Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
molds and fungus are mentioend in the bible- many times infact- The bible mentions many htigns generally- soem specifically- ie things that creep, things that fly- I don’;t find it unusuakl as God’s word wasnt meant as a botony lesson.
[[Maybe they’ve all evolved persnickety-iness since the flood.]]
Things were much purer i nthe early dayas bwefore mutations started degrading them- so perhaps, but I think you’ll find many thigns are quite resilient, and there are trees in flood prone areas that survive yearly submergings
Show me where God is mentioned as having created fungi and non seed bearing plants. Chapter and verse please.
You are simple quite wrong about the ability of fresh water algae, ferns, mosses, liversorts and most angiosperms to manage to survive prolonged submersion in salt, brackish or fresh water either as plants, seeds or spores. A few are able to, but most don’t
You would think some of them would be able to invent a wheel, spear, or some other crude device, or have a society, or be able to talk.
[[Show me where God is mentioned as having created fungi and non seed bearing plants. Chapter and verse please.]]
I didn’t say the bible mentions Him creating it I said God’s word speaks of molds and mildew- (sorry- it was mildew, not fungi)- you can do a search yourself- goolge mold in the bible
[[You are simple quite wrong about the ability of fresh water algae, ferns, mosses, liversorts and most angiosperms to manage to survive prolonged submersion in salt, brackish or fresh water either as plants, seeds or spores.]]
Oh really? Tell me, how do islands becoem populated with non native flora? by drifting seeds and logs with sprouts in the moss etc- obviously they do survive and there are ways of doing so- rafts of debri, tucked inside thigns etc
A first of all, we don’t know how salty the seas were long ago, the bible mentions the ‘fountains of the deep” were opened up durign hte flood- exposing seas to minerals and salts- Secondly, Freahs water can ride on top of saltwater, and often does- completely fresh- not brackish until a mixing has occured.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp
Thank you for confirming my original statement: that nowhere is God described as having created fungi.
You seem to have misread my comments about plants surviving immersion in water, salt, fresh, or brackish. Some, repeat some, can. Most can’t. Islands, of course, get populated by those few species which manage it. The flora of islands is generally quite limited.
Nova had a very swell ‘edumacational’ show on this evening trying to shove their hypothesis down unsuspecting people’s throats- it was abotu hte handwalkers of Turkey- 4 children born to a man and woman who were cousins yet married anyways-
Apparently, their cerebral cortex was underdevloped, and caused them to be very unsteady when standing uprigth, so Nova tried implying that because htese poor unfortunates had to walk on their hands and feet to stabilize themselves, that they showed a link to ‘our distant cousins’ because it ‘showed that somewhere along the line a mutation must have occured that caused the cerebral cortex to begin to grow larger, thus giving man a more steady upright gait’ Nova was quick to quietly mention that other changes must have occured along with hte increasing cortex, but quickly buried that info in favour of bringign on scientists who were absoltely giddy over hte prospect that these poor unfortunates showing de-evolution showed that it ‘must be possible’ that mutations somewhere in our very long history must have enabled upright walking.
They then showed a person with Microcephaly, which is a condition where the sufferer has a very small head, and implied that it was another example of how we ‘once evovlved’ from ore primitive species, and suggested that a gene responsible for the microcephaly must have been suppressed due to a mutation at some point, and that species before humans would show microcephaly gene expressions on a certain cell. Yup- our world was filled with absolutely dissabled and weakened microcephaly chimps who couldn’t mate and spread along their genes, and which had the intelect of a few month’s old chimp before man came along. Deconstruction and deleterious events evidently are sure signs of highly specified complexities in the trillions within individual species, to an evo I guess.
Anyway- some kind doctor provided a $30 walker, designed by a clever designer, for the poor unfortunate handwalkers to use- they’re doing much better now despite the dissability. It was refreshing to see design being recognized and valued, and put to good use for a change. Good hting the folks didn’t have to wait for nature to evolve a lightweight aluminum walker for them.
[[Thank you for confirming my original statement: that nowhere is God described as having created fungi.]]
Which is a victory for you how?
I didn;’t misunderstand your point- many islands that cropped up from salt water have diverse flora on them which could only have been accomplished through drifting pods and sprouts surviving salt water- The link I gave you explains this and many other ways in which flora could survive. As well- we do not know the salt content of early oceans. If the bible is true, (just for the sake of aegument, let’s assume that we don’t know it is, but will assume that it is) then it woudl be reasonable that the deeps opening up would produce more salt i nthe seas because of valcanic eruptions underwater mineralizing hte seas. As well there woudl be varying degrees of brackishness- not simply water in which nothign that depends on freshwater could survvive.
As well, if some can, and KINDS create subspecies, then thsoe that did survive, can accouint for the diversities we have today- As well, Noah took seed and grain o nthe ark for the animals- many varieties.
This really is a moot point- obviously with the amount of debri in the water, much could survive on floating mats, in barks etc, and obviously enough did survive to create the many subspecies we have today. I guess you would have a point IF you could show that everythign outside of the ark could not have survvived, but that isn’t ther case.
One more time: the flora of islands is quite limited. Island populations are no argument for general plant survival of a universal flood.
A drowned Arizona area cactus, not in fruit (and they are seasonal, if one is not in fruit, neither are the others), had zero chance of surviving a flood. Ditto a forest fern, a mountain top eidelweiss, a rainforest epiphyte.
What you and your chortling buddies overlook, in your zeal to nitpick fragments of the evidence Coyoteman referred to, is that the various lines of evidence come together to support each other’s dates. Dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, and historical information all give the same results: tree rings show signs of frost damage that correlate with volcanic eruptions; radiocarbon dating of material (trees, mud) associated with evidence of volcanic eruptions points to the same time frame as the tree rings; historical accounts of darkened skies are from the same time as the eruption. You need all these techniques to not only be wrong, but be wrong in precisely the same way by precisely the same amount, for your criticisms to hold water.
Meanwhile, you need to postulate weather conditions that are different from what we see today but are just different enough to cause trees to produce extra tree rings in some (but not all) years, or some unspecified climatic condition that changed how much C-14 was produced, to explain why the experimental results are wrong. You don’t offer evidence for those changes—you just say “what if?” And again, to support any particular date for the flood, these two unrelated measurements have to be corrected by exactly the same amount—what a coincidence!
And if you’re right, we’re apparently the victims of some huge practical joke played by the Creator, who fiddled around with weather patterns and cosmic rays just enough to fool us into thinking things are older than they really are. That’s the unlikeliest part of your whole scenario.
Which is another way of saying they are inherently unmeaningful. As I said earlier - arbitrary and capricious.
A biblical “kind” is not part of a systematic taxonomic nomenclature. It is a concept.
The concept implies a limited range of variation.
Sorry Ha Ha, the historical record is replete with global folklore that all point to a global flood; even the experts in the field of dendrochronology recognize that it is notoriously unreliable, and radiocarbon dating is often calibrated using dendrochronology; moreover, radiocarbon dating does not take into account what the C14 to C12 ratio would have been before a global flood (for instance, what would the C14 to C12 ratio have been if the organic matter buried under the earth, estimated to be 175 times as large as the organic matter in our current biosphere, was deposited there by a global flood?); and finally, the paper Wiley posted acknowledges that there are serious problems with the mtDNA clock. Indeed, the authors of the paper Wiley cited as evidence against the Noahitic flood admit that previous dating estimates using mtDNA were too old by up to four fold! But the Evos are also encountering other problems with the mtDNA clock. For instance, scientists have discovered that mtDNA mutates at a rate up to 20 times faster than previously thought. Thus, according to the faster mtDNA mutation rates, the date of our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) would have to be reduced from 133,000 years ago to around 6,500 years ago! Of course, the Evos can’t have that, as the following makes clear:
“The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.
The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.”
See #431. I think I feel some more chortling coming on! LOL
Except for dating methods like argon-argon, fission track, helium, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, utetium-hafnium, neon-neon, optically stimulated luminescence, potassium-argon, radiocarbon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, ranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, uranium-uranium, and events like SN1987A and the death star galaxy, what has science got to contradict a 6000 year old earth?
There is more proof that it does not exist than that it does. It is unproven and not scientific.
Do you think quantum indeterminacy has established itself in the public’s mind?
As far as I can tell, thermodynamics hasn’t done well either. It is as least as misunderstood as evolution.
In fact I can’t think of any complex idea in science that is understood by the general public. Heck, I bet most people couldn’t think of a good, simple way to measure the diameter of the earth.
None of that matters. They're true believers. They interpret the bible that way, so that settles it.
Now all they have to do is twist facts, bend logic, and ignore most of science to make things all come out in accordance with their beliefs. But that's no problem.
They're doing creation "science."
If there was ever a true believer, it’s you Wiley.
PS I’m still waiting for you to respond to my comments re: the paper you posted that uses the mtDNA clock to supposedly refute the Noahitic flood. Do you realize that your paper actually admits the problems of mtDNA calibration? Do you realize that it does not falsify the Noahitic flood? Do you realize that scientists were quite surprised to learn that the revised mtDNA mutation rates actually places our most recent common ancestor (MCRA) at about 6,500 years ago? Or are you going to ignore all this evidence in favor of your preference for Darwinist mythology?
Either you didn't read the paper I linked, or you have missed its primary point.
Here is the abstract:
Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA were analyzed from 10,300-year-old human remains excavated from On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska (Site 49-PET-408). This individual's mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) represents the founder haplotype of an additional subhaplogroup of haplogroup D that was brought to the Americas, demonstrating that widely held assumptions about the genetic composition of the earliest Americans are incorrect. 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. If substantiated, the dates of events based on these previous estimates are too old, which may explain the discordance between inferences based on genetic and archaeological evidence regarding the timing of the settlement of the Americas. In addition, this individual's Y-chromosome belongs to haplogroup Q-M3*, placing a minimum date of 10,300 years ago for the emergence of this haplogroup.
The point of this article, if we must spoon feed you, is that this 10,300 year old individual was linked through mtDNA to 47 living individuals stretching along the coasts of North and South America. There was a continuity of this particular lineage for that entire span of time, 10,300 years. There was no break in that lineage after 4,350 years ago with replacement by mtDNA from Noah's kin.
There is another case on the west coast where the same mtDNA linkage (but a different haplogroup) is known to have a span of 5,300 years.
And your comments on the mtDNA clock are meaningless to your argument for a young earth. This article suggests that the peopling of continental US occurred some 15,000 years ago, rather than 40,000 years ago. Neither position helps the religious belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old. In fact, either position refutes both the young earth and global flood beliefs.
Face it; there is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than for a global flood 4,350 years ago.
[[One more time: the flora of islands is quite limited.]]
“The southwest Pacific island of New Caledonia, covering approximately 17,000 km², has a remarkably diverse and highly endemic flora for an area its size, with an estimated 3,137 native species of angiosperms and gymnosperms (79% endemic), representing about 763 genera (14% endemic), and 169 families (3% endemic).”
“The flora of Andaman and Nicobar group of islands, India, comprises approx 2200 species of flowering plants; of these, “
“Cuba. Cuba is by far the most important island in the region in terms of biodiversity, particularly for plant diversity, with more than 6,500 vascular plants, of which about half are endemic.”
There are many more examples- All are islands which cropped up and which had zero flora in the beginning and hwich grew diverse flora over time- all of which made hteir way there in various ways- some through birds carrying seeds in excrement, some through other animals doing hte same, some through drift. From the basic KINDS that did survive, we now have a variety of subspecies- all of which science is finding out can occure quite rapidly and with great variety.
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.