Asteroid Strike

ViaCrucis said:

The word "kind" isn't found in the command to bring two of every living thing, it is added in translation, but the Hebrew simply says "Of all living things of all flesh you shall bring with you two into the ark". Now the term "kind" is used later, "Of the birds after their kind, of the animals after their kind" etc, the word miyn simply means "kind", or "sort", from a root verb meaning "to portion out".

If you have a better definition of "kind" that the Bible doesn't mention (and how you came about that knowledge) you are free to present it.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

That's not the way i read it.

14they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature. 15They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

-57 said:

Why wouldn't they survive the flood?

Click to expand...

Things that live on land and breathe air need land and air to live.

-CryptoLutheran

-57 said:

That's not the way i read it.

14they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature. 15They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

Click to expand...

And how does this suggest that "kind" means something other than "kind"?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Things that live on land and breathe air need land and air to live.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

many didn't survive.

ViaCrucis said:

And how does this suggest that "kind" means something other than "kind"?

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

What else could it mean?

-57 said:

many didn't survive.

Click to expand...

Why did any survive?

-CryptoLutheran

-57 said:

What else could it mean?

Click to expand...

It could just mean "kind", like it says. You're the one saying that kind doesn't mean kind.

-CryptoLutheran

guess that would depend upon the amount variation in the gene pool and the heterozygosity. Add to that a rapidly changing environment..

Click to expand...

The faster the environment is changing , the harder it will be to adapt.

Sounds lke it. Do you have some sort odf speciation speed limit?

Click to expand...

The rate you’d need would have new species popping up fat faster than has ever been observed.

I didn't know you could see insects from that distance.

Click to expand...

True, but I am fairly familiar with dead wood, and a bunch of floating dead trees aren’t going to support most forms of insect life. You have insects that need to build things likes hives, colonies, insects that survive in the earth like worms, insects that live in desert environments where there aren’t even any trees to float...

Insects live in just about every environment on the planet, and each one of them have specific needs. There’s no way dead, floating trees are going to cover them all.

ViaCrucis said:

It could just mean "kind", like it says. You're the one saying that kind doesn't mean kind.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

genus = kind

Genus:
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

SOURCE

Resha Caner said:

My expectations were quite low.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's one of the downsides of the forum.

Resha Caner said:

Could the impact have played a role in their formation?

Click to expand...

That has certainly been proposed. At the time of the impact India was quite close to the antipodes of the Yucatan peninsula. However, debate extended over decades as to the timing of Deccan eruptions, with many results showing an older date, and counter arguments asserting the range of ages was too wide because of various technical issues, in particular the use of whole rock analysis.

This paper is a recent take (2019) on the issue and clearly eliminates the impact as the cause (since eruptions precede the impact), but confirms the timing is right for the eruptions to have acted in concert with the impact to cause the extinction. The authors note that their "findings support extinction models that incorporate both catastrophic events as drivers of environmental deterioration associated with the K-Pg extinction and its aftermath."

That last sentence pretty much captures my position on the matter.

Resha Caner said:

The detail that caught my attention - something I had not considered before - was tsunamis triggered by the impact. What about the topic interests you so much?

Click to expand...

Tsunamis and tsunami deposits generated some intense rivalry in the 90's with debates over sediments in Mexico (?) that one group claimed were tsunami deposits from the impact and another group who argued for conventional deposition.

The topic is just one of many that interest me. Extinction events in general are interesting for many reasons. If there is a particular attraction it may tie into a seminar in my honours geology senior year where a classmate presented an analysis of the end-Cretaceous extinction. This was 1969 and the geological community was in the process of digesting the possibility that plate tectonics was real.

One paradigm shift at a time is probably the maximum geologists can handle, so catastrophism of any description was off the table. Back to the seminar - I asked a question that implicitly asked "What if the extinction wasn't just a sort of gradual disappearance of species? What if large numbers died all at the same time?" I would have got a better reception if I'd emptied a barrel of three week old pig offal onto the floor.

I rather regret I didn't push a little harder since it would have led inevitably to asking, what might cause that, and how might we identify it? But when Alavarez proposed a K-Pg impact as the cause of the extinction event I happily embraced it.

-57 said:

Why wouldn't they survive the flood?

Click to expand...

They live on land, not in the water. They can't survive an extended period in water.

AV1611VET said:

genus = kind

Genus:
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

SOURCE

Click to expand...

And we aren't at any better of a situation than what I described in my initial post. So defining "kind" as genus solves nothing. Again, there is a failure to grasp just how many forms of life have existed. Reducing "kind" to genus is meaningless to address the sheer physical impossibility of the feat.

And adding things to the story in order to produce ad hoc arguments such as trying to imagine that God stored them all in Nth dimensional pockets or other nonsense only demonstrates the depths at which Creationists will go to refute and deny the Bible in order to cling to their pseudoscience.



-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

...

Click to expand...

Translation: Science can take a hike, can't it?

All I get from this rant is that you don't like God and science mixed together.

It's okay for God to create a three-dimensional structure, but then to add other dimensions to is is out of the question, isn't it?

You academians tell us to look to nature and God's creation as the final authority for our faith and practice.

Then academia reports eleven dimensions of space.

But when a Bible believer combines the two to explain something, it's a different story, isn't it?

In addition, it's okay for you guys to say "Latin says this" or "Greek says that," but let a Bible believer say "genus" is Latin for "kind," and suddenly it's a different story, isn't it?

Today's modern science and academia can go back to Hell, where it came from.

AV1611VET said:

Translation: Science can take a hike, can't it?

Click to expand...

Hey everyone, he used his catchphrase! I win bingo!

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Hey everyone, he used his catchphrase!

Click to expand...

Yes, and I didn't use two paragraphs with five sentences and an attachment to do it, either.

AV1611VET said:

It's okay for God to create a three-dimensional structure, but then to add other dimensions to is is out of the question, isn't it?

You academians tell us to look to nature and God's creation as the final authority for our faith and practice.

Then academia reports eleven dimensions of space.

But when a Bible believer combines the two to explain something, it's a different story, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm a Doctor Who fan, so I like the idea of a superdimensional ark ferrying many thousands of animals around. God makes a mess of the planet, cleans it all up so that it looks like nothing happened, it's all good. I'm unclear how the populations would spread back over the Earth in the available time, but God could fix that up too. No big deal.

Back on the topic, though, we've got an apparent asteroid strike in the distant past, with dinosaurs showing up in the strata before the impact, but not after the impact. I'm left wondering if that can factor at all into the Biblical version of things, or if there is an unresolvable conflict.

ewq1938 said:

The point of the flood was not to kill sinners and leave non-sinners alive. It was meant to kill most of the giants which was a plague to regular mankind. The fact that not all the giants died (Goliath and his ancestors) also proves the flood was not global. God killed the rest of the giants that survived the flood in other ways.

Click to expand...

Wait, do what now?

Yttrium said:

Back on the topic, though, we've got an apparent asteroid strike in the distant past, with dinosaurs showing up in the strata before the impact, but not after the impact. I'm left wondering if that can factor at all into the Biblical version of things, or if there is an unresolvable conflict.

Click to expand...

It's nice to blame things on asteroids, but this "asteroid-did-it" thing as pertaining to the dinosaurs is a bit much.

It only works if you believe in deep time, dinosaurs were gone before man showed up, and a host of other lies of the Devil.

Job (Jobab of Genesis 10) saw dinosaurs, and for the record, dinosaurs were on the Ark with Noah.

Along with the non-avian dinosaurs (doves and ravens) that Satan academia says never co-existed.

Yttrium said:

Personally, I'm a Doctor Who fan, so I like the idea of a superdimensional ark ferrying many thousands of animals around.

Click to expand...

I believe it because I'm a Bible fan.

AV1611VET said:

I believe it because I'm a Bible fan.

Click to expand...

Funny that you have to add stuff that isn't in the Bible though...