Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[Correa Neto]

Here's what you should apply to know the real, absolute ages of the rocks.

You will not find the real answers written at the pages of the Bible.
YEC, Creationism and Biblic litteralism are just scams.

Yes, there's a typo over there... Been too lazy to fix. 'Bout two years...

 

[Akhenaten]

<respectful snip>


Want more evidence of the lies and falsehoods spewed by Bible literalist, YEC and Creationist scammers?

Nice post, old mate.

Regardless of what DOC does or doesn't want, you have at least one fan out here.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Aside from that, however, this remains unanswered:

​

He will not answer those. The only given he will argue is that Noah and family got in a big boat and rescued a pair of more or less each of the Biblical kinds. The remaining details will be appalling shoehornings of whatever fact about the world he is dealing with at the time.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Perhaps DOC doesn't understand the significance of this uniqueness and diverseness of Australia's fauna, and more importantly, how it is such a huge clue to the way the Australian continent became geologically isolated.

There are two major types of mammals world wide;

"Placental", which nourishes its embryo to term internally via a placenta and umbilical cord, resulting in fully developed live birth

"Marsupial", which bring their embryos to term outside the body, usually in a pouch.

Worldwide, placental species outnumber marsupial species by about 16:1 There are over 5300 species of placentals, compared with just 334 species of marsupials.

However, this is where Australia differs. Of the 334 species of marsupials, 235 are native to Australia, 99 are native to the Americas, and beyond that, there are no native marsupials anywhere else in the world.

Even more amazing, is that there are no native placental mammals in Australia (and before you say "what about the Dingo?", well the dingo did not evolve in Australia; its a direct, DNA proven descendant of the Asian wild dog, and it is thought that they were brought to Australia from the Asian sub-continent along with human migration about 30 to 80,000 years ago when Australia was connected to Asia by a land bridge).

All other placental mammals on the Australia mainland were either brought there by man, or migrated there less than 20 million years ago, e.g., Chiroptera (bats) and Rodentia (rats and mice). This means that Australia's marsupial mammals evolved in isolation from the rest of the planet.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Noah could have embarked over 10,500 mammals (5300 x 2) plus 20,000 birds (10,000 x 2) plus all the thousands of spiders, snakes, reptiles, insects and many hundreds of thousands of plant seeds, all on a boat with only 38,000 cubic metres of space.

It is even more ludicrous to suggest that he would then disembark all these living creature onto the side of a mountain somewhere in what we now call the Middle East, and somehow, ALL the marsupial mammals end up in Australia or the Americas, and nowhere else on the planet.

There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from this... that the Australian continent was completely isolated from the rest of Gondwanaland when mammals first started to "take over" after the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, and that fact, in itself, makes a nonsense of the biblical flood myth

Nice post. New Zealand presents its own problems. And these problems are magnified if we entertain the idea of super speeded plate tectonics. How did the moa reach the Islands but no land animals besides bats? Again we have to entertain foolishness when the current scientific thinking does such a wonderful job of explanation.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm both fascinated and terrified to think that an allegedly educated person from a first world country in the 21st century believes this to be a scientifically valid proposition.

My stance as well. DOC is a fun chew toy and quite harmless by himself. But that there are millions who believe this sort of thing really gives me the willies.

Fortunately, there are also increasing millions who don't and I'll always be grateful to this forum not just for making me aware of that but also for beating out of my thick skull the idea that it's valid to paint all Americans/Christians/people of faith with the same brush that painted the sad little caricature that is presented to us by DOC's 'arguments'.

 

[Akhenaten]

He will not answer those. The only given he will argue is that Noah and family got in a big boat and rescued a pair of more or less each of the Biblical kinds. The remaining details will be appalling shoehornings of whatever fact about the world he is dealing with at the time.

Yeah, I know. The only real reason I keep playing is for the comedy gold moments. I should get a life.






OT: My thoughts are with you and your adopted homeland on this special day, old friend.

Be well, my brothers.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Some laughs for anyone who hasn't seen Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory*

About the only thing right is in the opening narration where questions about the flood are cast as a major headache for Bible literalists.


*Being a creationist video and given the off-the-wall content we can assume the word theory is being used in the creationist sense of "something that we think of in the middle of the night after too much coffee and not enough sleep." (Kevin Padian during the Dover Trial)

 

[Akhenaten]

Nice post. New Zealand presents its own problems. And these problems are magnified if we entertain the idea of super speeded plate tectonics. How did the moa reach the Islands but no land animals besides bats? Again we have to entertain foolishness when the current scientific thinking does such a wonderful job of explanation.

I've been trying hard to think of a way to highlight the significance of Polar Bears and Penguins never having become mortal enemies and in doing so I've been searching the webz for a picture of the two species sharing a beer and reminiscing about their ancestors' time on Noah's Floating Zoo™ but, as odd as it seems, I can't find any.

I'm sure DOC will have a humourous answer for us.

 

[Hokulele]

DOC, do you understand what is meant by "Most Recent Common Ancestor"? If, and I do mean if, Genesis were correct, every single DNA analysis of every living thing would show MRCAs no earlier than whatever date you want for the flood, and the vast majority would have the exact same MRCA date. An MRCA that can be linked to the Garden of Eden is in fact direct evidence that the flood could not have happened.

Your own pet "scientist" has just disproved your OP. Bravo!

 

[Dinwar]

DOC, mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam would be the LATEST common human ancestors, according to scientific definition. If the Book of Genesis was true, which it is not: but anyway, if it was true, who would these people be, in that story, and why? Would they be the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2?

This. According to the Bible, Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosome Adam would actually likely be from some time after Noah. The Deluge would have been a genetic bottleneck, after all (the reason it's later is that we're talking someone who was only unique from a statistical standpoint; in life, neither M Eve or C Adam was likely to have been considered anything special).

Technically speaking, DOC has commited heresy.

Also the fact that some scientists are now saying almost all of the earth was covered with water 2.5 billion years causes more problems for evolutionists because that reduces the time that the alleged evolution of millions and millions of highly diverse land species such as dinosaurs, land animals, birds, insects, land plants, humans, trees, ferns etc. had time to evolve.

Completely incorrect. You have no concept of how long a million years is. That's not a bad thing, necessarily--not many people do--but you're drastically underestimating the amount of change that can happen in a few million years. For example, we know that the first dinosaurs appeared in the early Triassic (call it 250 ma, for simplicity). By the end of the Triassic (201.6 ma) they were a diverse assemblage of organisms able to withstand a mass extinction. As for fish....their story is complicated. And really cool. Unfortunately, I don't have my book on the topic handy, so I can't quote dates; however, fish with what amounts to exoskeletons were around in the Ordovician/Silurian timeframe. (That fact has always blown my mind--our ancestors had external skeletons, and not internal ones!)

"Evolutionists", a term which Creationists use to insult and belittle actual scientists, have only ever claimed a portion of Earth's history for the evolution of complex animals and plants. We KNOW fish didn't evolve 2.5 billion years ago. We're the ones who proved it.

 

[Lucian]

Perhaps DOC doesn't understand the significance of this uniqueness and diverseness of Australia's fauna, and more importantly, how it is such a huge clue to the way the Australian continent became geologically isolated.

There are two major types of mammals world wide;

"Placental", which nourishes its embryo to term internally via a placenta and umbilical cord, resulting in fully developed live birth

"Marsupial", which bring their embryos to term outside the body, usually in a pouch.

Worldwide, placental species outnumber marsupial species by about 16:1 There are over 5300 species of placentals, compared with just 334 species of marsupials.

However, this is where Australia differs. Of the 334 species of marsupials, 235 are native to Australia, 99 are native to the Americas, and beyond that, there are no native marsupials anywhere else in the world.

Even more amazing, is that there are no native placental mammals in Australia (and before you say "what about the Dingo?", well the dingo did not evolve in Australia; its a direct, DNA proven descendant of the Asian wild dog, and it is thought that they were brought to Australia from the Asian sub-continent along with human migration about 30 to 80,000 years ago when Australia was connected to Asia by a land bridge).

All other placental mammals on the Australia mainland were either brought there by man, or migrated there less than 20 million years ago, e.g., Chiroptera (bats) and Rodentia (rats and mice). This means that Australia's marsupial mammals evolved in isolation from the rest of the planet.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Noah could have embarked over 10,500 mammals (5300 x 2) plus 20,000 birds (10,000 x 2) plus all the thousands of spiders, snakes, reptiles, insects and many hundreds of thousands of plant seeds, all on a boat with only 38,000 cubic metres of space.

It is even more ludicrous to suggest that he would then disembark all these living creature onto the side of a mountain somewhere in what we now call the Middle East, and somehow, ALL the marsupial mammals end up in Australia or the Americas, and nowhere else on the planet.

There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from this... that the Australian continent was completely isolated from the rest of Gondwanaland when mammals first started to "take over" after the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, and that fact, in itself, makes a nonsense of the biblical flood myth

Completely stupid question from a stupid person: What about monotremes? Are they a separate type of mammal?

More important question: What the hell did North America do to piss off God so much that he saddled us with the one truly hideous marsupial?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Here is one opinion on your statement.

The below excerpt from a scientist is just 3 weeks old and contains the very latest science:

When Did Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam Live?
April 4, 2013
By Dr. Fazale Rana

"...There is no real reason to think that the dates for mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam conflict with the biblical account of human origins. In effect, Scripture is silent about when God created Adam and Eve—just as it’s silent about when God created the earth. Though some people are tempted to use the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 to calculate the time of Adam and Eve’s creation (usually resulting in a date about 6,000 years ago), the best scholarship rejects this approach.

Many biblical scholars point out that these genealogies are theological constructs. The author never intended them to be used to calculate or estimate the date for human origins. Instead, these lists are communicating key theological points, highlighting patriarchs of importance in the lineage of Adam to Noah and Noah to Abraham, respectively..."

http://www.reasons.org/articles/when-did-mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam-live

He goes on to say at the end of the article: "The scientific and biblical stories of human origins harmonize quite well."

DOC, are you now saying the bible isn't literally true?

Yes, doc, are you now saying the Bible isn't literally true?

 

[Hokulele]

Well, Australia did get the Drop-Bears...

 

[Craig B]

This. According to the Bible, Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosome Adam would actually likely be from some time after Noah. The Deluge would have been a genetic bottleneck, after all ...

Very much agreed! I discussed this at #416. Though I think they would have been a little before the Flood - I mean in terms of the myth, NOT in any reality - because the effect of the flood would be to eliminate all but one existing lineage.

 

[Dinwar]

Completely stupid question from a stupid person: What about monotremes? Are they a separate type of mammal?

They're a more primative type of mammal. What I mean is, they retain many ancestrial traits that later mammals do not, including egg-laying and a few others. They are, in essence, a transitional form from reptile to mammal (though very much after the mammals split from reptiles).

Though I think they would have been a little before the Flood - I mean in terms of the myth, NOT in any reality - because the effect of the flood would be to eliminate all but one existing lineage.

I have to admit, I didn't work out the math. But my understanding is that we're lookign for the last common ancestory--which would be from the time when families started splitting off after the flood. You are of course correct, we would (if the flood happened) all share Noah's family as ancestors, but the most recent one we universally shared would have to be after the flood, because we'd also all share Noah's grandchildren as ancestors (but not, perhaps, all of his great-great-great grandchildren--we all have ONE of them as our common ancestor by this model, but not necessarily ALL of them, and different groups would have different ones as ancestors).

Basically, we'd share ancestors up until the point where the family stopped being considered inbred.

But again, I haven't worked out the math. I'm going by intuition here, and considering my lowest grades in college were both math classes, I'm the first to admit I may be completely off-base here.

Also, you can tell the writers of Genesis weren't farmers. In third grade a friend of mine pointed out that cats who undergo inbreeding tend to have weird numbers of digits and become increasingly moronic. His conclusion was that Adam and Eve were fifteen-fingered supergeniouses, and we're the deformed offspring of two long periods of inbreeding. The priest (it was a Catholic school) was NOT amused!

 

[joobz]

DOC, do you understand what is meant by "Most Recent Common Ancestor"? If, and I do mean if, Genesis were correct, every single DNA analysis of every living thing would show MRCAs no earlier than whatever date you want for the flood, and the vast majority would have the exact same MRCA date. An MRCA that can be linked to the Garden of Eden is in fact direct evidence that the flood could not have happened.

Your own pet "scientist" has just disproved your OP. Bravo!

DOC, you need to address this, because Hokulele is 100% absolutely, irrefutably and completely logically consistently correct.

 

[Lucian]

They're a more primative type of mammal. What I mean is, they retain many ancestrial traits that later mammals do not, including egg-laying and a few others. They are, in essence, a transitional form from reptile to mammal (though very much after the mammals split from reptiles).

Thank you. I know about the egg-laying thing and the nippleless lactation. I was just checking whether they constitute a category separate from either placental or marsupial.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Like any other CT thread, this one is useful for educating the fence-sitters on this issue. Well done to all.

Except one person, of course.

 

[Akhenaten]

More important question: What the hell did North America do to piss off God so much that he saddled us with the one truly hideous marsupial?

Oprah/Opossum.

Did you think that was a coincidece?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, Australia did get the Drop-Bears...

And Bunyips!