Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fish on the Ark?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 91 (441915)
12-19-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:26 AM


fishy tales?
... fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils ...
Can you tell me which "evolutionary science" is used to date fossils? Let's start with the natural science reference to biological sciences that include evolutionary biology:
quote:
The biological fields of botany, zoology, and medicine date back to early periods of civilization, while microbiology was introduced in the 17th century with the invention of the microscope. ... Some key developments in the science of biology were the discovery of genetics; Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection; the germ theory of disease and the application of the techniques of chemistry and physics at the level of the cell or organic molecule.
Modern Biology is divided into sub-disciplines by the type of organism and by the scale being studied. Molecular biology is the study of the fundamental chemistry of life, while cellular biology is the examination of the cell; the basic building block of all life. At a higher level, Physiology looks at the internal structure of organism, while ecology looks at how various organisms interrelate.
You can also check biological science and evolutionary biology for dating methods.
Just curious.
Just because you don't like something, even something scientific, that doesn't make it "evolutionary" or "evolutionist" - especially when what you are talking about is something unrelated to evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
If somebody has told you so, then they are telling you lies.
"Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?"
You mean like the geological (stratigraphy), chemical (detecting Iridium) and physical (radiometric) dating methods used to date the catastrophic world-wide demise of the dinosaur era by the impact of a meteor, as well as similar earlier catastrophes that also resulted in mass world-wide extinctions (hence their being real catastrophes)?
That "catastrophe theory?"
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 26 by noachian, posted 12-19-2007 8:26 AM noachian has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 91 (441917)
12-19-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by reiverix
12-18-2007 7:02 PM


Re: Fish on the Ark
How do you explain coral?
Especially on mountain tops?
(hint)
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 6 by reiverix, posted 12-18-2007 7:02 PM reiverix has not replied

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


Message 33 of 91 (441980)
12-19-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:26 AM


noachian writes:
"Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?"
Why should I ask this question? Can you explain? I must be getting a bit dim in my old age.

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

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4015 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 34 of 91 (441989)
12-19-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluegenes
12-18-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 9:10 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 9:01 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 35 of 91 (442042)
12-19-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by noachian
12-19-2007 8:26 AM


Even if the dates were wrong, the flood still has a number of fatal flaws.
The fossil record does not show a homogeneous mix of primitive and complex organisms. If the flood happened, we should see T-rex fossils with humans and Anomalocaris. That doesn't happen.
And the flood has a various number of serious heat problems.
And what did the plants eat? Flooding the world with brine results in salted earth. Most plants, especially plants that herbivores eat, can't grow in soil that has material amounts of salt in it.
And how did Noah maintain the animals?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Grashnak, posted 12-19-2007 8:33 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Grashnak
Junior Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 5
From: Finland
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 36 of 91 (442055)
12-19-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by obvious Child
12-19-2007 7:22 PM


Why noone has found 100 million year old bear fossil, or human fossil? Because they did not live at the same time.
If there was one kind of fish befoure flood, where did sharks come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by obvious Child, posted 12-19-2007 7:22 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by obvious Child, posted 12-20-2007 1:58 AM Grashnak has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 37 of 91 (442059)
12-19-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluegenes
12-18-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains
Actually, the term "dolphin" is used to describe either a cetacean ("whale-thingy") or a fish which is also known as the mahi-mahi or dorado.
(Coryphaena - Wikipedia)
A submariner's "dolphins" depict the fish.
PS
And, yes, I did post before having worked my way completely through the thread.
Edited by dwise1, : PS

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 9:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 12-20-2007 2:26 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 91 (442064)
12-19-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by macaroniandcheese
12-19-2007 2:09 PM


fishy or not fishy
can I say mahi mahi mahi ... (that's a nice looking ... um, fish)?
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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 34 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-19-2007 2:09 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 39 of 91 (442086)
12-20-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Grashnak
12-19-2007 8:33 PM


quote:
Why noone has found 100 million year old bear fossil, or human fossil? Because they did not live at the same time.
If there was one kind of fish befoure flood, where did sharks come
All good questions. Don't hold your breath expecting an answer from creationists though. I don't expect them to even acknowledge my posts exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Grashnak, posted 12-19-2007 8:33 PM Grashnak has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 40 of 91 (442089)
12-20-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dwise1
12-19-2007 8:43 PM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains
dwise1 writes:
Actually, the term "dolphin" is used to describe either a cetacean ("whale-thingy") or a fish which is also known as the mahi-mahi or dorado.
Well, live and learn. So, the catastrophological viewpoint on the mahi-mahi would be that it is a kind of living fossil. It's obviously a micro-evolutionary intermediate between the original fish pair on the Ark and the cetaceans.
Thanks to the three people on the thread who've spotted this possibility, as it could be a landmark in catastropho-paleontology, and a clue towards the understanding of post-flood marine hyper-microevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 12-19-2007 8:43 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by obvious Child, posted 12-20-2007 2:57 AM bluegenes has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 41 of 91 (442091)
12-20-2007 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by bluegenes
12-20-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains
Isn't it kind of pointless to discuss that when so many factors all point to the outcome that the flood never happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 12-20-2007 2:26 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Grashnak, posted 12-20-2007 8:03 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 12-21-2007 4:03 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Grashnak
Junior Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 5
From: Finland
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 42 of 91 (442115)
12-20-2007 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by obvious Child
12-20-2007 2:57 AM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains
Why is there even a discussion about the flood if the creationists cant answer to simple questions?
I haven't got any answer to these questions I have, so I dont belive there was a flood, therefore the bible lies about it and I dont belive in god. Evolution just makes more sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by obvious Child, posted 12-20-2007 2:57 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 9:00 AM Grashnak has not replied
 Message 44 by obvious Child, posted 12-20-2007 1:37 PM Grashnak has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 91 (442122)
12-20-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Grashnak
12-20-2007 8:03 AM


I haven't got any answer to these questions I have, so I dont belive there was a flood, therefore the bible lies about it and I dont belive in god.
Something of a leap of logic there, I fear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Grashnak, posted 12-20-2007 8:03 AM Grashnak has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 44 of 91 (442180)
12-20-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Grashnak
12-20-2007 8:03 AM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains
I agree with the Doc. Just because the flood may be total hash as a literal event, doesn't mean the bible is false or that God doesn't exist. Furthermore, it does not prove that the concept of God, or Gods is false. The Abrahamic God's invalidity does not make all Gods invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Grashnak, posted 12-20-2007 8:03 AM Grashnak has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 45 of 91 (442544)
12-21-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by obvious Child
12-20-2007 2:57 AM


Re: Micro-evolving tits, milk, live birth & massive brains
obvious Child writes:
Isn't it kind of pointless to discuss that when so many factors all point to the outcome that the flood never happened?
Errr... yes, obviously, my child.. Don't ask me about it. I'm not a catastrophologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by obvious Child, posted 12-20-2007 2:57 AM obvious Child 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