Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…5354565859…101

Comments

  • #1652
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    'ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active.'
    Only 20% redundant? Very intelligently designed...
    It started off at 98% redundant ... now it's 20% ... I predict it will eventually be close to 0%. The measure of 'junk DNA' isn't a measure of redundant DNA ... it's a measure of the lack of knowledge of the functionality of DNA. We have seen this before with hundreds of so called 'vestigial organs' ... that were supposedly 'leftovers' from 'evolutionary progress'. With further research they have all been found to have functionality ... once again 'vestigial organs' have been found to have been a result of lack of scientific knowledge ... and wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionists.
    obplayer wrote: »
    Very intelligently designed. Just like this...
    The laryngeal nerve is stated in the video to be an evolutionary enigma ... and it is indeed an 'inconvenient truth' for evolution ... because evolution is claimed to work by selecting the 'fittest' i.e. most efficient mechanisms - and it is supposed to have perfected the thousands of them observed in living organisms.
    The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.

    ... and Prof Dawkins 'digs an even deeper hole' for Evolution by drawing attention to one of it's fatal flaws ... and one of the logical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life ...
    Quote: "A designer has foresight. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight".
    ... living organisms are replete with thousands of systems that require both foresight and oversight in order for them to be constructed and integrated in the ways that we find them to be.


  • #1653
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Such a system can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence (at the point where you select for the list that is closer to an ordered list).
    Nope, no intelligence required. All that's needed is a mechanism to determine which outcome is "better". In the case of determining which list is closer to being sorted, it could be a linear regression; in the case of mutating genes, it will come down to which organism is more likely to survive to reproduce.

    None of which changes the fact that you've argued that random changes can't produce an increase in information quality, which I've demonstrated to be untrue. Again, if one of your premises is disproven, you have to reject your hypothesis, unless you're trying to fit the hypothesis to a foregone conclusion, in which case you're not a scientist.
    Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ...
    That's an argument that every organism that currently exists is perfect and can't possibly be improved. Is that seriously what you're arguing?
    J C wrote: »
    The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.
    "I can't explain it, therefore goddidit."

    Once again, the difference between the scientist and the theist: a scientist who doesn't know how something happens says "I don't know". The theist says "I know - it was God".

    Except in this case the scientist does know, and can rationally explain; which makes the theist look all the more foolish when he wheels out the goddidit childishness.


  • #1654
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Except in this case the scientist does know, and can rationally explain; which makes the theist look all the more foolish when he wheels out the goddidit childishness.
    I think JC's explanation is perfectly reasonable.
    If I were all powerful creator type you could pop things into existence with the wiggle of my nose and some magic, I too would leave a signature.
    But I wouldn't do anything obvious like actually perform miracles in situations where no alternate explanations could account for them, or even giant signs with my name craved into the sky.
    Oh no, I would magic me up a yellow and brown savanna animal with a really long neck, then give it a odd, inefficient nerve arrangement that looks like it was the product of evolution.


  • #1655
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nope, no intelligence required. All that's needed is a mechanism to determine which outcome is "better".
    The only problem with that idea is that all living systems are observed to be irreducibly complex e.g. if there is a 100 aa critical sequence then the biomolecule will be just as non-funcional with 98 aa's in the correct sequence as one with none in the correct sequence ... so natural selection is powerless to select any 'improvement' towards the 100 aa sequence that might arise.
    As Prof Dawkins has admitted NS/Evolution simply lacks the foresight to be able to do this.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In the case of determining which list is closer to being sorted, it could be a linear regression; in the case of mutating genes, it will come down to which organism is more likely to survive to reproduce.
    ... but an organism with a 99% 'correct' sequence for a particular useful trait is at no advantage when compared with one with a 0% 'correct' sequence as both sequences are equally non-functional for the trait, until the critical sequence is in place and fully integrated with all other systems necessary to produce the trait.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    None of which changes the fact that you've argued that random changes can't produce an increase in information quality, which I've demonstrated to be untrue.
    I'm sorry, I missed that ... could you please provide a link ... or repeat the info.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, if one of your premises is disproven, you have to reject your hypothesis, unless you're trying to fit the hypothesis to a foregone conclusion, in which case you're not a scientist.
    I'm observing what I see in life ... and it's matching the ID hypothesis ... and disproving the spontaneous evolution hypothesis.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's an argument that every organism that currently exists is perfect and can't possibly be improved. Is that seriously what you're arguing?
    It's not that an organism can't be improved ... many new abilities and systems could obviously be added ... the issue is how these could be added. You guys say that new abilities and systems could arise spontaneously through a process of selecting genetic mistakes ... but mutagenesis is observed to be degrading of specificity and therefore functionality ... and this means that any selecting mechanism will be presented with various levels of degraded specificity/functionality to choose from ... and no increases in specific functional biomolecules.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "I can't explain it, therefore goddidit."
    No ... the scientific reason for the ID hypothesis is that only an intelligence of effectively infinite capacity could produce the levels of complex functional specificity observed in life.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Once again, the difference between the scientist and the theist: a scientist who doesn't know how something happens says "I don't know". The theist says "I know - it was God".
    ... and therein lies the problem for evolution ...
    ... the people of faith (in evolution) don't know how life could have spontaneously evolved ...
    ... but the ID scientists know that the living processes and systems that we observe in living organisms could only have arisen with inordinate inputs of intelligent design.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Except in this case the scientist does know, and can rationally explain; which makes the theist look all the more foolish when he wheels out the goddidit childishness.
    The evolutionists may think they know how evolution could have occurred ... but when their explanations are examined they fall apart, even under modest scrutiny.


  • #1656
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    The only problem with that idea is that all living systems are observed to be irreducibly complex e.g. if there is a 100 aa critical sequence then the biomolecule will be just as non-funcional with 98 aa's in the correct sequence as one with none in the correct sequence ... so natural selection is powerless to select any 'improvement' towards the 100 aa sequence that might arise.
    Again, your argument is that any random mutation of a DNA sequence must, inevitably, result in a less functional copy of the original. In fact, you seem to be arguing that DNA is so precariously balanced that any mutation of a gene sequence will render the copy completely non-functional.

    Given that mutation of DNA is something that happens pretty much all the time, doesn't this require that every generation of every species should become less and less functional over time?
    ... but an organism with a 99% 'correct' sequence for a particular useful trait is at no advantage when compared with one with a 0% 'correct' sequence as both sequences are equally non-functional for the trait, until the critical sequence is in place and fully integrated with all other systems necessary to produce the trait.
    Ergo my point above: if mutation can only damage organisms, and if the slightest mutation renders an organism completely broken, how has life on earth survived the constant mutation that we know happens?
    I'm sorry, I missed that ... could you please provide a link ... or repeat the info.
    Let's say we have a list of numbers. Let's further say we measure the "information quality" of that list of numbers by how close it is to being sorted in ascending order. For example:

    [1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6]

    Let's further suppose that we randomly swap two of those numbers, and measure the information quality again:

    [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

    In this case, it's clear that the random swap has increased the information quality - something you have claimed is utterly impossible. Which isn't true, so a core premise of your argument has been disproved.
    It's not that an organism can't be improved ... many new abilities and systems could obviously be added ... the issue is how these could be added. You guys say that new abilities and systems could arise spontaneously through a process of selecting genetic mistakes ... but mutagenesis is observed to be degrading of specificity and therefore functionality ...
    This is just a restatement of the "random changes can't possibly be beneficial" argument, which I've disproved. Repeatedly.
    ...and this means that any selecting mechanism will be presented with various levels of degraded specificity/functionality to choose from ... and no increases in specific functional biomolecules.
    And this is peer-reviewed science you're citing? Or just more makey-uppey words by creationists in an attempt to sound scientificky?
    No ... the scientific reason for the ID hypothesis is that only an intelligence of effectively infinite capacity could produce the levels of complex functional specificity observed in life.
    That's not a scientific reason. That's an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

    Here's a free clue: when your "scientific" theories depend on logical fallacies as their axioms, that's a bad start.
    The evolutionists may think they know how evolution could have occurred ... but when their explanations are examined they fall apart, even under modest scrutiny.
    If the lens through which they are scrutinised is "does this fit my pre-conceived ideas from which nothing could possibly dissuade me?", then I'd imagine they do.

    I'll remind you of the answers given by Bill Nye and Ken Ham to the simple question: "what could change your mind?" Those answers were, respectively: "evidence" and "nothing".

    Only one of those replies is consistent with science.


  • Advertisement
  • #1657
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, your argument is that any random mutation of a DNA sequence must, inevitably, result in a less functional copy of the original. In fact, you seem to be arguing that DNA is so precariously balanced that any mutation of a gene sequence will render the copy completely non-functional.
    In a critical sequence even one mutation will render it non-functional. However, there are in-built auto-correction mechanism and back-up redundancy in many systems ... which are themselves further products of Intelligent Design.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Given that mutation of DNA is something that happens pretty much all the time, doesn't this require that every generation of every species should become less and less functional over time? Ergo my point above: if mutation can only damage organisms, and if the slightest mutation renders an organism completely broken, how has life on earth survived the constant mutation that we know happens?
    There are auto-correction mechanisms to keep this degradation at bay ... but there is no doubt that our genomes are degenerating
    This paper says it is due to evolution ... but it seems clear to me that a better interpretation of the evidence would be that the once-perfect genes, at creation, are now in continuous decline.
    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030042
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let's say we have a list of numbers. Let's further say we measure the "information quality" of that list of numbers by how close it is to being sorted in ascending order. For example:

    [1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6]

    Let's further suppose that we randomly swap two of those numbers, and measure the information quality again:

    [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

    In this case, it's clear that the random swap has increased the information quality - something you have claimed is utterly impossible. Which isn't true, so a core premise of your argument has been disproved.
    The quality of the information has increased, in your example ... but we have applied intelligence to determining this.
    In living systems, if this was a biomolecule sequence, it would contain hundreds of points on it's sequence (and not just 6) ... and it would only become functional when all, or nearly all, of the amino acids were in sequence ...
    ... and there would be no functionality, and therefore no selection advantage conferred by all other sequences, even those quite near to the functional sequence.
    That is why new functional sequences cannot be produced by any kind of gradual selection system.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    This is just a restatement of the "random changes can't possibly be beneficial" argument, which I've disproved. Repeatedly.
    Random changes can be beneficial ... but they are not sustainably so. The next change is much more likely to be adverse ... and neither change will affect the total non-functionality of both intermediate sequences.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And this is peer-reviewed science you're citing? Or just more makey-uppey words by creationists in an attempt to sound scientificky? That's not a scientific reason. That's an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
    Much of it is peer-reviewed by conventionally qualified ID proponents and Creation Scientists ... and it's available here to you guys to attempt to show were any error of logic or fact may lie.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Here's a free clue: when your "scientific" theories depend on logical fallacies as their axioms, that's a bad start. If the lens through which they are scrutinised is "does this fit my pre-conceived ideas from which nothing could possibly dissuade me?", then I'd imagine they do.

    I'll remind you of the answers given by Bill Nye and Ken Ham to the simple question: "what could change your mind?" Those answers were, respectively: "evidence" and "nothing".

    Only one of those replies is consistent with science.
    ... and yet ye guys reject all evidence and logic put before ye ... for the intelligent design of life.

    Whatever about Ken Ham ... I'm certainly open to new evidence ... and indeed I was an Evolutionist for many years, so the transition back to believing in Evolutionist would be relatively easy for me ... if the evidence warranted me doing so.


  • #1658
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    It started off at 98% redundant ... now it's 20% ... I predict it will eventually be close to 0%. The measure of 'junk DNA' isn't a measure of redundant DNA ... it's a measure of the lack of knowledge of the functionality of DNA. We have seen this before with hundreds of so called 'vestigial organs' ... that were supposedly 'leftovers' from 'evolutionary progress'. With further research they have all been found to have functionality ... once again 'vestigial organs' have been found to have been a result of lack of scientific knowledge ... and wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionists.

    The laryngeal nerve is stated in the video to be an evolutionary enigma ... and it is indeed an 'inconvenient truth' for evolution ... because evolution is claimed to work by selecting the 'fittest' i.e. most efficient mechanisms - and it is supposed to have perfected the thousands of them observed in living organisms.
    The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.

    ... and Prof Dawkins 'digs an even deeper hole' for Evolution by drawing attention to one of it's fatal flaws ... and one of the logical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life ...
    Quote: "A designer has foresight. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight".
    ... living organisms are replete with thousands of systems that require both foresight and oversight in order for them to be constructed and integrated in the ways that we find them to be.

    It is stated by the narrator to be an evolutionary enigma which Prof Dawkins is keen to resolve. He does. Wonderful, simple explanation from 2:37 on.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cO1a1Ek-HD0#t=157

    There is nothing ever found in any organism that cannot be explained by tiny incremental changes over millions of years.


  • #1659
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    It started off at 98% redundant ... now it's 20% ... I predict it will eventually be close to 0%. The measure of 'junk DNA' isn't a measure of redundant DNA ... it's a measure of the lack of knowledge of the functionality of DNA. We have seen this before with hundreds of so called 'vestigial organs' ... that were supposedly 'leftovers' from 'evolutionary progress'. With further research they have all been found to have functionality ... once again 'vestigial organs' have been found to have been a result of lack of scientific knowledge ... and wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionists.

    The laryngeal nerve is stated in the video to be an evolutionary enigma ... and it is indeed an 'inconvenient truth' for evolution ... because evolution is claimed to work by selecting the 'fittest' i.e. most efficient mechanisms - and it is supposed to have perfected the thousands of them observed in living organisms.
    The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.

    ... and Prof Dawkins 'digs an even deeper hole' for Evolution by drawing attention to one of it's fatal flaws ... and one of the logical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life ...
    Quote: "A designer has foresight. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight".
    ... living organisms are replete with thousands of systems that require both foresight and oversight in order for them to be constructed and integrated in the ways that we find them to be.

    Explain the appendix in humans.


  • #1660
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    It is stated by the narrator to be an evolutionary enigma which Prof Dawkins is keen to resolve. He does. Wonderful, simple explanation from 2:37 on.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cO1a1Ek-HD0#t=157

    There is nothing ever found in any organism that cannot be explained by tiny incremental changes over millions of years.
    ... and all the explanations fall apart, once the details are examined.
    obplayer wrote: »
    Explain the appendix in humans.
    The Human Appendix has at least five functions ... Embryological, Physiological, Microbiological (Bacteriological), Biochemical and Immunological.
    ... and you can read all about them here:-
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/the-human-vermiform-appendix/


  • #1661
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    ... and all the explanations fall apart, once the details are examined.

    The Human Appendix has at least five functions ... Embryological, Physiological, Microbiological (Bacteriological), Biochemical and Immunological.
    ... and you can read all about them here:-
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/the-human-vermiform-appendix/

    They don't, unless you can give examples.

    As for the appendix, try a little real science...
    'From an evolutionary perspective, the human appendix is a derivative of the end of the phylogenetically primitive herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors (Goodman et al. 1998; Shoshani 1996). The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential function, namely cellulose digestion. Though during primate evolution it has decreased in size to a mere rudiment, the appendix retains a structure that was originally specifically adapted for housing bacteria and extending the time course of digestion. For these reasons the human vermiform appendix is vestigial, regardless of whether or not the human appendix functions in the development of the immune system.
    From a nonevolutionary, typological perspective, the human appendix is homologous to the end of the physiologically important, large, cellulose-fermenting caeca of other mammals. Even though humans eat cellulose, the contribution to cellulose digestion by both the human caecum and its associated appendix is negligible. Regardless of whether one accepts evolutionary theory or not, the human appendix is a rudiment of the caecum that is useless as a normal mammalian, cellulose-digesting caecum. Thus, by all accounts the vermiform appendix remains a valid and classic example of a human vestige.'

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html


  • Advertisement
  • #1662
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    There are auto-correction mechanisms to keep this degradation at bay ... but there is no doubt that our genomes are degenerating
    This paper says it is due to evolution ... but it seems clear to me that a better interpretation of the evidence would be that the once-perfect genes, at creation, are now in continuous decline.
    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030042
    Given that you've cited that paper in support of your position, can I take it that you have studied the paper and agree with it in its entirety?
    The quality of the information has increased, in your example ... but we have applied intelligence to determining this.
    That's called a goalpost shift.

    I'll repeat the point again, if for no other reason than to give you another opportunity to evade it: you claimed that a random mutation can't result in an increase in information quality. You've now accepted that in the example I gave, a random mutation led to an increase in information quality. Therefore you have admitted that your previous assertion was wrong.

    As to your attempt at a deflection: it doesn't matter whether intelligence is required to determine the increase in information quality. All that's required is a mechanism to select for those mutations that result in an improvement, and reject all those mutations that result in deterioration. Happily, natural selection provides just such a mechanism with no deus ex required.
    Random changes can be beneficial ... but they are not sustainably so. The next change is much more likely to be adverse ...
    Hence the mechanism for naturally selecting beneficial mutations and weeding out harmful ones.
    ... and neither change will affect the total non-functionality of both intermediate sequences.
    This is a re-statement of the assertion that every mutation necessarily produces a completely non-viable organism, which is not only untrue, but you've already rowed back on it.
    Much of it is peer-reviewed by conventionally qualified ID proponents and Creation Scientists ...
    Does the phrase "circle jerk" mean anything to you?
    ... and yet ye guys reject all evidence and logic put before ye ... for the intelligent design of life.
    I'm not rejecting evidence. I'm rejecting assertions built on logical fallacies and pseudoscience.
    Whatever about Ken Ham ... I'm certainly open to new evidence ... and indeed I was an Evolutionist for many years, so the transition back to believing in Evolutionist would be relatively easy for me ... if the evidence warranted me doing so.
    Given sufficiently compelling evidence, you would accept that the bible is wrong?

    What form would that evidence have to take? Because you've rejected all of science apart from that pseudoscience called "creation science", which is nothing more than a collection of confirmation biases.


  • #1663
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    J C wrote: »
    Not only is there no possibility that life arose spontaneously ... there is also no possibility that any of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information found in living organisms arose by non-intelligently directed means either.

    All I see here is a claim that this is so. I look forward to your substantiation. If the rest of what you posted is anything go by, it will be very entertaining.
    The Fossil Record is a record of dead things killed catastrophically and buried in cemented rock by world-wide water-based processes.
    The theory that each rock layer represents millions of years of time is disproven by polystrate fossils, the fact that fossils of current living animals are found to be exactly the same as the current animals are themselves and the fact that they were obviously laid down catastrophically (over weeks/months) rather than gradually (over millions of years).
    All these creatures were contemporaneous ... and not separated by millions of years ... just like extremophiles, cyano-bacteria and Man are contemporaneous today.
    ... and the reason that we see supposed 3 billion year old fossils that "have a striking similarity to cyano-bacteria" ... is that they were cyano-bacteria ... and they were fossilised thousands of years ago - and not billions of years ago.
    Basically we leap from primitive 'bottom dwelling' organisms that were the first to succumb to burial in Noah's Flood to organisms further up the oceanic ecological niches that were buried later.
    It is the logical equivalent of sticking a feather in the ground and proclaiming that it will 'grow' a hen ... none of these organelles have the capacity to do what Evolutionists wish they could do.
    You will get no disagreement from me on that ... Theistic Evolution is just as scientifically challenged, as its secular counterpart ... and with serious theological issues to boot.
    One enormous act of Creation (and no tinkering) ... and the bacteria are observed to still be bacteria ... that have re-combined (in a tightly pre-programmed manner) pre-existing genetic information.

    I'm not the one cherry-picking or trying to 'shoe-horn' the evidence to meet my theory ... rather than following the evidence to where it logically leads.
    Like I say, the fossil record isn't a multi-billion year record of life ... it is patently a contemporaneous record of death in a world-wide water-based catastrophe.
    The lines are drawn at the selection 'walls' that appear quite rapidly when artificial or natural selection are applied to existing genetic diversity.
    I don't accept that we do see this ... what we see today is contemporaneous Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic life.
    Irreducibly complex phenomena and systems in living organisms number into the billions ... and every one of them have probabilities against their non-intelligently directed production that are vastly greater than the Universal Probability Bound ... and therefore are mathematically impossible.

    Ok - so then your position is, basically:

    1: All life was created in a single act of divine creation
    2: All life as seen currently and in the fossil record existed at the same time as it was created at the same time.
    3: A flood that lasted under a year wiped out the vast majority of these, and created what we now call the fossil record.

    Do you also believe the story of Noah's ark is factual?

    Either way, we hit a bit of a puzzler:

    In the UK, we can find fossil layers with plants and animals we would expect to find in a sub-tropical biome, roughly equivalent to a savannah, with hippo's, elephants, hyenas and lions. However, in other layers in the same area we find the fossils of plants and animals that live in a freezing steppe: woolly mammoth, conifer forests, cave bear, elk and dire wolf.

    How did a single event fossilize what must have been a cold steppe and a subtropical savannah at the same time? Why do we often find fossils of plants we normally find in completely different biomes in a small geographical area?

    Did entire biomes float around and get deposited one by one in the flood in discrete layers?


  • #1664
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    My answers in blue
    Ok - so then your position is, basically:

    1: All life was created in a single act of divine creation
    2: All life as seen currently and in the fossil record existed at the same time as it was created at the same time.
    3: A flood that lasted under a year wiped out the vast majority of these, and created what we now call the fossil record.
    That's a good summary of my position.


    Do you also believe the story of Noah's ark is factual?
    Yes


    Either way, we hit a bit of a puzzler:

    In the UK, we can find fossil layers with plants and animals we would expect to find in a sub-tropical biome, roughly equivalent to a savannah, with hippo's, elephants, hyenas and lions. However, in other layers in the same area we find the fossils of plants and animals that live in a freezing steppe: woolly mammoth, conifer forests, cave bear, elk and dire wolf.
    Just because we find animals in specific biomes today doesn't mean that they were in different biomes before the Flood. Indeed, it is thought that the temperatures across the world were much more even than they are today due to the insulating and heat distributing effects of the universal cloud cover that covered the entire earth, and was permanently destroyed at the time of the Flood.

    How did a single event fossilize what must have been a cold steppe and a subtropical savannah at the same time? Why do we often find fossils of plants we normally find in completely different biomes in a small geographical area?

    Did entire biomes float around and get deposited one by one in the flood in discrete layers?
    We find Tigers today in biomes ranging from the steaming hot tropical jungle of India right up to the freezing wastes of Siberia. Other species (that are now localized) were widespread before the Flood.
    .


  • #1665
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    .

    Where are the remains of the marsupials who must have made the trek from the Mediterranean area to Australia? Why are they only found in Australia? And if it is because they were so few from the ark how did those few survive that enormous trek?. Koala bears only eat from plants indigenous to Australia, mostly eucalyptus leaves.
    'There are well over 600 varieties of eucalypts. Koalas eat only some of these. They are very fussy eaters and have strong preferences for different types of gum leaves. Within a particular area, as few as one, and generally no more than two or three species of eucalypt will be regularly browsed (we call these 'primary browse trees') while a variety of other species, including some non-eucalypts, appear to be browsed occasionally or used for just sitting or sleeping in.'
    https://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/interesting-facts

    How did they survive the trek?


  • #1666
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    J C wrote: »
    We find Tigers today in biomes ranging from the steaming hot tropical jungle of India right up to the freezing wastes of Siberia. Other species (that are now localized) were widespread before the Flood.

    But we are talking about a lot more than just an animal with a wide range - we are talking about entire biomes getting deposited, neatly separated in layers, in the same place.

    One of these layers just has plants and animals from a severe cold weather biome, the another one has plants and animals from a much, much warmer one.

    Why are they in separate layers in a small geographical region like the UK? It cannot have been both a hot-weather landscape and a cold-weather on at the same time, and some of these animals and plants cannot possibly survive in the kind of weather conditions that some of the others actually require for survival.

    Your alternative proposes that cold-weather conifers grew next to hot-weather shrubs, and entire cold-weather ecosystems co-existed with hot weather ones in a single place. Then on top of that all the hot-weather ones somehow got deposited in a different layer, neatly grouped together according to temperature preference, by a single flood event.

    How are we to explain that?


  • #1667
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Just because we find animals in specific biomes today doesn't mean that they were in different biomes before the Flood. Indeed, it is thought that the temperatures across the world were much more even than they are today due to the insulating and heat distributing effects of the universal cloud cover that covered the entire earth, and was permanently destroyed at the time of the Flood.

    "it is thought"? By whom, and why? Where do we see evidence for this?

    If there was heavy world-wide cloud cover we would not see an even temperature at all: rather, we would see extremely violent hurricanes all over the temperate zones as the cloud gets heated up, and the warm moist air at the equator is pushed to the north and south where the atmospheric pressure would be lower because it is cooler due to the varying hours of sunshine it gets.

    The amount of energy that a world-wide cloud would generate in a matter of months would be immense: the pre-flood world could not have been like that for more than a single season. And far from even temperatures it would have led to some extreme weather indeed!

    But I do not see how such a cloud could have formed, or what power could possibly have held it in place! The forces generated would be immense. It goes against everything we know about basic physics and meteorology.

    How could this have occurred?


  • #1668
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    How could this have occurred?

    goddidit


  • #1669
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    But we are talking about a lot more than just an animal with a wide range - we are talking about entire biomes getting deposited, neatly separated in layers, in the same place.

    One of these layers just has plants and animals from a severe cold weather biome, the another one has plants and animals from a much, much warmer one.

    Why are they in separate layers in a small geographical region like the UK? It cannot have been both a hot-weather landscape and a cold-weather on at the same time, and some of these animals and plants cannot possibly survive in the kind of weather conditions that some of the others actually require for survival.

    Your alternative proposes that cold-weather conifers grew next to hot-weather shrubs, and entire cold-weather ecosystems co-existed with hot weather ones in a single place. Then on top of that all the hot-weather ones somehow got deposited in a different layer, neatly grouped together according to temperature preference, by a single flood event.

    How are we to explain that?
    Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ... and therefore your use of current biomes to classify fossils is a classification error.


  • #1670
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ...
    Why not? And how do you know? And any comment on the fact that I've demonstrated that your assertion that random changes can't possibly increase information quality was wrong? And do you fully accept all the conclusions of the paper you cited as evidence earlier?


  • #1671
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    If there was heavy world-wide cloud cover we would not see an even temperature at all: rather, we would see extremely violent hurricanes all over the temperate zones as the cloud gets heated up, and the warm moist air at the equator is pushed to the north and south where the atmospheric pressure would be lower because it is cooler due to the varying hours of sunshine it gets.
    We only get storms because of the extreme lack of uniformity between cloudy and cloudless areas. If the Earth had a vapour canopy temperatures at the equator would be reduced due to reflection of solar radiation and at the poles temperatures would be increased due to its insulating effects. We still see these phenomena locally where cloud cover reduces day-time temperatures and increases night-time temperatures.
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    The amount of energy that a world-wide cloud would generate in a matter of months would be immense: the pre-flood world could not have been like that for more than a single season. And far from even temperatures it would have led to some extreme weather indeed!

    But I do not see how such a cloud could have formed, or what power could possibly have held it in place! The forces generated would be immense. It goes against everything we know about basic physics and meteorology.
    You're drawing conclusions based on the current situation of unstable weather and temperature extremes, caused by the lack of cloud cover over most of the planet, and its continuous variability.


  • Advertisement
  • #1672
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    If the Earth had a vapour canopy temperatures at the equator would be reduced due to reflection of solar radiation and at the poles temperatures would be increased due to its insulating effects.
    There would be no reflection at the poles and no insulation at the equator?

    And the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the poles would equal the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the equator?



    And you claim to be a scientist?


  • #1673
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why not? And how do you know?
    We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And any comment on the fact that I've demonstrated that your assertion that random changes can't possibly increase information quality was wrong? And do you fully accept all the conclusions of the paper you cited as evidence earlier?
    I've addressed this here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708


  • #1674
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.

    I've addressed this here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
    Where has it been established that the flood ,as mentioned in the bible, happened?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1675
    Miguel Squeaking Teenager
    Posts: 0 ✭ Miguel Squeaking Teenager


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    But we are talking about a lot more than just an animal with a wide range - we are talking about entire biomes getting deposited, neatly separated in layers, in the same place.

    One of these layers just has plants and animals from a severe cold weather biome, the another one has plants and animals from a much, much warmer one.
    J C wrote: »
    Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ... and therefore your use of current biomes to classify fossils is a classification error.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why not? And how do you know?
    J C wrote: »
    We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.

    I know A because B.
    B is shown by A.

    Hence, circle.

    What do I win?


  • #1676
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There would be no reflection at the poles and no insulation at the equator?
    Not much.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the poles would equal the intensity of sunlight through cloud cover at the equator?
    The differences wouldn't be significant ... the average incident solar radiation is greater at the poles during summer than at the equator ... and the large current polar albedo wouldn't have been present pre-flood with moderate polar temperatures then.


  • #1677
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    We know from the fossil record that current temperature-dependent biomes didn't exist pre-flood.
    No, we don't know that. Some of us don't accept that the flood happened just because a magic book said so.
    I've addressed this here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
    You didn't address it, you changed the subject.

    Let's go over this again. You claimed that random mutations can only possibly cause deterioration, never improvement. It was pointed out to you that mutations do, in fact, yield improvements, which you accepted, but changed the subject to claim that random changes necessarily cause a loss in information quality. I demonstrated that a random change can lead to an increase in information quality, and you started talking about the intelligence required to determine that the quality had increased. I pointed out that no such intelligence was required, and you lost interest in the discussion.
    J C wrote: »
    Not much.
    Why not? Why would there be reflection but no insulation at the equator, and insulation but no reflection at the poles?
    The differences wouldn't be significant ... the average incident solar radiation is greater at the poles during summer than at the equator ...
    You're joking, right? Tell me you're joking.


  • #1678
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let's go over this again. You claimed that random mutations can only possibly cause deterioration, never improvement. It was pointed out to you that mutations do, in fact, yield improvements, which you accepted, but changed the subject to claim that random changes necessarily cause a loss in information quality. I demonstrated that a random change can lead to an increase in information quality, and you started talking about the intelligence required to determine that the quality had increased. I pointed out that no such intelligence was required, and you lost interest in the discussion.
    I answered everything here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why not? Why would there be reflection but no insulation at the equator, and insulation but no reflection at the poles?
    It's time for bed ... and I actually meant to say not much difference at either location.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're joking, right? Tell me you're joking.
    I'm not ... look at the last sentence in item number 10 in the purple shaded summary here:-
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/


  • #1679
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    I answered everything here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92391605&postcount=1708
    No, you didn't.
    It's time for bed ... and I actually meant to say not much difference at either location.
    If there's not much difference between reflection and insulation at either location, then whether there is a difference comes down to insolation. Hence...
    I'm not ... look at the last sentence in item number 10 in the purple shaded summary here:-
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

    OK, I missed where you said "in summer" - which conveniently ignores the fact that each pole would have six months of no solar radiation whatsoever, so if you're going to talk about average insolation, surely even you have to admit that the poles would get dramatically less solar radiation over the course of a year than the equator. Therefore, given similar reflectivity and insulation, the poles would still, of necessity, be much colder.


  • #1680
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    J C wrote: »
    We only get storms because of the extreme lack of uniformity between cloudy and cloudless areas. If the Earth had a vapour canopy temperatures at the equator would be reduced due to reflection of solar radiation and at the poles temperatures would be increased due to its insulating effects. We still see these phenomena locally where cloud cover reduces day-time temperatures and increases night-time temperatures.

    You cannot simply apply such a local observation and imagine a world-wide variant because it suits you: clouds simply do not behave that way.

    Even if we could somehow prevent the moist air at the equator from building up massive amounts of energy, drift to the temperate zones and dump quite a lot of their moisture there in some pretty intense storms,we would not see an evening out of global temperature anyway: rather, we would see a dramatic drop as in effect we are reflecting solar energy all over the world, reducing the net amount of energy the earth receives. I would expect an ice-age to follow pretty quickly.

    And as we will see in the next post: evening out the temperature to a global temperate would still not allow all these biomes to co-exist.

    This really will not do as an explanation.
    You're drawing conclusions based on the current situation of unstable weather and temperature extremes, caused by the lack of cloud cover over most of the planet, and its continuous variability.

    Not at all - it is based on the simple fact that the equator receives much more solar energy, and that less of it is reflected relative to everywhere else due to it's angle.

    Having an evened-out starting point would no change this. It is just a simplistic extension of the insulating effect of clouds.

    But even if we put all that aside, it is very easy to demonstrate that even if we allowed this to be a special, magical cloud that does not obey the laws of physics, it still would not explain what we can observe.


  • Advertisement
  • #1681
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    J C wrote: »
    Prior to the Flood there weren't the extremes of weather we now experience ... and therefore your use of current biomes to classify fossils is a classification error.

    I do not see how: we find fossils of plants and animals which have features that make them especially suitable for specific weather conditions, such as extreme cold, heat, temperate conditions, wet climates, dry ones. We find them in discrete layers, a phenomenon which we still have not explained: if they all co-existed, you would expect to find them all mixed up.

    In temperate climes, extreme weather features are more of a handicap: arctic hares that turn bright white in the winter do not do well in the Mediterranean, for instance. And cold-weather conifers cannot compete with tropical hardwoods at the equator... nor can they germinate, incidentally, as they need seasons to do so. These are just a few examples: the list goes on and on.

    And yet we find fossils of such conifers at the equator, the remains of ancient deserts in Ireland, as well as the remains of tropical forests.

    That has nothing to do with classification. That has to do with the fact that we need to explain how, if all these animals and plants existed at the same time, they managed to do so. Even if you planted them all there fully grown I cannot imagine the work it would take to keep them all alive for more than a year or two.

    This explanation requires special circumstances: you need magic to make it work.


Advertisement