLY different from what you had advocated just above. Do you have any idea how grossly they contradict each other?

There are christian geologists on both sides of the issue. I have yet to decide on my position.

[b]

Quote:

Ed:
I have not made up my mind which is the correct theory especially given that I am not a geologist. But there are intelligent scientists on both sides.

lp: Ed, the mainstream scientific community dumped Flood Geology almost 200 years ago, around when Charles Darwin was born. The rocks are too neatly layered to be the result of a single big flood -- especially one stirred up by some Fountains of the Deep.

The fountains of the deep were widely dispersed so their effect on the strata would have been negligible.

MrDarwin · 04-06-2002, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:


The fountains of the deep were widely dispersed so their effect on the strata would have been negligible.

So you believe that the fossil strata in question were laid down before the flood, and were essentially unchanged and undisturbed by the flood?

Ed · 04-06-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCdgw:

Originally posted by Ed:
[b] No, because more personality requires more genetic information, but natural selection by mutation is inadequate to increase information given that all studies so far show that mutation either maintains the status quo or results in a loss of information

KC: Incorrect. There are mutations known that are reversible. If mutations only maintain the status quo or are losses of information, then a mutation that produces a reversal of the original mutation could not be possible--- it would require a GAIN in information.

This canard of mutations only being neutral or losses of information is so much ignorant codswallop.

Cheers,

KC

Hello KC. Where's your Sunshine Band? Just kidding! Actually if the mutation is a duplication so that the information remains the same then if the duplicate is removed or reversed then the info still remains the same.

Ed · 04-06-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:


Lower elevation swamps? As opposed to the ones at high elevations!? You're losing it Ed.

Yes. Drive about 3.5 hours northwest of your home into Greenville County and you will see them. I have stood on the side of a road in Greenville County, South Carolina and stared right at a swamp. And Greenville County is at a much higher elevation then swamps and marshes of the Lowcountry of S.C.

Ed · 04-06-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:

D'oh! Lower elevation swamps! Why didn't I think of that?
"First floor swamps! Cycads, seymouria!
....
Fourth floor swamps! Cypress, muskrats, Cajuns!"
....

Get real.

See my post to theyeti above.

Ed · 04-06-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Ed:
Hardly. Given that the mutations may have been delivered by viruses it is more like a heat seeking missile programmed to strike anything within a certain temperature range.

lp: How do mutations get delivered by viruses? Genes, yes. Mutations, no.[/b]

Alterations of genes ARE mutations.

Quote:

lp: And why would a virus insert itself into exactly the same place in different genomes? That asks too much of coincidence.

Viruses often have the same effect on two different species.

Quote:

Ed:
Hello Cora. Maybe cycads preferred the lower elevation swamps.

lp: Ed grasps at straws. Present-day cycads don't have such a preference.

Well maybe they did in the past.

[b]

Quote:

Ed:
Depending on which Flood theory you accept, maybe the flood occurred early in the Cretaceous before they became dominant.

lp: Thus taking place long before humanity had existed.

I've noticed that Ed seems to lack any real conception of geological time; that may explain why he makes such loose statements.

If human populations were very small during the Cretaceous then there would probably not be any human fossils from that period.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.