ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[LW]

Where and when? Certainly not by you in this thread.

He is right in this case. The pi argument is a non-issue and should not be used as a Bible error in a debate.

It boild down to precision. The expression "diameter of 10 cubits" can reasonably express any diameter from 9.50 cubits to 10.49 if you round it to full cubits. Similarily, 30 cubits covers the range of 29.50 to 30.49. Take diameter of 9.50 cubits and multiply it by pi you get 29.53 cubits, which is within the range for diameter that rounds to 30.

Even more drastic roundings that that are acceptable in common speech.

 

[Phaycops]

Hi, Nick,

I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others?

Once again, animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are different species, regardless of what "kind" of animal they appear to be (I'm sure the biologists here are cringing at this gross oversimplification, but I feel it is warranted to keep the debate on-track). The two rabbits that cannot produce viable offspring are different species. Get it? Regardless of the fact that they all look and act like rabbits. Lions and tigers cannot produce fertile offspring; norway rats and roof rats cannot produce fertile offspring; horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring; eastern and western meadowlarks and skunks cannot produce fertile offspring.....

Nick, please try to read and understand what we are posting. Even if you don't have time to respond to everyone, show at least a reasonable attempt to understand something that we're saying. I feel this is about to degenerate if you do not make an attempt to have an honest debate with us.

Correa, btw, you are not invisible. Well, not exactly. Actually, the fact is you're only visible to other geologists

 

[steenkh]

She/he is being asked a lot of questions and it could just be she/he keeps missing mine. I can be patient so I'm happy to keep asking the same very important question.

I wonder why he doesn't simply give you one of the many recipes that you can find on the web. There are several ways of calculating the age of the Universe and everything according to the bible. Maybe Nick also finds them ridiculous, which is why he does not quote them?

 

[LW]

Hi Nick, with your knowledge of the Bible could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

I have vague recollections of answering this same question to you before on a different thread. Use the seach function to find the exact passages if you are really interested. What follows is a short recap:

Roughly: start from creation of Adam, add together all names and ages of the begat lists until you get to Noah's 600th year that marks the beginning of the flood.

Then, after doing that continue adding up the begat lists until you hit the 120th year of Jacob when he and his sons moved to Egypt.

Then you note the passage that tells that the Israelites were 400 years in Egypt.

After that you note that Salomon started temple-building 420 years after Exodus.

Following that, you count up the reign lenghts of kings until you hit Nebuchadressar.

Unless you are willing to claim that the King Nebuchadressar of Babylonia ruled around 3,000 BC, you have to admit that Bible does,. indeed, claim that the first human was created less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[Mojo]

I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others?

What you are talking about here is what is known as a ring species. Because they can interbreed, all parts of the ring must have arisen from the same species. At the ends of the ring, where the greatest degree of genetic differentiation is visible, the populations from opposite ends of the ring can't interbreed, so appear to be of different species.

Now imagine if the habitats available for the species at other parts of the ring change so that the species dies out in those areas. What we are left with is two different (although closely related) species, that are unable to interbreed. This is how new species arise.

Ring species are, in effect, observed examples of new species arising, and "macroevolution" occuring.

Thank you for drawing our attention to them.

 

[drkitten]

Once again, animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are different species, regardless of what "kind" of animal they appear to be (I'm sure the biologists here are cringing at this gross oversimplification, but I feel it is warranted to keep the debate on-track).

Consider me cringing.

The two rabbits that cannot produce viable offspring are different species. Get it? Regardless of the fact that they all look and act like rabbits. Lions and tigers cannot produce fertile offspring; norway rats and roof rats cannot produce fertile offspring; horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring; eastern and western meadowlarks and skunks cannot produce fertile offspring.....

This is important, so I'm stressing and repeating it.

Norway rats and roof rats appear to be of the same "kind," in layman's terms (they're both rats), but they cannot successfully interbreed. That's what being a species means. If the Flood story were factual, Noah would have had to bring two Norway rats (a male and a female) as well as two roof rats (again, a male and a female), or else both species would have died out almost immediately. Noah would also have had to bring aboard two kangaroo rats (actually more than twenty different species of "kangaroo rat", so he would need forty kangaroo rats), two cotton rats, two black rats, two greater stick-necked rats, two lesser stick-necked rats, and so forth. Just at a quick guess (there are 51 species within genus Rattus alone), Noah would have probably needed to bring over five hundred "rats" of various types.

Similarly, he would have needed to bring two African elephants and two Indian elephants. He would have needed to bring nearly 80 cats, ranging from the lion through the domestic cat. He would "only" have needed to bring sixteen bears, and he could have managed with just 34 penguins. But any less, and there would be animals that we wouldn't see today because they would have died out almost immediately in the post-Flood period.

The truly scary "kind" is the beetle. There are at least 350,000 beetle species in the world, meaning Noah needed to gather at least 700,000 beetles on his Ark.

Where would Noah have put all these animals? The Ark was only 150m long, 25m wide, and 15m tall. The London Zoo doesn't even pretend to completeness, and nevertheless extends over acres and acres.

 

[LW]

Norway rats and roof rats appear to be of the same "kind," in layman's terms (they're both rats), but they cannot successfully interbreed. That's what being a species means. If the Flood story were factual, Noah would have had to bring two Norway rats (a male and a female) as well as two roof rats (again, a male and a female), or else both species would have died out almost immediately.

There's you trying to bring that devil inspired genetics into the equation.

Since Nick probably doesn't answer this, let me quote the answer that I've heard several dozens of times from creationists.

The animals that Noah took into an ark were genetically perfect and contained all the genetical information of their kinds. The modern species have lost some of this information and so they can't mate with other member species of their kinds anymore.

Of course, this answer further raises questions on some other devil-inspired ideas such as "alleles" and "chromosomes" but that stuff should be left purely to devil worshippers and other evilutionists.

 

[steenkh]

The animals that Noah took into an ark were genetically perfect and contained all the genetical information of their kinds. The modern species have lost some of this information and so they can't mate with other member species of their kinds anymore.

Of course, this answer further raises questions on some other devil-inspired ideas such as "alleles" and "chromosomes" but that stuff should be left purely to devil worshippers and other evilutionists.

That is a truly interesting argument you have quoted here! Do they have any explanation how Noah collected all these genetically perfect animals, or how they all survived the ordeal of being penned up for so long? Do the creationists have any suggestions how the animals were fed and how they spread out again over the earth? Or how the plants survived? And how the plant-eaters survived until the plants had grown out again, and how the predators survived until the prey had multiplied?

It is a pity Nick does not answer these questions because it is more fun to grill him than having a skeptic present the arguments for him!

 

[Correa Neto]

Ok, let's try non-geological questions.

And the question is regarding *drums* KINDS.

Q: All ants belong to the same kind? If the answer is yes, then please provide an explanation on why different ant species don't breed.

Q: Zebras, horses, donkeys, are or were they animals of the same kind?

Q: Where exactly in the Bible one can find a definition for KINDS of animals?

Q: Where exactly in the Bible it is explained that "The animals that Noah took into an ark were genetically perfect and contained all the genetical information of their kinds. The modern species have lost some of this information and so they can't mate with other member species of their kinds anymore."?

Q: You are referring to genetics. Are you aware that genetics is one of many areas that provide a lot of information confirming evolution? Are you aware that it has provided a lot of evidences against the global flood and YE?

Q: Look to aSmilodon and to a Thylascolmilus. They look pretty much similar, eh? Therefore they must be of the same type. A quick googling will tell you what they looked like. Explain how this is possible, since the first was a placentary, while the second a marsupial. You might also want to use the opportunity to explain, in the light of YEC "theory", their spatial distribution, why they were extinct, why there are no human bones in the same layers where Thylascolmilus bones are found.

Oh, just as a reminder,
Remember Madagascar. It has a unique fauna (are there loris anywhere else?). Even the fossils are different there. And also remember the fossil fauna in Antarctica, again quite different from that of the rest of the world. How this fits with the deluge?

Why there are not evidences for a global flood?

Yes, I've added a couple of geological questions. So what? You are not going answer them, anyway.

 

[Darat]

I have vague recollections of answering this same question to you before on a different thread. Use the seach function to find the exact passages if you are really interested. What follows is a short recap:

…snip…

Thanks for that however that does not answer the question that I have asked Nick.

 

[Nick Harman]

Hi Nick, with your knowledge of the Bible could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

Haven't forgot about your question, I was just trying to find a chart that graphs this out. be back w/you on this one.

 

[Darat]

Haven't forgot about your question, I was just trying to find a chart that graphs this out. be back w/you on this one.

Thanks Nick, and don’t forget I'm not expecting a calculation made by fallible people (because as you say they are just opinions that can change) what I was hoping is for the actual Biblical passage(s) that when creation happened and when the flood happened. - Thanks.

 

[Ashles]

Haven't forgot about your question, I was just trying to find a chart that graphs this out. be back w/you on this one.

Again I don't think that is Darat's question.

All you have to do is quote Bible pasages.
I could create a chart/timeline that shows anything I want. That's not what Darat is asking for.

Darat has asked a specific question about bible passages. Can you provide the relevant ones?

ETA: I see Darat has already responded.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The paper was received by Science journal on 28 October, 1993 and accepted on 3 December, 1993, indicating that the paper passed the refereeing process with no, or only minor, changes being required before publication...

You don't seem to have looked at the sites I linked you to.

The paper which I linked you to was published in 2002, not 1993. It gives details of the second dig on the site, in which more bone fragments were recovered, including: "a majority of the axial skeleton of the holotype of this early Eocene cetacean, including both innominates, the sacrum, and most of the thoracic cage and thoracolumbar vertebral column. Additional appendicular, caudal, and cranial materials were also recovered, resulting in a specimen that is now approximately 80 percent complete".

It is of these additional finds that AiG write : "It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence."

My link was to an abstract of research published in a refereed scientific journal.

Whether out of laziness, ignorance, or deliberate mendacity, AiG have been perpetuating a falsehood for the last three years. Do you really have to defend every stupid bit of gibble every YEC comes out with as though it were Holy Writ?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
If what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.

Here's a quotation that might interest you, Nick. A bit of history, you might say.

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis.

You do know who Murtin Luther was, don't you?

Well, now you know, from the father of Protestantism, how "we Christians" must think. You must think that the sky is a solid object with celestial bodies fixed to it. To do otherwise is "wicked". To interpret Scripture in the light of what you actually know about science is "presumptuous". So, Nick, how "likely" do you think it is that "the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire"? Are you one of those whom Luther would condemn as "wicked", or would he have considered you a good Christian?

I wonder what these people would think of you?

http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/vdkbook.pdf : We maintain that the Bible teaches us an Earth that cannot be moved, at rest with respect to the Throne of Him Who called it into existence, and hence absolutely at rest in the centre of the universe.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm : So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? ... Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it...

http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/achilles.pdf : I mantain that the strict creationists' defense of the Bible's inspired account of the creation of Heaven and Earth is half-hearted and logically crippled. Rejecting godless Darwinian evolution for the Earth's biosphere they accept the equally unproven and unprovable Copernican astronomy as "proven"...

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/ts_history/history3.html : To promote the truth of our Earth being at rest in the centre of the observable Universe as a first step in Christian apologetics is in fact the only reason why I defend the Tychonian theory.

http://www.20six.co.uk/cliffnotes1/archive/2004/04 : The primordial enemy, however, who entered Eden so soon after God opened up scientific inquiry by bringing Adam the animals to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19), was fully aware of heliocentricity's potential for destroying the Faith by attacking the inerrancy of Scripture.

http://www.fixedearth.com : This "comprehensive materialist cosmology" is what Creationists today are up against and, excepting a handful, they do not know it! Evolutionism does NOT stand alone as a Bible-wrecking, contra- scientific deception about origins, Satanically conceived. Oh no! Evolutionism is historically, philosophically, scientifically, and spiritually WEDDED TO a previously conceived Bible-wrecking, contra-scientific deception about origins called Copernicanism!

---

Well, apparently they find your creationism "half-hearted and logically crippled" because "the Bible teaches us an Earth that cannot be moved".

Of course, you may say that these guys are just ignorant of science. To which they might reply:

Originally posted by Nick Harman
If what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.

 

[Phaycops]

Dr. A, you make me swoon

Nick, have you found time to actually read any of the articles or posts where others have attemtpted to show you evidence that your claims are false?

 

[Martin1960]

Hi Nick - How do you know the age of the Earth? I am not really interested in what fallible people may have calculated after all " Man's opinions and ideas are always changing.". Could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

There's a nice table on this page. If the page is currently unavailable you can use www.geocities.com/paulntobin/age.html++site:www.geocities.com&hl=en]Google cache[/URL] instead.

 

[Ossai]

LW

Even more drastic roundings that that are acceptable in common speech.

I agree with you on your point and even though of pointing it out, but Nick is claiming an inerrant literal bible. Surely god wouldn’t ‘estimate’ an answer that will be held up to scrutiny.

Dr Adequate

Ossai

 

[LW]

LW
I agree with you on your point and even though of pointing it out, but Nick is claiming an inerrant literal bible. Surely god wouldn’t ‘estimate’ an answer that will be held up to scrutiny.

I hope that you are aware that every measurement in every text ever written is only an estimate of the true measure. Including every single scientific article on physics.

That part of Bible is not a mathematics textbook. It is a description of Salomon's Temple. Scribes didn't read that part during mathematics classes to find an algorithm to compute either circumference of a circle or the value of pi.

In fact, there is no computation even mentioned in that verse. It explicitly says that the diameter and the circumference were measured with a line.

What precision of measurement would you accept as being acccurate enough for inerrant literal bible?

 

[Nick Harman]

There's a nice table on this page. If the page is currently unavailable you can use www.geocities.com/paulntobin/age.html++site:www.geocities.com&hl=en]Google cache[/URL] instead.

That is what I was looking for so I did not have to do it, thank you. Darat, will you accept that as not being man's oppinion and being from the bible (assuming for your sake it is from God). There is no interpretation here.