Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
And so, what “kind” is a porpoise?
[[1) Neither sedimentology nor archaeology support a global flood at that date. Rather, the soils and human cultures are continuous in most areas spanning this date. Post-Ice Age floods are known; we can see those floods but we can’t see a much larger, much more recent flood? That doesn’t make any sense]]
Can’t see the Flood for the sediment
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation/
[[2) Fauna and flora are continuous across this date worldwide. For example, pollen cores that show no discontinuity attributable to a global flood 4350 years ago. Neither do glacial varves, tree ring sequences, or several other methods of tracking time]]
Why woudl a flood wipe out fauna? Are you suggesting that everythign was wiped out and had to start again after the flood? Varve dating is entirely innacurate as Varves can be formed extremely rapidly as experiments and natural observation have proven. Tree ring dating is alos innacurate as trees can grow 2 or even 3 rings a year
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c019.html
“Such views as represented by evolution actually rely on assumptions that these varves are layed down consistently year after year. In fact when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon! Other such catastrophic events such as the Flood of Noah could also imply the action of laying down many layers quite rapidly within a year time-frame. Thus even millions of layers could be formed in just a few years.
Furthermore experiments show that the thickness of the layers in a continuous heterogranular deposition is independent of the rate of deposition, but is related to the difference in grain size. So varves are not really a problem for a young earth, they just show that deposition rates were higher during and immediately following the Biblical flood than they are today.
Some secular geologists believe that varves may actually be diurnal, reflecting tides instead of seasonal causes. If this is so, formations like the Elatina Formation in South Australia(which is about 250 meters thick) could be accounted for in a mere 60 years.(Williams & Schmidt p. 21-25)(Horgan p. 11)”
http://creationwiki.org/Varves
[[3) mtDNA shows a continuity that can be tracked back tens of thousands of years. Just on the west coast a skeleton dated to 10,300 years ago found in southern Alaska was found to have the same mtDNA as living individuals in southern California and all along the coasts of Central and South America. There was no break in Native American mtDNA, followed by replacement by mtDNA attributable to Noah’s folks.]]
Mtdna does indeed show continuity- all back to one person- the problem is that evo science gets it wrong- a continuity model shows very precise lineage back to where noah was after the flood. Mutational similarities all brach out fro mthat area to recent times, showing the different geographical paths that Noah’s sons took after the flood.
“From Mount Ararat, Shem traveled west. Genetic data reflects a clear picture of this journey. Unlike the descendants of Ham and Japheth, Shem’s descendants took a short and straight-forward trip through the Middle East and on to Europe. Modern peoples of European ancestry can trace their mtDNA back to a single father, Shem.”
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/446-fatf.html
Next objection?
You’ve asked me two questions that could better be answered by a baraminologist- I’m not a baraminologist and can’t give you answers that involve biological intricacies. I will state however that discontinuity can be biologically mapped in species, and would be wholly consistent with KINDS biologically, and Dolphins fall within a KIND as do bovines- Many subspecies all fall within the KIND, and of course produce offspring which are mixes of subspecies with in the KINDS- Hybridization does occure, but htese are fulyl consistent with discontinuity models of KINDS.
In fact, from the poor record of your past posts, both in terms of legibility and accuracy, I have largely stopped reading your posts at all.
How do you read this?
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
[[Don’t bother posting creationist propaganda and lies to me]]
Brilliant Refutation of the facts Coyote- you’ve doen it again with such eloquence and poise- Kudos! You never cease to amaze me (or surprise me)
[[How do you read this?
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven ]]
The wqay it was meant ot be read- Every substance that crept or walked or flew- notice that those that swim aren’t mentioned.
There are many ways in which fauna could survive a flood- in the bark of trees, on rafts of debri etc, as well Noah did take much fauna along as fodder for the animals
[[Your first link describes a flooded world with 200 mph circular currents in 500-meter-deep water over the continents. Are you suggesting any animals not on the ark could survive that?]]
Nope- never mentioned animals surviving it
[[I thought that was the point!]]
Which all the things that crept/walked and flew were wiped out. Some have suggested that the original reading of “Every Substance” referes to ‘col hayqoun’ which includes celestial rulers whos domain was hte earth after they were expelled from heaven. Also note that God said “For all flesh had corrupted their way.” - no mention of fauna being corrupted. Fauna are incredibly resilient and most certainly could have survived and passed along their seed and pollen
Oh, I see—you’re mixing up fauna and flora. Fauna are animals.
I notice someone else has corrected you on the difference between fauna and flora, but as for the possibilities that some animals might have survived on floating jetsam, how do you read this?
...and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Granted that fish seem to have been exempted, and plants are not specifically mentioned, but that leaves millions of species of insects and other non-mammals.
==You will have to read the article for yourself. I won’t spoon feed you.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but right at the very beginning the paper states that the “amount of diversity that has accumulated in the subhaplogroup over the past 10,300 years suggests that previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock may have underestimated the rate of molecular evolution.”
Notice they don’t even try to justify the 10,300 years—it’s an assumption. Notice also that they are casting doubt on previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock because it doesn’t fit their ASSUMPTIONS! Finally, you should also notice that the paper you posted is an attempt to reconcile mtDNA with said assumptions. Given the above, how exactly does this paper “refute” the Noahitic flood?
Isn’t it amazing how Coyoteman almost never defends his contradictory positions? All he ever does is post links, implying that they somehow speak for themselves. This has happened so often that I am left with the distinct impression that it’s no so much about the links speaking for themselves as much as Coyoteman not being able speak for HIMSELF.
[[Given the above, how exactly does this paper “refute” the Noahitic flood?]]
It doesn’t- But they like to pretend their assumptions do ‘refute’ opposing facts. Oh well.
[[...and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Granted that fish seem to have been exempted, and plants are not specifically mentioned, but that leaves millions of species of insects and other non-mammals]]
Yes- I mistakenly thought flora- not fauna- Flora are very resilient and could very well have survived the flood- as for animals surviving outside the ark- no- every thing that crept/walked, flew was destroyed. This may sound inpossible, but remember, Noah only needed to save the original KINDS, not every subspecies within the KINDS- After hte flood, genetic diversities would have produced all the millions of suibspecies within the KINDS.
Notice they don’t even try to justify the 10,300 years—it’s an assumption. Notice also that they are casting doubt on previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock because it doesn’t fit their ASSUMPTIONS! Finally, you should also notice that the paper you posted is an attempt to reconcile mtDNA with said assumptions. Given the above, how exactly does this paper “refute” the Noahitic flood?
You are wrong from the start. You really should read the article.
The date of 10,300 years was established by radiocarbon dating and other archaeological techniques, not by the mtDNA clock.
And how this article refutes the global flood? There is direct genetic continuity on the west coast from this individual who lived 10,300 years ago to numerous living descendants. There was no replacement by mtDNA from Noah's kin after 4350 years ago.
I know of another case on the west coast that spans 5,300 years from an ancient skeleton to a living descendant. Again, no replacement by mtDNA from Noah's kin after 4350 years ago.
The global flood about 4350 years ago is a myth.
[[Isn’t it amazing how Coyoteman almost never defends his contradictory positions?]]
Amazing? No- predictable? Yes. He’ll demand you defend your position, quibble about NON issues the whole time, trying to trip you up on some moot point that does nothign to undermine the main issue being discussed, and then declare some sort of victory and declare your miniscule mistake amounts to a refutation of everyhtign Creationism and ID stand for, yet when questioned about glaring holes and biological impossibilities in the Macroevolutionary hypothesis, he’s predictably silent at worst, and at best- all he can do is post links that have been thoroughly refutted with actual science and not made up assumptions and faith based beliefs about impossible biological processes that violate mathematical and scientific principles. I guess when you beleive science doesn’t deal in facts or proofs, then anythign that agrees with your position, no matter how scientifically unsound, is good enough to take a stand on.
All mtDNA can be traced back to an original “Eve” and as such, and fossils found would ALL contain the mtDNA from an original source- Nothign was ‘replaced’ somewhere down hte line- All genetic variations have their source in a single person- Noah’s wife and children all carried the markers and continued to spread what was already established and present- the hypothesis that the flood isn’t true is nothign but a myth that has to stretch the facts to fit the theory of Macroevolution.
As you should already know, there are many problems with radiocarbon dating having to do with calibration methods, not to mention the potentially erroneous assumption that atmospheric C14 levels (relative to C12) are the same today as they were thousands of years ago. And it should not be surprising that the Evos are trying to revise results derived from the mtDNA clock as it supports a recent creation. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.