RE: Tell us about the dinosaurs
November 3, 2010 at 6:41 pm
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
Getting published in a journal that is reviewed by a bunch of like minded reviewers really is not all that impressive. You should try and get published in one where not everyone is pulling for your side sometime. Anyways, since you have been published I am surprised you are not aware that there are 59 families of Dinosaurs. So my statement that there are around 50 different kinds of dinosaurs is completely accurate, inspite of your claims to the contrary.
Wow Scientists have been classifying dinosaurs for the last 400 years? So they were classifying animals that would not be discovered for another 250 years? I take it all back, you guys really are good at what you do! :-P
Don't pretned for a second that you have any idea how the dinosaurs went extinct. Nobody on your side of the aisle can even remotely agree on that issue. It's a pretty simple question to answer on my side of the aisle. There was a great bottleneck at the flood. Dinosaurs were very rare after the flood due to a scarcity of their primary food.
Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor? That's a ridiculous argument and quite frankly is kind of sad you would even try and use it. A common designer would use common building blocks, pretty simple. DNA has essentially killed your theory, until you can show us a beneficial mutation that increases information and effects morphology you have no leg to stand on and your beloved theory becomes just a faith based system. I already have a faith, why would I ever need your's?
Crackpot huh? I like to look at the words of Gandhi when personal attacks are used, "First they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you win." Looks like I am well on my way to winning this discussion.
Quote: Dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. I do make the claim (and can back it up by massive volumes of data collected by myself and thousands of other geologists the world over) that the geologic database records the history of the Earth because it DOES record the history of the Earth, it's processes, and life forms. What do you think it records, dufus?
Archosaurs huh? What did they evolve from? How do you know dinosaurs evolved from them? Where are the intermidate fossils that are never in textbooks?
Dufus huh? I will just quote Gandhi again here. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Looks like you are well on your way to losing this debate.
Quote: Who said that plate tectonics includes no catastrophic events? Geologists aren't making this claim. Ever hear of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens?
Then why would you make the mistake of assuming that the layers of strata were layed down over long periods of time rather than very quickly like we observed with Mt. St. Helens? The evidence clearly points to catestrophic events rather than long gradual accumulation. Yet you ignore this evidence because you are either ignorant of it, or are not objectively seeking valid explainations to Earth's history.
Quote: You assume a global flood occurred with no evidence to support your claim. Plate teconics doesn't assume anything about whether or not a global flood ever occurred. That fairy tale was put to rest long before plate tectonics was ever conceived. Sorry dude, Santa Claus is still a fairy tale, and so is the Biblical flood.
Actually we have eye wittness acounts that the flood did occur. That alone is infinitely more evidence than you have since you have no direct obsrvation of your claims. To go along with the eye wittness account we actually have mountains of evidence that supports a global flood event. It just happens to be the same evidence you try to use to support your claims. Kind of funny how evidence requires interpretation huh? Figured you would have known this by now. We have observation, you don't.
Just because it says mountains were present before the flood doesn't mean that ALL the mountains were present. I am sure you are aware that mountains are formed in different ways. The mountains (including Everest) that were formed by Plate Tectonics would have been formed during flood- year. These mountains would have pushed the waters back into the oceans never to return again which is what is described in the Bible. Even your buddies on your side will admit that Everest was covered with water at some point in time because of the finding of Marine fossils on it. We both agree that these fossils were deposited before its upheaval. You just get your dates wrong, I don't blame you though considering all the methods you use don't take into account the flood. I would get my dates wrong too if I didn't account for it. The drastic plate tectonics would have also formed the deepest oceanic trenches to capture more water as it receded. Even Jacques Cousteau admitted that if you leveled out the highest mountains and the deepest trenches (which would have been just like pre-flood Earth) there is enough water in the Oceans to cover the Earth by 10,000 feet. So we have more than enough water.
Quote: Given a more "pure genome"? This sounds a lot like you believe that it takes racial purity to live a long live such as that which allegedly occurred in the bible. Wow, you and Adolf no doubt could have been great friends. Do point out on what professional publication on genetics lead you to this astounding conclusion. Whether or not the Chinese built large boats is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the Chinese or Chinese boats (which, at any rate, cannot hold two of every "kind" of animal that currently exists, much less two of ever kind thaqt existed at the time of the Noah fairy tale). Try to stay on topic.
Did your "B.S.-meter" go off while you were typing this? If it did not then maybe you need to get it looked at. Obviously genetics is not your strong point. Where did I say anything about races? Talk about strawman arguments.
You tell me to stay on topic and yet you bring in Adolf Hitler (A Darwinst btw)? I am sure you are aware that Darwin believed that Europeans were vastly superior to Blacks and he predicted the Blacks would be exterminated along with the other great apes right? So don't lecture me about racism, at least the Bible realized that all races are still humans and not different species like Darwin believed.
Anywways, back to my original point which you obviously didn't comprehend, so I will keep this very very simple for you. As humans genetic material replicates it does so with errors. It accumulates these errors over time. Outside events can also increase entropy and increase the rate at which these errors occur. Humans would have been created with a pure genome free of error. As more generations accumulate, these errors would also accumulate so our DNA is not a pure today as it would have been in the time of Noah. Pretty simple 7th grade stuff. Any geneticist will tell you that our genome today has more errors and harmful mutations in it than our great grandfather's would have. You should probably avoid genetics from now on.
If you still don't understand this I will use a really simple analogy for you. If you right a computer code for a software program, you can run that program for long periods of time without experiencing any problems. However, when you copy that program errors occur in the replication. So a copy of a copy of a copy of the original code will crash more often and experience far more problems than tthe original program because it was more "pure". Get it? Kind of funny though, since you are a Darwinist you actually believe that you could start off with a floppy of code and copy it enough times and end up with Windows Vista, just a side note haha.
So when someone says that "nobody could build a boat that large out of only wood!", and the fact that the Chinese did built a boat the same size out of wood is irrelevant? I see how you form your arguments now, ignore the evidence that refutes your claims. Nice.
[/hide]
(November 2, 2010 at 3:13 am)Chuck Wrote: The funny thing is he doesn't even know what plate tectonics is, since he says plate tectonics when he meant just tectonics, and has no idea that actual plate tectonics offers a direct explanation of why life widely separated by oceans can share genetic ancestry which mystify him. But he will no doubt strike out with yet another bullshit to obscure this gaff, nor let that stop him from sprouting more bullshit about "catastrophic plate tectonics".[/hide]
The clown could hardly realize that if earth's atmosphere were to be filled with enough water vapor to rain out to cover the highest mountain top under 30 cubits, the mass of the atmosphere would increase 1000 times, and the atmosphere pressure at sea level would be nearly about 15000 psi, or about 4 times the pressure that would burst a scuba diving tank. But I will give him till his next post to pull something out of his ass to try to deflect this annoying fact. Perhaps the "pure genome" allows humans to survive pressure 10 times that of the venetian atmosphere? Perhaps the water came directly from god's bladder and was thus never in the atmosphere of earth? Perhaps conservation of mass or energy should be discarded when the first principle of biblical inerrancy is under threat? Perhaps something even more moronic?
Guess what! When I said Catestrophic Plate Tectonics I meant.....Catestrphic Plate Tectonics! Imagine that. Since Plate Tectonics is defined at the "large scale movement of the Earth's lithosphere", which was exactly what I was talking about. It's not my fault you can't understand that.
Maybe you should read the Biblical story of the flood before you try and argue against it. It never says all the water came from rain. It also never says that all the mountains that are present today were present during the flood, actually it talks of new mountains pushing the waters back to the oceans. So all of your hype about water vapor and pressure is irrelevant. That was easy.
Thanks for actually asking serious questions. This is a lot more interesting when people do that.
Well I know these answers will most likely not satisfy you but I will give you answers. The "kinds" of animals does not fall directly into any particular classification. It is different for different animals but it hovers right about the Genus and Family level. Even pretty liberal estimates of which animals would have been needed on the Ark puts the number around 5000, but more realistic estimates puts it about 2500. This includes dinosaurs and other extinct animals. Given the huge amount of space in the Ark, there would have been more than enough space for either estimate. Darwin actually helped Creationists out by popularizing an idea that was held by a few creationists even before him that speciation could occur by natural means. This means that Noah would not have to bring all 30 million species on the Ark.
Well the Ocean's salinity level is increasing (evidence for young oceans actually), a lot of the salt would have been deposited by the flood so many of the saltwater fish we see now would have been fresh water fish before the flood. This is not real difficult to imagine since Trout and Salmon are very similiar, the only big difference is what kind of water they live in. Some species of sharks can also survive in fresh water.
As for the Dinosaurs, the way we classify Dinosaurs is really ambiguous since we have not directly observed them. We do not know which ones could breed and still produce fertile offspring so it becomes even more of a guessing game than modern day classifying. There are 59 families of Dinosaurs so it is believed that this is about how many pairs of them would have been brought onto the ark. Dinosaurs would have been very rare after the flood because of the difference in climate. They most likely just gradually died off, even though there are still modern day accounts of people seeing what they believe are dinosaurs. So who really knows, people didn't believe the Coelacanth was still around either until 1938.
Animals that did become extinct due to the flood or shortly after would definitely have affect other animals, but these animals would have had to just adapt and survive right?
(November 3, 2010 at 1:02 am)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Is there a list anywhere of the animals that were taken on board the ark?
Not only is there no such list but their fucking bible cannot even agree on the numbers of each animals taken aboard. It's another one of those damned contradictions that they swear do not exist.
Quote:You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Gen. 6:19
Quote:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Gen 7 2-3
They can twist their scrotums into knots trying to explain how this contradiction is NOT a contradiction. Perhaps one of them will try for our amusement?
You should probably take this up more with the people who translated the Bible into English, not the original inspired text (which was in Hebrew).
The Hebrew word used in the first verse that is translated as "creatures" means "unclean land animals". This word is translated that way in the second verse when it says to take two pairs of every 'unclean animal". Same word. So no problem here. Nice try though, at least you actually made an effort and not just a baseless assertion this time.
[
I never dodged your question, I gave you an answer. We don't know the exact number because scripture never gives it. Not sure why that is so hard to see.
You guys keep saying that boats that size were never built until last century but you must be clearly ignorant of your history. The Chinese built boats completely out of wood using the same technology that Noah would have had available. These boats not only floated (all Noah's would have had to do) but they sailed.
Give a man with centuries of construction experience 120 years and groups of workers and he can build a boat that size. This is way more likely than the Gilgamesh epic where he builds a cube shaped boat in six days. When it comes down to it, you don't believe the story becuse you don't want to, not because it couldn't happen. This is obvious considering everyone of you beleives in things that are way more unlikely than the Ark story (Common Descent, Abiogenesis).
(November 3, 2010 at 3:20 am)Chuck Wrote: How many pairs of each of over one million species of described insects?
We've already covered this, species does not equal "kind".
