Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fish on the Ark?
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 46 of 91 (445053)
01-01-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
12-18-2007 5:56 PM


dolphins?
Dolphins are air breathers, the smae as whales, plesiosaurs, etc. they did not evolve, either macro or micro from fish.
AIG Catalog
The answers have already been given, to this question and many others concerning the flood. Enjoy.
Edited by imageinvisible, : added text in qs box
Edited by AdminNWR, : shortened appearance of link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 5:56 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2008 11:24 AM imageinvisible has not replied
 Message 48 by AdminNosy, posted 01-03-2008 11:43 AM imageinvisible has not replied
 Message 49 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:13 AM imageinvisible has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 47 of 91 (445670)
01-03-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 1:05 AM


Re: dolphins?
Hi imageinvisible,
imageinvisible writes:
Dolphins are air breathers, the smae as whales, plesiosaurs, etc. they did not evolve, either macro or micro from fish.
Sure they did, just not as recently as has been playfully suggested. Just for clarity, here is a grossly simplified version of events;
fish ’ amphibians ’ reptiles ’ mammals ’ dolphins
OK?
As for your answers about the flood, it is not enough to just post a link, without explanation, and say "here's your answer". The way things are done on this forum, is to put the argument into your own words, not just to paste links. You're doing your own argument a disservice by doing this; since most people won't click that link, you aren't going to persuade people by posting it.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 48 of 91 (445679)
01-03-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 1:05 AM


own words guideline
As noted; you are expected to use your own words in discussions here.
The reasons should be obvious but I'll give a few:
If you post WordPress › Error someone else can post http://www.everythingrefuted.net and the discussion is over. No one learns anything or gets practice articulating their views. That's no fun.
Many people come here and post such things but it becomes clear they haven't read the material themselves. They are just wasting the time of others and that isn't fair. Many here spend a lot of time discussing to help new people learn things (and because they get practice themselves). It is only fair that each of us demonstrates a willingness to put some effort in ourselves.
Everything (and I do mean everything) that AIG, ICR and other creationist sites have on them has been discussed here more than once. None of it stands up to a rational examination. However, maybe there is something new or something missed and if you think so it is up to you to dig it out. Present it in a concise way in your own words and answer futher questions about it. If you are unwilling to do so then you shouldn't have agreed to the forum guidelines; this is not the place for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4204 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 49 of 91 (445828)
01-04-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 1:05 AM


Re: dolphins?
Let's assume this is true.
Since they all did not evolve and therefore existed at the same time, why is it we have no record of a bottle nose dolphin in the same layer as a plesiosaurs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 AM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 4:03 PM obvious Child has replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 50 of 91 (445984)
01-04-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 1:13 AM


Re: dolphins?
arachnophilia writes:
1) evolutionary theory has absolutely no problem with dinosaurs being alive today. "living dinosaurs" colloquially speaking are animals that are found to be living today that were previously thought long extinct, such as the coelocanth. such an animal does not disprove evolution, or show that the fossil record is errant -- just incomplete. which we knew all along.
For the same reason, as arachnopilia was so kind to point out in another thread, that the coelocanth (which appears in only one period of the geological column and subsequetly disappears from the fossil record, which lead scientists to believe it had gone extinct 80 mya) does not appear in every subsequent layer of the geological column since it's supposed appearance/evolution. If it survived for 80 million years (as evolutionist suppose) it is quite resonable to think that it should have appeared (atleast once or twice) in the geological column prior to it's being found alive. There are plenty of other phyla of creatures that appear before the plesiosaurs that are still alive today (or appear in layers above), but which do not appear in the same layers as those which contain plesiosaurs. Your reasoning seems to suggest that since they where not burried with plesiosaurs they did not exist at the same time as the plesiosaurs, they only existed before and after. I do not completely understand the mechanism for why dolphins and plesiosaurs don't appear in the same layers (if in fact they do not [there have been several claims of fossils being found in layers that they should not appear in because the current postulate of evolution says they did not evolve until later] that are not made public) but not knowing the mechanism doesn't stop science from claiming that something occured. (I give you big bang and evolution as two examples)
* other Lazurus taxons:
Laotian rock rat, Lazarussuchus, Gracilidris
As to the topic, there are many families of fish, even today, that can survive in both salt and fresh water environments. It is our contintion that just because a certain organism that is alive today cannot survive a salinity change does not mean that it could not survive such in the past. This is a direct result of the second law of thermodynamics, that ordered systems degrade or erode into less organized systems. That an organism alive today cannot survive salinity changes today is a result of a loss of information due to speciation/mutation (adaptation to a new environment which was the direct result of the flood). The earth today is not the same as the earth before the flood.
Creationist theories have stated several things, for one: that the salinity of the ocean today is far higher than it was in the past, that it is a direct result of erosion of minerals on land that make their way to the ocean thus adding more salt and minerals to the ocean. Secound that there (dispite assertions from mainstream scientist/evolutionist) is no means by which this salinity is being removed at, or near, the same rate that it is being introduced. ergo that the salinity of the oceans has been steadily (predictably) increasing since the flood, and the waters that covered the earth where far less salty (so to speak).
The question might arise as to how, if there was a flood (which obviously would have stired up a great deal of salts and soluble minerals) why then where they deposited on the land masses rather than remain in the oceans that where supposed to cover the earth. The solution to this (for those of you who know and understand solutions [pun intended]) is oversaturation, only a certain amount of soluable materials will saturate a liquid in a given amount of time, the rest settles to the bottom of the solution (i.e. what evolutionist call the geological column) these soluables then become the cementing minerals that created the sandstone/sedimentary rocks of the geological column. The action of sedimentation removed most of these minerals from the water and left them in the sediments. Also that the oceans where not created salty, the water was fresh and desalinated from the begining. As for corals, yes if you remove the salts from the water 'all at once,' they will no doubt die. (again this is a result of loss of information through adaptation) They have adapted to that environment. But if you remove just a little bit of the salt every generation or so, they will most likly adapt to the change and survive. (this should be testable, though it may require a test that lasts for several years)

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:13 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2008 7:15 PM imageinvisible has replied
 Message 52 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:04 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 51 of 91 (446049)
01-04-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by imageinvisible
01-04-2008 4:03 PM


Re: dolphins?
So your argument regarding fish and the flood boils down to two basic claims;
1) Fish at the time of the flood were different to modern fish, in that they were able to survive rapid changes in salinity.
My question is, what evidence do you have for this claim? For instance, which fish fossils do you propose were pre-flood, which post-flood? Where does the change occur and how can we tell the difference? Without evidence, it just sounds like special pleading.
2) The pre-flood oceans were freshwater, and salt-water oceans are the result of minerals dissolving into the water during and since the flood.
Again, how can we tell if this is true? Also, why did the mineral solution not affect inland bodies of freshwater, such as the Great Lakes or Lake Baikal?
Edited by Granny Magda, : corrected point 2 ("and since")

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 4:03 PM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by imageinvisible, posted 01-05-2008 2:02 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4204 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 52 of 91 (446153)
01-04-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by imageinvisible
01-04-2008 4:03 PM


Re: dolphins?
quote:
For the same reason, as arachnopilia was so kind to point out in another thread, that the coelocanth (which appears in only one period of the geological column and subsequetly disappears from the fossil record, which lead scientists to believe it had gone extinct 80 mya) does not appear in every subsequent layer of the geological column since it's supposed appearance/evolution.
You have a coupled flawed arguments there. First of all, the coelocanth is largely a deep water fish. Thus, its fossils, if any will be found on former sea bed. There's a problem with this, specifically that tectonics plates recycle sea bed, along with all of the fossils imbeded. And coelocanth is a catch all name for a number of different species.
quote:
if it survived for 80 million years (as evolutionist suppose) it is quite resonable to think that it should have appeared (atleast once or twice) in the geological column prior to it's being found alive.
Aside from the problem of plate tectonics recycling sea bed crust...But we know that bottle nose dolphins do enter shore zones, same as peloisaurs. The problem of deep water is not a problem here. And especially if you consider that the world is only 6,000 years old.
quote:
There are plenty of other phyla of creatures that appear before the plesiosaurs that are still alive today (or appear in layers above), but which do not appear in the same layers as those which contain plesiosaurs.
Could you name such a species? Or are you just citing that from AiG which omits the name of such a species?
quote:
Your reasoning seems to suggest that since they where not buried with plesiosaurs they did not exist at the same time as the plesiosaurs, they only existed before and after.
I'd have to know which species you were talking about. Creationist tend to have a nasty habit of lying or fabricating stories. Often they'll claim that the same exact species was found before and after but not during and omit that the species actually evolved into something found during the same period and another advanced form was found after. You'll have to excuse my long history of distrusting liars.
quote:
I do not completely understand the mechanism for why dolphins and plesiosaurs don't appear in the same layers (if in fact they do not [there have been several claims of fossils being found in layers that they should not appear in because the current postulate of evolution says they did not evolve until later] that are not made public) but not knowing the mechanism doesn't stop science from claiming that something occured. (I give you big bang and evolution as two examples)
Do you know who Occam was?
quote:
As to the topic, there are many families of fish, even today, that can survive in both salt and fresh water environments.
Not really. Few species can survive long in a brine environment, or rapid changes. One of the few is the Bullshark and it has some radical ways of doing it that virtually no other species has. Salmon undergo a twice in a lifetime change that changes their gills. The idea that many species can simply switch on and off is just false.
quote:
The earth today is not the same as the earth before the flood.
True, but the principles of physics were not. That is what creationism requires. A radical change in the laws of physics without any evidence .
You have some ideas, but until you have evidence for them, there's no point in actually talking about them. There is no evidence that the oceans were massively less salty. There is no evidence of such sediment through a flood. Plus if the majority of the salt that is in the oceans was on land, few things could grow. Fantasy land you live in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 4:03 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 53 of 91 (446185)
01-05-2008 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Granny Magda
01-04-2008 7:15 PM


Re: dolphins?
granny magda writes:
why did the mineral solution not affect inland bodies of freshwater, such as the Great Lakes or Lake Baikal?
Or the dead sea, or the great salt lake? Oh wait, it did. I'll try to be gently, kind, and loving. Do you have any information handy on the hydrolitic cycle? Point one: Salt is not carried by evaporated water. Point two: what is the differeance between the great lakes and lake baikal and the great 'salt' lake and the dead sea? Hint: run off; both into and out of, the lakes/sea.
as for question one, ALL of the fish fossils in the geological column are pre-flood. Everything alive today is post-flood. Pre-flood fish where different in that the sea (when it was created) had no salts in it and where therefore fresh water, meaning that all the pre-flood fish where fresh water fish. Any avertion to desalination now is strictly due to a loss of genetic information or to adaptation to the current environment. Furthermore it seems that it would be far easier to become acustomed (environmentaly speaking) to increasing levels of salination than it would to decreasing salination; but in either case, I recomend Leuisiana and florida for fishing. Especially those lakes that run off directly into the gulf of mexico, best fresh 'and' salt water fishing in the world. There are several phyla and species of fish in that area that routinely travel from salt to fresh water and back without any ill effects. Also try Alaska during the salmon run. Furthermore there are many sharks (I remember seeing a national geagraphic special I believe it was) that, though they get slugish in fresh water (due primarally to beter oxygen tranfer) do not exhibit any ill effects to desalination (atleast under short term conditions).
granny magda writes:
Without evidence, it just sounds like special pleading.
I feel the same way concerning the 'uinformitarian principle'. What evidence is there that a certain process has ALWAYS occured at the same rates they do now?
*I know this is off topic and if you would like to debate it somewhere else I would be glade to, especially since someone would try to bring up radioactive decay rates as being rock solid proof [sic] of the uniformitarian principle. However I recently read an artical by an evolutionist who was tring to contradict another creationist claim of observations concerning pulonium 218 radio halos in granite bedrock by saying that the radio active materials concerned where (esentially) being reenergized by other radio active particles. I'm sure I can find the article again.*
My point being that lack of evidence, even (or should that say especially) by evolutionary standards, does not necessaraly constitute special pleading.

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2008 7:15 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 3:20 AM imageinvisible has replied
 Message 55 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2008 10:19 AM imageinvisible has replied
 Message 62 by reiverix, posted 01-07-2008 12:08 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4204 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 54 of 91 (446192)
01-05-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by imageinvisible
01-05-2008 2:02 AM


Re: dolphins?
quote:
What evidence is there that a certain process has ALWAYS occurred at the same rates they do now?
How about the lack of evidence to suggest the contrary?
Stuff happens at the rate it happens due to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, whatever. Now, for things to have occurred at fundamentally different rates in the past, there would have to be different natural laws. Thus, according to many creationists ideas, there would need to be a change in these physical laws. The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that these natural laws were any different. We're not saying that uniformity is absolutely true, just that there is no empirical, tangible evidence to suggest that it is not true. Until there is evidence to suggest that natural laws changed, particularly after the flood (which itself has a number of fatal flaws), uinformitarian principle will remain what is accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by imageinvisible, posted 01-05-2008 2:02 AM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 1:11 AM obvious Child has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 55 of 91 (446221)
01-05-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by imageinvisible
01-05-2008 2:02 AM


Where is the Evidence?
imageinvisible writes:
what is the differeance between the great lakes and lake baikal and the great 'salt' lake and the dead sea? Hint: run off; both into and out of, the lakes/sea.
OK, I'll buy that, but you still haven't expanded upon how we know that the ocean was freshwater. It is certainly true that salinity is due to the dissolved minerals carried in by erosion, but what you need to demonstrate is that this process was strong enough to account for current salinity levels in a mere 4500 years. Give me some numbers.
imageinvisible writes:
ALL of the fish fossils in the geological column are pre-flood. Everything alive today is post-flood.
So why do we see such incredible similarities in the fossil record between modern fish and fossilised fish from more recent strata? Why are fish fossils so from older strata so different to modern fish? Why are they even in distinct strata, not jumbled together in the geologic column, if they lived at the same time? You haven't provided any evidence for your claim, you have merely repeated it with a bit of added detail. I was hoping for something a bit more substantial. What actual evidence do you have to support this claim?
Also, you keep mentioning that some species of fish can tolerate changes in salinity. This is a red herring (sorry), because many more cannot. It is those species that we are concerned with here. The sudden influx of dissolved minerals that you propose took place at the time of the flood would surely have been far to fast for anything to "adapt" to it. You appear to be suggesting that fish adapted overnight to living in the flood water, yet did not change appreciably in appearance over the next 4500 years (if the fossil fish are anything to go by). That seems a little odd.
By the way, if you want to talk about uniformitarianism, there is a thread open for that very purpose.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by imageinvisible, posted 01-05-2008 2:02 AM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 56 of 91 (446742)
01-07-2008 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 3:20 AM


Re: dolphins?
obvious child writes:
How about the lack of evidence to suggest the contrary?
Stuff happens at the rate it happens due to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, whatever. Now, for things to have occurred at fundamentally different rates in the past, there would have to be different natural laws. Thus, according to many creationists ideas, there would need to be a change in these physical laws. The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that these natural laws were any different. We're not saying that uniformity is absolutely true, just that there is no empirical, tangible evidence to suggest that it is not true. Until there is evidence to suggest that natural laws changed, particularly after the flood (which itself has a number of fatal flaws), uinformitarian principle will remain what is accepted.
I disagree, but I cannot debate it in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 3:20 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by obvious Child, posted 01-08-2008 7:00 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 57 of 91 (446760)
01-07-2008 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Granny Magda
01-05-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
granny magda writes:
So why do we see such incredible similarities in the fossil record between modern fish and fossilised fish from more recent strata? Why are fish fossils so from older strata so different to modern fish? Why are they even in distinct strata, not jumbled together in the geologic column, if they lived at the same time?
I should point out (though it may be off topic) that the common creationsit model uses runaway subduction and catastrophic plate tectonics, as well as an enormous amounts of volcanic activity as the primary (next to God) cause of the flood. A literal reading of the text in Genesis seems to indicate that there was a single landmass prior to the flood. It is the breaking up of this landmass that the creation model uses as a prelude to the flood. Fourthermore two things in the scriptures acounts for where the water came from, the breaking up of the fountains of the deep and the opening of the widows of heaven. The most basic literal interpritation of these two statements is that the water was coming from both the sky and the earth. (please bear with me I am explaining this so that I can get to another point to the question you are asking) Even by evolutionry standards the fossil record seems to indicate that the deep sea creatures where buried first, followed by the shallow water creatures, then the larger land animals. (but even in this there is a good deal of 'jumbling up' as you say of the creatures in the fossil record)( Anomalously Occurring Fossils just one list of anomaluosly occuring fossils) This portion of the flood has been termed the Permian-triassic extinction. These creatures, the deeper ocean (near bottom dwelling), shallow water creatures, and near coastal area land animals would have been prime casualties of volcanicaly/earthquake induced tidal waves. Creatures such as dolpines and whales, which require air to breath stay closer to the surface of the water (especially when out in the deeper ocean) and therefore (just like ships today) would have avoided the tidal waves. Those creatures that where not caught in the initial tidal waves where slowly forced to higher ground until there was no ground. (note that the faster of said creatures would most likly be the last to be burried) finaly dolphines and whales would have been near the last to have been burried requiring that they be 'beached' in shallower areas as the waters receeded. (Disclaimer: as far as I know, no creation scientist has put forth this kind of explaination, I'm just going on common sense here, and I may very well be wrong. I do have several quaries out to some crationist scientist concerning a model like this one and am currently waiting for feedback. If I find such an hypothesis that has been put forth by a creationist I will be sure to let you know. I.E. this is my own idea garnered from a 'cursory' examination of the evidence and information available to me, and is subject to revision)
I did however get this off of a creation websight concerning Woodmorappe, John, 1996 book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study : to the question you asked concerning the layers and the organisms found there in: Actually such a pattern fits the Flood model quite well. The Biblical kind can extend beyond genus to family, and this changes the pattern significantly. However, those genera that survived the Flood would be the least likely to be buried particularly in lower deposits, since they would be able [to] swim above the deposits. In this case the pattern would be based on how well a given genus could survive the Flood. So even in the Flood model the fossil order in question would be an order of death and even extinction.
As to similarities between creatures, you seem to be overlooking that 'living fossils' (as they have been termed) some of which date back to 500 mya by evolutionary standards don't exhibit any morphological differances (or minor ones if any) from their ancient fossils. The coelacanth, nautilus, and wollemi pine (to name a few) are good examles of this.
As far as numbers to salination rates I am still looking for those figures.

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2008 10:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2008 4:38 AM imageinvisible has replied
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 7:42 AM imageinvisible has not replied
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 9:47 AM imageinvisible has not replied
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 01-07-2008 10:36 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 91 (446765)
01-07-2008 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 3:40 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
A literal reading of the text in Genesis seems to indicate that there was a single landmass prior to the flood.
where does it say that, literally speaking? my copy sure doesn't seem to indicate that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 AM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 5:09 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 59 of 91 (446777)
01-07-2008 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 3:40 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
quote:
I should point out (though it may be off topic) that the common creationsit model uses runaway subduction and catastrophic plate tectonics, as well as an enormous amounts of volcanic activity as the primary (next to God) cause of the flood.
In reply it should be pointed out that while this may be - generously - called a theoretical possiiblity - there is a lack of evidence that it actually occurred.
quote:
Even by evolutionry standards the fossil record seems to indicate that the deep sea creatures where buried first, followed by the shallow water creatures, then the larger land animals.
This isn't really true either. The most that can be said is that in the earliest fossil-bearing deposits we only find aquatic life. We go on finding aquatic life throughout the fossil record. The life we find changes, of course, but that changes don't seem to be based on habitat or anything else that would fit with a flood explanation.
I didn't have time to do a detailed check on your list of out-of-place fossils, but one example mentions reworking in the title of the original paper ! Reworking is where existing fossils have been eroded out of the strata where they were originally formed and ended up in a newer stratum. As I understand it there is usually evidence that this has occurred - which would represent another difficulty for a Flood explanation.
And I'll add that the criteriafor a "living fossil" are looser than you seem to think. The living coelacanths are not known at all from the fossil record. They're not even in the same genus as known fossils. So how can they be said to be "unchanged" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 60 of 91 (446809)
01-07-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 3:40 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
Hi imageinvisible,
I can only echo what PaulK has said; what you have here is a hypothesis. The next step is to look for relevant evidence, and see how it fits your theory. You say that you are still gathering evidence for salinity, so we'll leave that for now, but let's take a look at your theory about marine fossils.
imageinvisible writes:
Even by evolutionry standards the fossil record seems to indicate that the deep sea creatures where buried first, followed by the shallow water creatures, then the larger land animals.
Well I'm no expert, but as I understand it, some of the very oldest fossils are stromatolites, and they are shallow-water organisms. The fossil record just isn't consistent with your model. If the order in which organisms appear in strata is based on their ability to avoid the tidal waves, why do small fish and invertebrates appear higher up in the column than bloody great plesiosaurs? Why do land animals often appear lower down than marine?
As for your unvarying Lazarus taxa, PaulK has already blown your coelacanth example out of the water, so I'll take the wollemi pine. Here's this from the all-knowing wiki;
quote:
Fossils resembling Wollemia and possibly related to it are widespread in Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica, but Wollemia nobilis is the sole living member of its genus.
Not identical then.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 AM imageinvisible 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