ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

Nick (and everyone),
I've got an idea. Let's pick one component of YEC at a time to discuss and explore. Informally, of course. I'm not suggesting that we make this like a classroom, but this discussion is jumping all over the place, and most of us do in fact have real-life jobs and families :) Maybe this way, Nick can get a chance to actually read up on the topic for himself, and he also won't feel like he's under attack. What do you think? I'm very interested in how this conversation goes, so I don't want Nick to be intimidated or frustrated right off the board!

Nick, if you would, could you please read some of the links regarding the question of where all this flood water went, and let us know what you think? After you've addressed that question sufficiently, maybe we can move on to other interesting problems.

Also, as a side note, I was wondering whether Nick plans to give our side of the story any real thought. Nick, please don't just let other people tell you what to think. Read what we're posting here and give it some thought!
 
Phaycops said:
Nick (and everyone),
I've got an idea. Let's pick one component of YEC at a time to discuss and explore.

Nick, if you would, could you please read some of the links regarding the question of where all this flood water went, and let us know what you think?
Click to expand...
Okay. Let's focus on the flood water alone to start with.
 
Here are the scriptures that described the animals that Noah had to take on the ark. I only mentioned the 2 of every kind earlier, didn't mention the clean animals. I should have taken the time to cite the full scriptures to not give a false impression, but it doesn't change my view. Biblical kind is not your classification by species. Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (a dog and a wolf can bring forth so they are the same kind.)

Genesis 6:19-20 (KJV)
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. [20] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:2-3 (KJV)
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. [3] Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Deuteronomy 14 describes clean animals vs. unclean.
Deut. 14:3-8 (KJV)
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. [4] These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, [5] The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. [6] And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. [7] Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. [8] And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

I am about out for this evening, but I wanted to give the full text about what God told Noah to take on the ark.

Ashles, I like your idea of focusing on one topic, it is hard for me to dig through all the posts. I will not be in here much tomorrow, but Saturday, I should be able to spend 3 - 4 hours. Talk to you all later.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick
 
Also, as a side note, I was wondering whether Nick plans to give our side of the story any real thought. Nick, please don't just let other people tell you what to think. Read what we're posting here and give it some thought! [/B][/QUOTE]

--Understand it is impossible for me to read everything. I do not have the time. Saturday should be a good day. Why would I be intimidated. We haven't begun to focus on evolution yet. So do not worry about running me off. Eventually I will have to end this, because I simply do not have the time in my life for all this but I enjoy it, so I will be here for a while.

In Christ,
Nick
 
Nick Harman said:
Ashles, I like your idea of focusing on one topic, it is hard for me to dig through all the posts. I will not be in here much tomorrow, but Saturday, I should be able to spend 3 - 4 hours.
Click to expand...
To be fair it was Phaycops idea.
 
Okay lets focus on the flood water first.

As asked previously - where did it come from and where did it go?

Think how much water is required to cover the entire planet to 20 feet above the highest mountain.

Where did it all go?
 
And where it came from...

Is the "canopy" a scientifically sound idea?

Is it possible that enough juvenile water could seep from the mantle to flood Earth?

Not to mention that we must also sooner or later will have to find evidence for the flood. It is not enough to be plausible and possible in terms of mechanisms and proccess (what it is not), there must be evidence for its existence.
 
Did Noah bring a male and a female Pennicilium on board the Ark?

But back to water. If you accept the old Hebrew model of the cosmos, there was plenty of water up on top of the firmament, and I think a big lake beneath the Earth. But we now know that that model is not correct; there is no solid firmament up in the sky, beneath which are stars and the sun and moon; above which there is a lot of water.

Now, what is the evidence for a global flood? All you geologists out there, raise your hands (I know there are at least a couple of us). Some folks would like to believe that all sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood, but is there any evidence to support that hypothesis? (clue: no.) Are we to believe that there were igneous intrusions during the Deluge, forming nice tablular dikes in the sediment that was being swirled around, or that stratal deformations characteristic of consolidated rocks formed while the sediments were still being deposited?

I'm afraid that to force the Earth and the cosmos to fit the Young-Earth Creationist notions, every science must be so severely contorted that we could not expect to ever learn anything about the world in which we live.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fossils

Ashles said:
From one original pair? That degree of genetic variety from one breeding pair in 6,000 years?
Click to expand...

well, there was more than one breeding pair of course, don't you know anything about how species evolve? (Sorry, couldn't resist ;)) in any case it takes a considerably shorter time to breed a generation or 5 of dogs than it does for a human to reach sexual maturity, for example.

say we have one breeding pair that breeds 2x/yr with 3 puppies in each litter. it will take the puppies a little less than a year to have reached maturity by which time the parents have had two more litters, etc...
 
Nick Harman said:
fishbob, is all your material original? Are your writing ground breaking science papers. Of course it is from reading other peoples research. I am not a scientist.
Click to expand...

Yep, my material is original, although I do get the benefit of previous work for my starting point. No, I am not writing ground breaking science papers. I attribute credit to others when I post their work. You are definitely not a scientist.

Take your jar of dirt and water out to a canyon or any big road cut. Shake up your jar and watch the dirt settle, then look at the outcrop. Look closely, study the details. See how inadequate your little demonstration is. Then come have a discussion.
 
pupdog said:
I'm afraid that to force the Earth and the cosmos to fit the Young-Earth Creationist notions, every science must be so severely contorted that we could not expect to ever learn anything about the world in which we live.
Click to expand...

Very well put. Thank you.

Thus my attempts to get Nick to show evidence that what he claims is a science is a science and follows the scientific method.

So far I'm invisible on my own thread. :(
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fossils

joobie said:
well, there was more than one breeding pair of course, don't you know anything about how species evolve? (Sorry, couldn't resist ;)) in any case it takes a considerably shorter time to breed a generation or 5 of dogs than it does for a human to reach sexual maturity, for example.

say we have one breeding pair that breeds 2x/yr with 3 puppies in each litter. it will take the puppies a little less than a year to have reached maturity by which time the parents have had two more litters, etc...
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the number of dogs in the world but the amount of genetic variety between them. Great Danes? Irish Wolfhounds? Border Collies? Chihuahuas? Jack Russels?

From one single pair?

That's a pretty limited gene pool to start with and a fairly short period of time to produce that level of diversity. It just doesn't sound in any way viable.
Especially when you consider we have descriptions of many different breeds of dogs going back at least 2-3,000 years, and the flood in theory only tooks place 2 or 3 thousand years before that.

"well, there was more than one breeding pair of course"
But Nick is claiming there isn't.
 
pupdog said:
Now, what is the evidence for a global flood? All you geologists out there, raise your hands (I know there are at least a couple of us). Some folks would like to believe that all sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood, but is there any evidence to support that hypothesis? (clue: no.) Are we to believe that there were igneous intrusions during the Deluge, forming nice tablular dikes in the sediment that was being swirled around, or that stratal deformations characteristic of consolidated rocks formed while the sediments were still being deposited?
Click to expand...

*raises hand* But I think it's simpler than that. If all the sedimentary rocks were deposited as a result of a global deluge, why do we see ancient evaporites displaying sequences indicitave of long-lived evaporative environments? Where did they come from? Not to mention I have a hard time seeing how we could have rocks from *such* different depositional environments if they were all deposited from a single, global, "mixing up," wouldn't we just have one single layer of mixed-up stuff? But instead what we see are many varieties of sedimentary rocks deposited in many different environments, and we can observe the same processes depositing the same kinds of rocks today. Interesting.

But to get back to the point at hand, where did all that pesky water go???

To be fair it was Phaycops idea.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ashles. I was starting to think I was invisible :D
 
And about those dogs/wolves... well, sure they can reproduce a lot faster than humans, but man.. . think of the inbreeding....how could you produce VARIETY, let alone a reall HEALTHY line of animals, if you're breeding parents to children to grandchildren. Some horse breeders (and dog breeders?) "line-breed" when they know they have a healthy genetic line, but they STILL introduce new bloodlines.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fossils

Ashles said:
I'm not talking about the number of dogs in the world but the amount of genetic variety between them. Great Danes? Irish Wolfhounds? Border Collies? Chihuahuas? Jack Russels?

From one single pair?
Click to expand...

as you know, the smaller the gene pool the more likely there will be mutations, which is of course how a new breed comes about. as an example just look at how many new breeds have been recognized in the past quarter century.

i'm not saying of course that this is what happened - it's just not as entirely unbelievable as you might have thought it was.

Sandy M said:
Some horse breeders (and dog breeders?) "line-breed" when they know they have a healthy genetic line, but they STILL introduce new bloodlines.
Click to expand...

of course they do - but tell me why pure breeds are more prone to health problems than a mutt? it's because they're not really all that 'healthy' to begin with.

i mean, i'm not a creationist and i think the flood is a rather silly idea, but new dog and cat breeds come from a single mutation in the line often.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fossils

joobie said:
as you know, the smaller the gene pool the more likely there will be mutations, which is of course how a new breed comes about.
Click to expand...
No that's not right at all. Are you saying that breeding from just two dalmations would be more likely to produce different species over time than breeding from a wide range of different dogs?

as an example just look at how many new breeds have been recognized in the past quarter century.
Click to expand...
But again that is from a very large gene pool.

i'm not saying of course that this is what happened - it's just not as entirely unbelievable as you might have thought it was.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it is any way believable that all current species of dogs have come from one single pair less than 6,000 years ago (really more like 4,000)

of course they do - but tell me why pure breeds are more prone to health problems than a mutt? it's because they're not really all that 'healthy' to begin with.
Click to expand...
The smaller the gene pool the more likely recessive (and often undesirable) genes could come to the fore. This is why a small gene pool is undesirable.
You could take a perfectly healthy pair of closely related dogs and inbreeding over time would be likely to produce undesirable genetic mutations. A small gene pool is not advantageous to long term health or species diversity.

i mean, i'm not a creationist and i think the flood is a rather silly idea, but new dog and cat breeds come from a single mutation in the line often.
Click to expand...
That's because there are now an enormous number of different dogs with different genes to breed with.
 
Also from Talk Origins:
Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?
Click to expand...

As one poster there elaborates:
There is another powerful argument that slays the Biblical account of the ark. It is that no matter how the pairs of animals survived the ark (space issues, # of animals, etc.) they could never continue. after they were released.Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason:inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes. The high incidence of homozygous lethal genes means high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.
Click to expand...

(As a footnote: Someone there also posts an interesting reply - "The Noah's ark story states that there were only two of each kind. After the preditor animals ate the prey animals, the prey animals would become extinct and the preditor animals would starve to death.")
 
Phaycops said:
*raises hand* But I think it's simpler than that. If all the sedimentary rocks were deposited as a result of a global deluge, why do we see ancient evaporites displaying sequences indicitave of long-lived evaporative environments?

...snip...

I was starting to think I was invisible :D
Click to expand...

*raises hands also*

Not to mention that if a universal deluge happened, one would expect to find sediment layers deposited by the deluge. The layers (even if they were thin) would be present almost everywhere, since just it was just 6Ky ago.

I would expect to see subhorizontal layers, and we could even predict the type of sediment that would be generated. I just returned from the field. I saw no "deluge layers" today. Just regular soil profile developed over Early Cambrian and Neoproterozoic rocks.

Neither can I remember seeing "deluge layers" anywhere else. Is my memory so poor? Or the areas where I have worked are some sort of biased sample? Why no one has ever published a paper on these deposits?

I agree with pupdog and the "invisible" H3ll - one has to twist science to turn the universal deluge a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom