Noah's Ark

A lot of that going on around here, Brad.

(underline mine)From: Geotimes - February 2004 - The Ice-Free Corridor Revisitedand It appears that you are right.

More and more evidence showing up for an early East Coast influx as well. Check out the Topper site

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I see the thinking on Kennewick Man is changing from Caucasoid to Asian http://www.washington.edu/...emuseum/kman/ancientpeoples.htm

First, since you insist on calling AIG names I guess I’ll make this post using other sources. (Although, why is it the worst you can do about AIG is call them liars? You think if they were that bad you could post come contradictory information.)First, the original “Kind” Noah brought on the ark was nether mouse nor capybara, it would most likely resemble a squirrel. (In fact, if you look up rodents on wikipedia, it will tell you the earliest rodents were squirrel like.) And capybara’s are very similar to other rodent species, such as cavies and beavers, and have many biological similarities to those mice, they simply have a few larger differences from them then from others, such as lack of tail, longer legs, and a larger size. Also, you posting a picture of mice and a capybara and asking me to explain how one became the other is like me posting a picture of a Great Dane and a Cairn Terrier and asking you how one evolved into the other. One didn’t become the other, they just had the same ancestors.Also, your 3,000 rodent species is the highest end of the species spectrum I found. The numbers I found said there where between 1500-3000 rodent species. With 2000 being the median. Also, how that many species got her in 4000 years is quit easy to explain. Rodents breed like crazy, and the more offspring an animal produces, the more chances there are for genetic variation to create a new subspecies/species. (Such as dwarf hamsters and Syrian Hamsters.) Well, my problem is that if the mountains were underwater before the where raised up, how did land plant fossils get under and with fish fossils? And the article I posted before have tree leaf fossils, fish fossils, and sea life fossils all in the same place. If you want links to places with seas and freshwater fish, land plants, and other species all on mountains/hills, try these:Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/fobu/ Now this is what I love about Evolution. Ever ten or twenty years, you throw all evidence that doesn’t agree with your new theories out the window and come up with new evidence. So, tested fossils of dinosaur that show that it wasn’t highly mineralized are wrong because there old, but new tests on different bones (Found at lower levels then the originals, which the site for the fossil beds admit.) are right because there newer? (And of course don’t upset evolutionary theories.) Here are more links about unfossilized dinosaur bones:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Unfossiliz...Page not found | Genesis Park Here are two sites you need to see. The first is a news article about a “Stone Age” Tribe
That survived the tsunami. So, if “Stone Age” Tribes now days can avoid tsunami’s, why couldn’t ancient tribes with the same level of technology avoid a volcanic eruption? The second is a site with evidence for my Tower of Babel theory.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosTOWER OF BABEL - Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel? - ChristianAnswers.NetAnd, if you started with just one pair of rhinos, and every female gave birth to a female calf at least every fourth year, you could have two to the twenty-fifth power (33,554,432) females, not counting males, in only 100 years. As for the evidence for no fossils of predators being found in the ashfall fossil beds, just look at your own link:Ashfall Fossil Beds - WikipediaIt says right there that some bones show bite marks from predators, but no predator remains have been found.Also, before branding the cave paintings of dinosaurs as all fakes, there are some sites you should see. The first gives information on the different ancient dinosaur art, the second it an article about spines being found on certain sauroped species. Species already depicted having those spines on several thousand year old art that are called “Fakes” Because some people got the idea to make more to sell. Also, the posture of the tail doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a fake, it just means whoever painted it really needs art lessons.Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park shortenI found some very excellent information on how fish and coral would have survived the flood, here it is: How did fish survive the Flood? - ChristianAnswers.Net Odd, that’s the answer I always seem to get when arguing with evolutionists, “Creationists lie, the bible contradicts itself, your wrong, your brainwashed.” Yet, I never get them to say where they lied, twisted facts, or where the bible contradicts itself.As for evolutionists twisting facts . .. Well, I won’t get into that. *Cough* Piltdown Man *Cough* Now THAT’S the difference between Noah’s ark and the Icarus myth. I have shown you fossilized animals that drowned in the flood. I showed you other accounts of a worldwide flood. And I showed you geological evidence for the flood. That’s what makes it different, evidence. And that’s why I believe in Noah’s Flood, and why I don’t believe in the myth of Icarus, or evolution. Because there entire theory uses transitions from one species (Such as canines) to another (Such as dolphins) that is based without fossil evidence of the transition. And “Biblical transitional fossils” would be (and are) put down under “Extinct fossil species” As they would have only small bits of variation between individuals (such as slightly longer or shorter extremities), and wouldn’t suddenly gain genetic information, which is what evolution needs to happen. I know, I ask for insults whenever I debate evolutionists. Its quit fascinating really, usually when your debating people, they start insulting you and your theories when you make them angry and hit a nerve, challenge something they don’t want challenged, make them squirm and doubt what they say. Yet I haven’t called anyone names, gotten angry, or sworn, yet you ask me how I can believe what I do. Makes you wonder don’t it?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-20-2005 11:18 PM

Hey NotSoBlind, AiG gets brought up a lot around here, and this is not the first time I have encountered them. In any case, their articles have been refuted time and time again in countless threads. From their track record I can honestly say that at best they are wrong at worst they are lying.As far as the article you posted, I found it to be an interesting illustration about how things adapt to different environments, but not the sort of 1 new rodent species a year we would see if the Flood story happened. The proposition is absurd, and there is no evidence for it. Ok. So essentially we bread 1 new rodent species a year for the last 3000 years from squirels? Doesn't this seem a bit far fetched to you? Let's not forget a herding mentality, nostrils that close to keep water out, slight webbing on their feet, a semi-aquatic lifestyle. Ya know, it's making so much sense now! Capybaras came from squirels. It took 3 years. Agreed, about the ancestor bit, I meant that. I am sorry if it was unclear. The proposed squirrel-like ancestor would have spawned off the capybera, the guinea pig, the hamster, and the mouse. But you have one problem with your dog analogy, a Great Dane and a Cairn Terrier are different breeds of the same species. A capybera and a Guinea Pig are different species all together!Let me put it to you this way, if we got one rodent species a year for the last 3000 years, why aren't we getting new rodent species every year today?You are talking about evolution on a grand scale NotSoBlind. Rodents are not all breeds of squirrel and they possess far more differences than you give them credit for. Note the following:Naked Mole-Rat: Beaver: Squirrel: Guniea Pig: All of these species would have come about from a Squirrel like ancestor in only 3000 years. Yes, but as creationists are fond of saying, they are still Hamsters! Hehehe.. That felt good No, seriously. There are 2000 species. And Rodents still breed like crazy... and guess what? We ain't getting new species every year. It's an absurd proposition that they ever did. If you wanna say 2000 species fine. 1.5 rodent species a year. Happy? Why don't we see it today? You ever been to a marsh or a swamp? Even the amazon rainforest where a river floods? Well, i can tell you, the trees grow in several feet of water. There is one explanation right off the top of my head.But, I'll do a bit more research on it and get back to you. Nope. The theories are modified and improved. And this is not exclusive to evolution BTW, this is science. It happens in medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. We think one thing, as more evidence accrues we modify what we think.Science works by creating theories based on current evidence. You then test those theories and modify them as new evidence comes to light. This is how ALL science operates and it works. So if you don't like it, stop going to your doctor because he uses the same methodology. Back in the 80's it was thought the bones may not be highly mineralized. Further testing showed that they were. Buddies bones were dug up in the same area yet he has not submitted his findings to any journal, or allowed any other scientists to take a look at what he has. So all we end up with is a guy with a claim.If someone did find 'unfossilized' dino bones it would be big news. I mean, it would be all over the scientific world. Noble prizes for everyone. And, quite frankly, I hope someone finds some. Not that they couldn't, but this site has some pictures of a highly advanced society that couldn't avoid a volcanic eruption. In the end, this is all speculation, fact is you have no proof for your theory. Just saying “it might have, maybe, coulda, sorta, happened.” is not enough. You need to show hard evidence that such a thing occurred and so far you haven't been able too.eHarcourtSchool.com has been retiredFurther, volcanoes and tsunamis are very different. A massive volcanic explosion of the magnitude that produced the Ashfall beds is equivalent to several nuclear bombs. I don't think people could easely outrun those. Yes, in la la land where every child survives to maturity with no disease. Where every female produces the perfect amount of offspring in her lifetime. Where every individual manages to migrate thousands of miles over rugged terrain and hostile environments without a trace. You know Rhinos are endangered right? Do you know how difficult it is to breed them? Seriously, breeding programs are having a had time getting their numbers up and thats WITH the several thousand Rhinos we have. Imagine from 7 specimens. That my friend, is a perfect example of an ad hoc explanation. No worse than my “In the days of Icarus the air was thicker”. There is no evidence for any of this and its intent is solely to make excuses for the flood. “Special pleading” also comes to mind.Further, the mud! All those torrential rains and raging flood waters would have wipped up tons and tons of mud and built up layers and layers of sediment. The fish would have drowned. And I am glad that many species of fish could withstand some shifts in salinity, but you are out of your mind if you are saying All fish!As a person who has actually maintained a salt watter tank will tell you, you have to check the pH and salinity every other day and adjust the levels constantly because if you don't everything will die. That's a fact. I'll avoid the others as they are not necessarily on topic. I will simply point out the dishonesty of creationist literature:1)Creationists Lie: Animals all came from unique 'kinds'. Why is it a lie? No proof, or definition, of what a kind is yet it is constantly put forward.2)Creationists Lie: Where did the water go? Common answer: The world was surrounded by a vapor canopy. No proof of any such thing yet still put forward. A lie.3)Creationists Lie: You believe we all evolved from a bannana! A lie. No one belives that.4)Creationists Lie: There are no transitional forms! A lie. There is an embarassment of riches when it comes to transitional forms. Bravo! Got anything over 100 years old? Further, who exposed the hoax? Give you a hint: Scientists. Give you another hint: Evolutionary scientists. You have done no such thing! You have showed animals that may have drowned in A flood, not THE flood. Retract that immediately or post some evidence. Again, you have done no such thing! There is no Geological evidence for THE flood. Not one iota. Your not answering me here. But I will address the broader point. We have many threads on transitional forms, please discuss it there, let this thread focus on the flood. Sorry if I ribbed you to hard. I debate for sport Seriously, I'm sorry. I wasn't meaning to be overly insulting I meant it more playfully. I will refrain from any more insults in jest or otherwise. Yep, sure does.

Is that really so hard to believe?


This message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 10:39 AM

HAHAHHAHAHAHA!OMG! What the hell is that first picture? Seriously! That is one scary freakin dog. What happened to him?ABE: Awww... that's sweet .. Kinda makes me sad the little fella' passed away. http://www.samugliestdog.com/This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-21-2005 10:53 AM

As to the larger point: Breeds and species are a very different distinction. The genetic variation between most dog breeds is no very much. A beaver and a squierrel however have very distinct lives, genetics, behaviors, and adaptations.

Don't get me started on the pseudo-science of 'species.'But it would be interesting to see a chart of showing how genetically similar your four rodents are and how similar mine are if you were to replace the sheepdog and pug with a coyote and a fox.It might be a stronger argument, at least for me, than pictures since morphology can be drastically different within a single species (although depending on your definition of species a St. Bernard and a chihuaha could be separate species).Makes me understand where the 'kinds' argument is coming from.

Sam used to win this ugliest dog contest in San Francisco every year and he'd be on the SF Chronicle website.Poor guy.

It's a fuzzy line, but it's there. Let me put it to you this way, the level of difference between a beaver and a squirrel, is huge. You can't present dog variety as a prior precedant.A squirrel doesn't cut down trees, use it's tail like a paddle, have webbed feet, have double layerd water proofed fur, nostrils that close, build ancestral dams, tie up rivers, etc.To have dog variety as a prior precedent, you would have to show me a dog that... oh... I dunno, lived in lagoons and only ate seaweed. It's just too much a leap.

Not really. At least not a line. Species definition criteria vary from scientist to scientist. The criteria used to determine distinct species by a botanist seem to be very different from those used by a zoologist or a entimologist. That's what I'm asking: how huge? How 'huge' is the genetic difference between squirrel v. beaver and wolf v. pug?So squirrels and beavers live in different environments and look different, so what? So do wolves and pugs. So do black bears and polar bears for that matter.A black bear looks a lot more like a polar bear than a squirrel resembles a beaver, does that mean the genetic difference between black bears and polar bears is LESS than the squirrel v. beaver?It might not be. But my point is that your argument 'feels' right, but surely there must be actual genetic evidence that would drive the point home. Otherwise, you are just arguing morphology - which falls into the 'kinds' trap.

I'll get back to you on that. I'm spending way too much time at the EvC A cursorry glance thrugh google turns up some recent studies that suggest less than 1% diffrence between dog breeds. Most of the genes that change from breed to breed have wide morphological implications but little else.Also, wild dog popluations exhibit more genetic variety than captive dogs. Go figure.According to this site: http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatsMice.htmRats and mice have about a 10% difference in their genetic code. And that's rats and mice!So hopefully that clears up some stuff.ABE: Incedentaly, Rats are about as far away from mice (genetically) as they are from humans.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-21-2005 11:58 AM

Well to be truthful a linear equation describing speciation in my opinion would be intelletually dishonest, mostly because populations don't follow linear rates of growth. But understandable to using a linear module because it is the easiest model to describe.So if we were to assume speciation as an exponential function wheref(x) = 16000(1.001095)^x where x represents time.Where 1.001095 is extrapolated because 16000 land "kinds" turn into 427,000 land species. We now have an equation that adequately describes the fact that populations are not linear.However of course there is a flaw in this description because then it demonstrates that the rate of mutation is changing as time is changing. (YECs may believe this is a wonderful thing however, the rate at which speciation is occuring does not match up to observed life)So again we do a little bit of calculus and we find that the rate of changef'(x)= 17.5156*(1.001095)^xwhich represents the number of speciation events as time changesplug in 3000 for x into the rate equation and we get a nice round number of:467 speciation events occuring per year after 3000 years. WOW!!Course all of this is pure speculation but i think that 427 speciation events occuring like this would indicate a much higher rate of new species discoveries then currently occuring. Bringing caclulus to new levels of fun.