Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,583 Year: 4,840/9,624 Month: 188/427 Week: 101/85 Day: 6/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fish on the Ark?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 91 (441845)
12-18-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AdminBuzsaw
12-18-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Not The Coffee House
We're not getting off-topic. Whether dolphin is a "fish kind" or not is very much part of the topic.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 12-18-2007 10:31 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 12-18-2007 11:34 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-19-2007 12:03 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 22 by reiverix, posted 12-19-2007 8:17 AM Taz has not replied

  
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 91 (441849)
12-18-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
12-18-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Topic Warning
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 -->EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Updated the link to the "General discussion...". AB's link was to the previous version. I will also tweak his "signature" for him.

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 10:39 PM Taz has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 18 of 91 (441852)
12-19-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
12-18-2007 10:39 PM


Reinforcing AdminBuz's opinion
AdminBuz writes:
A wise crack on occasion is acceptable but please don't let it get distractful in the science forums. Thanks.
Even before AB posted his warning, I had noted and was concerned about this topic turning goofy. In the serious topics the goal is to have serious discussions. I think the discussion should be somewhere in the vicinity of what fish require to survive.
Any replies to moderation messages such as this one should go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below. To do otherwise is the risk a 24 hour suspension.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 10:39 PM Taz has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 91 (441862)
12-19-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by noachian
12-18-2007 7:42 PM


You do realise that 'Neogene creatures' date back over 20m years, don't you?
This is hardly in agreement with any notion of a world wide flood, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by noachian, posted 12-18-2007 7:42 PM noachian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:26 AM Larni has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4194 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 20 of 91 (441865)
12-19-2007 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by noachian
12-18-2007 6:32 PM


quote:
As for the actual event, insects, fish etc wouldn't need to board the ark since most could survive in water.
No they can't. Few insects can survive in water, most of the insects you're thinking of are water striders and they don't live in the water, but walk on the water, which doesn't work if the water is choppy. And few fish can survive serious salinity changes. Only a relative few, such as the bullshark can tolerate massive changes in salinity. Furthermore, many species are density specific. Changes in salinity change pressure. How you intend to deal with that I'd love to see. And how are large predators going to survive when the food pyramid has been wiped out?
quote:
Trillions, even trillions of trillions of marine life would have been extiguished (as we can see from the fossil strata)
Except that the strata doesn't support a flood belief. If the flood was true, we'd see strata with trilobites and humans. What we see is what evolution predicted. And don't even try to argue that complexity changes fluid mechanics. A 50 ton mammoth does not sink slower then a 1/2 an once primitive reptile.
quote:
, eventually breeding into different highly altering environments the fishes adapted and variated up until the many differnet fishes we have today and it still goes on.
See the early posts for a mockery of that argument. There is no indication of such rapid changes in species.
quote:
Like many salmon are adapting to changing water tempritures etc.
Not quite. Salmon undergo a specific change in their bodies to tolerate a single one time change in salinity and temperature. Not what you are arguing.
quote:
Remember the Universal Father was in control of the nature as the flood obliterated it, so I am sure God could have sustained the right spicies of fish for his plan for the Post-flood adaption.
Magic. Got it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by noachian, posted 12-18-2007 6:32 PM noachian has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 91 (441868)
12-19-2007 5:12 AM


Just Another Fish Tale
'Course, the easiest answer is that this is just an over exaggerated story of a local flood. Folks likely didn't even think of what would happen to the fish, as they likely had no realisation of the importance of the different salinities. They probably just assumed they could all survive in the water.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5897 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 22 of 91 (441887)
12-19-2007 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
12-18-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Not The Coffee House

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 10:39 PM Taz has not replied

  
noachian
Junior Member (Idle past 5339 days)
Posts: 10
From: Cumbria, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Joined: 12-18-2007


Message 23 of 91 (441888)
12-19-2007 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tanypteryx
12-18-2007 7:36 PM


In answer to your question Tanypteryx, You or I are no people to question the Universal Father's methods of preserving specific spiecies. God always nature to handle itself most of the time, so dureing the flood; it was maybe safer/wiser to have the animals under human care.
As for the 'innocent' animals, well there has to be sacrifices in order to get to where you want to be. Natural Selection is ten times worse. And about your 'animals-on-a-mountain top' scheme, its not up to me to explain to you why God chose an Ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-18-2007 7:36 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by reiverix, posted 12-19-2007 8:24 AM noachian has replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5897 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 24 of 91 (441891)
12-19-2007 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by noachian
12-18-2007 7:42 PM


Nope
No, this doesn't fit. You can't put a massive change of salinity on coral. I've kept them for long enough to know how sensitive they are. Now since there is no freshwater alternative to coral, there is no fallback onto the 'kind' excuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by noachian, posted 12-18-2007 7:42 PM noachian has not replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5897 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 25 of 91 (441893)
12-19-2007 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:17 AM


Groan
You realize this is a science forum, right? If you keep playing the goddidit card, this debate will get nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:17 AM noachian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:44 AM reiverix has not replied

  
noachian
Junior Member (Idle past 5339 days)
Posts: 10
From: Cumbria, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Joined: 12-18-2007


Message 26 of 91 (441894)
12-19-2007 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
12-19-2007 3:25 AM


Oh yes, fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils over 20m years, the question you should be asking (yourself) is "Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 12-19-2007 3:25 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2007 9:13 AM noachian has not replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 9:58 AM noachian has not replied
 Message 33 by Larni, posted 12-19-2007 1:23 PM noachian has not replied
 Message 35 by obvious Child, posted 12-19-2007 7:22 PM noachian has not replied

  
noachian
Junior Member (Idle past 5339 days)
Posts: 10
From: Cumbria, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Joined: 12-18-2007


Message 27 of 91 (441899)
12-19-2007 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by reiverix
12-19-2007 8:24 AM


Re: Groan
Yes, I do realise that this particular section of the forum is a sceince forum, and I am also aware that Divine Providence caused the flood to happen. Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'. Here's how it goes: Sports is a Social Sphere, Politics is also a Scoial Sphere. Sports and politics interact with eachother (laws on sport, country teams, national pride, Prime Minister/Queen rewarding players of a sports team etc). Science is a Social Shpere, the sphere in which we learn about the natural world and how it works. Religion is also a Social Sphere, the sphere in which laws of morality are given and the sphere in which people worship their chosen god or choose to live their life. Religion and Politics interact, for instance here in the United Kingdom our Head of State (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is also Head of the Anglican Church and titled Defender of the Faith (whoes agreement is needed in the law making process). Also there are Bishops in the House of Lords (which agreement are needed in the law making process). Science and Religion also interact (well Religion tries its best, but Science has none of it), Religion lays down ethic and moral laws for science to abide by in its functions. Also Science gives an explaination to Religion for how photosythensis works. But often Science comes with the attitude of "Leave God out of this", I have never heard a Bishop saying "Leave science out of it", that would be most unusual. God plays little part in Science and Science plays little part in Religion because they are both two entirly different Scoial Spheres, "It is not Sciences place to say what is right or wrong, just as it is not Religions place to say how far the earth is from the sun." However this does not mean God has no place in Science, since he did invent it. Just like a Clergyman acknowlaging a baby is born due to the fushion of a sperm and egg cell, or a Scientist acknowlaging that the baby is given a soul by God when it forms. So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by reiverix, posted 12-19-2007 8:24 AM reiverix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2007 9:27 AM noachian has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 9:31 AM noachian has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 91 (441904)
12-19-2007 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:26 AM


Oh yes, fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils over 20m years...
True, apart from the word "evolutionary".
... the question you should be asking (yourself) is "Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?"
Yes, everyone should ask that question. And the answer is ... drumroll please ... the story about the magic flood is wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:26 AM noachian has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 91 (441907)
12-19-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:44 AM


Unfalsifiability
Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'.
Speak for yourself.
So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit".
But not to any purpose.
Suppose someone comes to us with a new idea about gravity, and we do the calculations, and we find that according to his hypothesis planets under the influence of gravity would move in triangular orbits. So we go to him and point this out, and say that in fact the planets move in elliptical orbits.
"Ah yes," he says, "but my hypothesis only says what planets would do under the influence of gravity. But in fact (as I forgot to mention while explaining my hypothesis) the planets do not move solely under the influence of gravity; they are also being pushed around by magical invisible angels. So the observation that planets move in ellipses doesn't prove me wrong."
At that point he is not doing science. You can always imagine a miracle to explain the discrepancy between your beliefs and observation, but when you do so you go beyond the confines of the scientific method.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:44 AM noachian has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 91 (441910)
12-19-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:44 AM


{A} is not necessarily any part of {C}
Yes, I do realise that this particular section of the forum is a sceince forum, and I am also aware that Divine Providence caused the flood to happen. Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'. Here's how it goes: Sports is a Social Sphere, Politics is also a Scoial Sphere. Sports and politics interact with eachother (laws on sport, country teams, national pride, Prime Minister/Queen rewarding players of a sports team etc). Science is a Social Shpere, the sphere in which we learn about the natural world and how it works. Religion is also a Social Sphere, the sphere in which laws of morality are given and the sphere in which people worship their chosen god or choose to live their life. Religion and Politics interact, for instance here in the United Kingdom our Head of State (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is also Head of the Anglican Church and titled Defender of the Faith (whoes agreement is needed in the law making process). Also there are Bishops in the House of Lords (which agreement are needed in the law making process). Science and Religion also interact (well Religion tries its best, but Science has none of it), Religion lays down ethic and moral laws for science to abide by in its functions. Also Science gives an explaination to Religion for how photosythensis works.
So because some {A} is {B} and some {B} is {C} then some {A} is {C}? Not a true conclusion.
Science is partly social and partly a-social -- the conclusions about the truth of reality from science have nothing to do with any social function or kind of social organization. The earth will orbit the sun whether you believe it or not. Photosynthesis will continue to operate whether you know how it works or not, nor will it's existence decide the presidential election.
But often Science comes with the attitude of "Leave God out of this",
Not really, science is not concerned with supernatural because it has no way to measure or quantify things outside the natural world. A blind man cannot tell you what color the wall is on his own. Science investigates what it can about the real world, and we can develop instruments that will measure the relative spectrum absorption vs reflection of light from surfaces, and be able to tell you what their color will be.
The basic assumption of objective reality is that there are basic natural laws that operate, and that by understanding them we can better understand the truth of the world of objective reality. But where did those "laws" come from? Science may not be able to tell the color of the walls there.
So if you believe in (a) creation, as many scientists do, then you can think of science as sitting down next to god and saying "tell me how you did this?"
I have never heard a Bishop saying "Leave science out of it", that would be most unusual. God plays little part in Science and Science plays little part in Religion because they are both two entirly different Scoial Spheres,
I really think you mean independent intellectual concepts not social spheres.
Religion, like philosophy, to be valid must be solidly based in the world of objective reality, or it becomes the playground for loonies (see flat earther).
However this does not mean God has no place in Science, since he did invent it. Just like a Clergyman acknowlaging a baby is born due to the fushion of a sperm and egg cell, or a Scientist acknowlaging that the baby is given a soul by God when it forms. So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit".
A scientist looks at a set of evidence and says because of {A}, {B} happens, because of {B}, {C} happens, and because of {C}, {D} happens.
A creationist looks at a set of assumptions, assumes {E} happens and says because of {A} plus god-did-it, {E} happens. This is nothing more than wishful thinking.
What you are saying then is "I don't know, I don't have a clue, and I don't WANT to know, because I like to think 'god-did-it' provides the answer to how objective reality works, and I don't care how my beliefs relate to reality"
On this forum we are interested in sitting down next to god and saying "is this how you did it?" Asking the question and expecting to get an answer from the objective evidence that is provided.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:44 AM noachian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024