Noah's Ark found?

[Rincewind]

I have to say that your posts are more interesting than a lot of others.

I look forward to meeting with you again.

Ciao!

 

[Michael Redman]

You place great value on seeing now. Yet without seeing transitional forms in the rvolution record
you accept it as fact. No demand to see there.

Every form is transitional.

 

[SOdhner]

You place great value on seeing now. Yet without seeing transitional forms in the rvolution record you accept it as fact. No demand to see there. Furthermore, punctuated equilibrium, or rapid evolutionary changes you accept. But of course not rapid enough to account for post flood speciation. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

No, it's not. I could get into an argument about evolution with you but the actual scientifically accepted parts are not relevant to my question for you and so I don't want to get sidetracked with them. Heck, for now I will even let you say that evolution as commonly known by science is dead wrong. That's fine.

The question still remains: If it worked as you are suggesting, it would be plainly evident with everything all the time. That is clearly not the case - why?

If I were trying to explain it away as a miracle I would explain it away as a miracle.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. So it is your position that this is scientifically sound then. That still leaves me with some confusion as to why we don't see this kind of super-rapid evolution now.

 

[Radrook]

Every form is transitional.

Not according to your evolution idea. Intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are called transitional.


Anyway, here are some questions:

What was part of the part of the mammalian brain called the occipetal lobe doing before it became the visual center? Show some eyeless fossils. Those that are supposed to have been present before the eye formed. Then show me fossils which gradually show the transition from eyeless creature to an eyed creature.


Show me a socketless skull. Then show me, via fossils, the gradual depressions as the skull developes sockets over millions of years. Then show me transitional forms of the skull as it gradually developes eyes. Explain to me in detail via those discovered fopssils just how each eye part developed and what the area called the occipetal lobe was doing in the meantime and why. No eyeless skulls? Not evidence of transitional eye development? Why?

What were these different eye parts doing for millions of years before they unanimously AGREED to hook up as a finely coordinated team in order to make visioin possible? After all, one part would be useless for vision without the others. So what benefit was the supposed or mythical blind creature deriving from lugging around a partially developed optic nerve? Sho ing me the fossils of these transitory stages shouldn't be hard since there werre supposed to be millions of them.






But snce you can't, then you invent punctuated equilibrium. It's a sort of a game-isn't it?

 

[Marduk]

No eyeless skulls? Not evidence of transitional eye development? Why?

might have something to do with the eye evolving around 2 1/2 billion years before a skull did. This was quite some time before Mammals existed.

typical fundie, doesn't know why his questions are irrelevant.

 

[Complexity]

AGAIN!

Sir! I took biology classes in college and read biology textbooks sall the time. They are poart of my personal library. So your typical assumption that people who don't accept your fish ancestor as true is totally unfounded. Actually it constitutes fallacious reasoning. Hasty conclusion based on insufficient evidence motivated by prejudice.

BTW
I don't like to be wrongfully accused or falsly described or categorized by people who are more than likely less educated than me and don't even know how to reason properly.

Well, apparently whatever schooling you had didn't take. I do not regard you as educated in any signficant fashion.

You may have attended school for several years, sat in the chairs, let your eyes scan over the words on the page, and passed the exams, but you were not educated by the experience.

You may have bought some science texts, let your eyes scan over the words on the page, and put them on your shelves for proud display, but you were not educated by the process.

I do not know the extent to which you are intelligent, but you have been so full of yourself and your insane beliefs that there was no room for knowledge to enter. This is very typical of fundies, I'm afraid. Real education doesn't happen.

You do not reason well. Your beliefs prevented the ability to reason well from taking root and cause you to prefer willful ignorance and unexamined beliefs to reason and an examined life.

 

[tsig]

Yes.

Probably ...

... maybe?

I dunno.

That seems true to character:

One magpie spoke with an English accent, while the other spoke with a New York dialect. Heckle often refers to Jeckle simply as 'chum' or 'pal', while Jeckle often refers to Heckle as 'old chap' 'old boy' and 'old featherhead', indicating a close friendship between them. Although there seemed to be a great deal of uncertainty as to which was which, in the short Bulldozing The Bulls, they clearly refer to each other by name, with the Brooklyn accent belonging to Heckle and the English accent belonging to Jeckle. In the later short Stunt Men, Jeckle, in an English accent, calls Heckle by name again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckle_and_Jeckle

 

[TimCallahan]

Radrook:

In response to my suggestion of checking patterns of genetic drift to see if for all, most or even many types animals these would lead back to the region of Mt. Ararat, you said that your belief in an Intelligent Designer did not depend on the Bible. Yet in previous and subsequent posts you have made specific arguments for the seaworthiness and general practicality of Noah's ark and have as well mentioned biblical kinds. It's pretty obvious that you are a young earth creationist, so why dodge the idea of setting up the genetic drift experiment?

So far, neither your nor 154 have responded to my question regarding genetic drift. Here it is again: If we could conduct such an experiment, and the results failed to support a geologically recent dispersal of all land animals from the ark at Ararat, would you accept these results as either falsifying the ark narrative or at least as significant evidence against it?

 

[Radrook]

No, it's not. I could get into an argument about evolution with you but the actual scientifically accepted parts are not relevant to my question for you and so I don't want to get sidetracked with them. Heck, for now I will even let you say that evolution as commonly known by science is dead wrong. That's fine.

The question still remains: If it worked as you are suggesting, it would be plainly evident with everything all the time. That is clearly not the case - why?

Evolutionists proposed that idea. Ask them.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. So it is your position that this is scientifically sound then.

No position whatsoever. As I said. Just wanted feedback.

That still leaves me with some confusion as to why we don't see this kind of super-rapid evolution now.

Perhaps for the same reason that I don't see your punctuated equilibrium sprrouting new speciies all over the place today? Your question is applicable to your evolution idea. Yet it doesn't faze you one bit. But you want it to faze me? Strange!

 

[I Ratant]

...

But snce you can't, then you invent punctuated equilibrium. It's a sort of a game-isn't it?

.
Punctuated equilibrium doesn't mean whatever you misconstrue it as.
When there aren't any catastrophic interruptions in the environment, change occurs in isolated populations, which deviate in quantifible forms from the seed stock.
Which leads to variations in bird species, as Darwin found out, for one example.
And all the too-numerous-to-count insects, which have a faster generation turn-over than the longer-lived animals, and can therefore change to suit the local conditions in useful time periods.
These changes do not override the seed stock, unless the change benefits the altered species to their advantage, when the isolation process ends, if it does.
Otherwise, the p.e. species continues in its environment, changing or not as conditions warrant.
The "game" is to find a comprehensive and logical reason for what is measured.
Godidit can't do that it.

 

[tsig]

My time is limited and going back to the same site unnecessarily is time-wasting. So hopefully your not attempting to frustrate.


Noah's Ark suggested ventlation problem solution:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/ventilation/ventilation.htm

He was going pretty good til he got to the end:

Mechanical ventilation looks unlikely, especially since dead calm conditions are not very Biblical.

His whole paper is completely extra-biblical.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . What was part of the part of the mammalian brain called the occipetal lobe doing before it became the visual center? Show some eyeless fossils. Those that are supposed to have been present before the eye formed. Then show me fossils which gradually show the transition from eyeless creature to an eyed creature.


Show me a socketless skull. Then show me, via fossils, the gradual depressions as the skull developes sockets over millions of years. Then show me transitional forms of the skull as it gradually developes eyes. Explain to me in detail via those discovered fopssils just how each eye part developed and what the area called the occipetal lobe was doing in the meantime and why. No eyeless skulls? Not evidence of transitional eye development? Why?

What were these different eye parts doing for millions of years before they unanimously AGREED to hook up as a finely coordinated team in order to make visioin possible? After all, one part would be useless for vision without the others. So what benefit was the supposed or mythical blind creature deriving from lugging around a partially developed optic nerve? Sho ing me the fossils of these transitory stages shouldn't be hard since there werre supposed to be millions of them. . . .

This post demonstrates you complete ignorance of the subject. First of all, since even flatworms have eyes, you won't find anything advanced enough to have a skull, i.e. vertebrates, that wont have eye sockets.

As to the development of complex eyes from simple, your assertion that "one part would be useless for vision without the others" (hilited area) has already been roundly refuted by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. For example, a very primitive visual organ that only sensed differences between light and dark would have survival value to a bottom-dwelling creature, since such a system could show the animal that a predator swimming over it.

However, this thread is really supposed to be about Noah's ark, and you still haven't effectively answered my question concerning my proposed genetic drift experiment.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook:

In response to my suggestion of checking patterns of genetic drift to see if for all, most or even many types animals these would lead back to the region of Mt. Ararat, you said that your belief in an Intelligent Designer did not depend on the Bible. Yet in previous and subsequent posts you have made specific arguments for the seaworthiness and general practicality of Noah's ark and have as well mentioned biblical kinds. It's pretty obvious that you are a young earth creationist, so why dodge the idea of setting up the genetic drift experiment?

What does the seaworthiness of an ark have to do with my belief in an ID? I am NOT, never was, and never will be a young earth creationist. Earth has been around for billions of years. Thre point something billion, I believe is the estimated time as opposed to the five-billion year estimate for our sun.

So far, neither your nor 154 have responded to my question regarding genetic drift. Here it is again: If we could conduct such an experiment, and the results failed to support a geologically recent dispersal of all land animals from the ark at Ararat, would you accept these results as either falsifying the ark narrative or at least as significant evidence against it?

Seaworthiness of the described vessel is all I'm interested in discussin on this thread.

 

[I Ratant]

Here's a quote.

Many other aspects of animal care were considered, including arguments revolving around the need to ventilate the Ark,



Plenty of good technical materiel there.

.
The cross section of a standard Man of War in the late age of sail.
All the construction techniques had to be developed by centuries of trial and error.
Many of these would be mandatory in the Ark for it to survive, and yet, it was the only boat of its size in that era.
None of the others were as long, or even decked, and yet that Ark had three of them.
The engineering of the construction was, in Cecil B. Demille's simple two word phrase, "Im possible" at that time, nor for a thousand or more years in the future.
Especially by land dwelling goat chasers.

 

[TimCallahan]

What does the seaworthiness of an ark have to do with my belief in an ID? I am NOT, never was, and never will be a young earth creationist. Earth has been around for billions of years. Thre point something billion, I believe is the estimated time as opposed to the five-billion year estimate for our sun.



Seaworthiness of the described vessel is all I'm interested in discussin on this thread.

Why would you even care about the seaworthiness of the ark if you aren't arguing for the literal truth of the Flood, etc.?

 

[dafydd]

Seaworthiness of the described vessel is all I'm interested in discussin on this thread.

Why? We may as well discuss the airworthiness of Ra's chariot.

 

[John Jones]

Perhaps for the same reason that I don't see your punctuated equilibrium sprrouting new speciies all over the place today? Your question is applicable to your evolution idea. Yet it doesn't faze you one bit.

Oh. Good. Grief.

 

[Radrook]

Why would you even care about the seaworthiness of the ark if you aren't arguing for the literal truth of the Flood, etc.?

Curiosity.

 

[Radrook]

This post demonstrates you complete ignorance of the subject. First of all, since even flatworms have eyes, you won't find anything advanced enough to have a skull, i.e. vertebrates, that wont have eye sockets.

Really? Flatworms aren't vertabrates. They are invertbrates. Fifth grders are supposed to know that indeed that is your level of understanding then the subject is beyond your ken.

As to the development of complex eyes from simple, your assertion that "one part would be useless for vision without the others" (hilited area) has already been roundly refuted by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. For example, a very primitive visual organ that only sensed differences between light and dark would have survival value to a bottom-dwelling creature, since such a system could show the animal that a predator swimming over it.

Which proves nothing. Judst because somtheing has survival value doesn't mean it will change into something else or was the origin of something else. That's a baseless assumption which can't be demonstratedin a laboratory. You accept it on blind faith.

However, this thread is really supposed to be about Noah's ark, and you still haven't effectively answered my question concerning my proposed genetic drift experiment.

Yes I did.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . Your assumptions are based on the premise that post flood climate was identical to the pre flood one. That is not believed to be the case. The change in climate along with geographical isolation would have induced adaptation and eventual speciation creating the great varieties seen today. If true, there would have been no need to deal with animals such as penguins who need very low temperatures.


The behavioral or instinctive peculiarities also would have changed. The original biblical kinds might not have had the habits you describe. That too could have developed in response to geography isolation, mutation, and subsequent adaptation leading to speciation. It all hinges on what the knids mentioned in Genesis were really like as opposed to the species that developed from them later. . . .

Okay, your reference to differences between the pre and post flood climates and, particularly, you reference to "original biblical kinds" (hilited) sounds like classic YEC arguments. Yet you say you aren't a YEC. Can you see why this might be confusing?

Part of honest, ethical argumentation is self-disclosure and transparency. For example: I accept evolutionary theory and I don't believe in God. In your case, I get what appears to be a mix of old earth and young earth creationism. For example, you seem to be arguing for a universal flood. However OEC generally argues that the flood was local and limited. Could you clarify your position please?