Balancing out.

[tocis]

The water came from the vapor canopy, from subterranean deposits, and water from the antediluvian ocean. It covered the earth (Which at that point had not volcanic mountains, or those caused by plate tectonics.) with about 15 cubits of water. That amount of water could easily fit in today’s oceans.

1. Which part of "scientific" was too hard for you to understand?
(Vapor canopy: Debunked. Subterranean deposits: Debunked. "Antediluvian ocean": only makes any sense if connected to the ludicrous "earth reformed" claim, which has been... debunked.)

2. Ever noticed in real life that a great many things produce waste heat? Friction, for example, always leaves the stuff involved warmer than it was before, because some of the kinetic energy is transformed into waste heat. Same for mechanical deformation, which is really just friction on an atomic level (ever heard about steel rolling mills? I suggest you do some research about that, you'll find that although the steel to be processed isn't heated anywhere (intentionally), it can easily become red-hot after just a few steps of the process, because the waste heat which inevitably accumulates has to go somewhere.)
Now imagine the waste heat that would be generated by such a quick deformation of the entire earth as postulated by creationist storytellers.

Not that I expect that you actually reply to my points. I've seen you before, in other threads, and as far as I remember, you've been acting just as ignorant as all the other creationists. Does that sound offensive? Maybe so, but unfortunately it's true for all I can tell.

 

[tocis]

I suspect most people would be more inclined to give her a break if we hadn't gone over all of this with her before. She never seems to learn much.

Exactly. Remember, boys and girls: The first time can be written off as ignorance... but after that, it's hard to not tell the repetition of the original claim a "lie".

 

[Morallyangelic]

why didn't it boil?

how does it explain them?

how?

not very deep is it? It would be a bit hard to have a global flood with that amount of water.

I believe the earth cracked open to let the water in and thats why you see fault lines. I believe the water above the earth would protect people on earth from many environmental elements like UV rays and so forth.

I don't know the conditions of the Earth before the flood, and I'm certainly no expert on this things ... Most of which are things I'm still looking into and researching on my own.

 

[tocis]

First a gratuitous evidence for creation, the Big Bang. The best science shows that the universe was created out of nothing.

BUZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong.

Before you mention the big bang again, I urgently suggest that you take in some information about what it says... information from unbiased (read: non-creationist) sources.

Big bang theory postulates that this universe started with a singularity, which is a weird thing for sure, but what it definitely isn't is "nothing".

 

[JohnR7]

[creationist persona]The evidence is all around us! All of creation is evidence of my god’s existence… and… look! A PUPPY![/creationist persona]

The evidence is all around us for Creation, if you would get your head out of the sand, you would see that.

 

[tocis]

Tocis,

[...] As for the Flood, the Bible clearly tells of a local event with severe local consequences. There are even people in the Bible who's ancestors escaped the Flood, not by being on the boat, but by being elsewhere. This was common knowledge amoung educated Jews and Christians 2000 years ago but seems to have been forgotten.

*nods his head in acknowledgment*
Okay, that's definitely possible, and it does have quite a degree of probability. Of course it's not what the bible says when you take it literally... but it is very possible.

It's interesting how one of you issues a challenge, then you all immediately start congratulating each other on how you've already won. Thinking one has all the answers to all the questions demonstrates a small mind with an equally small imagination. It's not very becoming.

The reason for that might be that whenever you announce such a challenge, the chances of nothing but the same old tired oft-debunked nonsense being offered by the creationists (and usually it's offered like we couldn't ever have heard it before, to add insult to injury!) are somewhere very very close to 100 %. And often I have the feeling that the actual number approaches the 100 % mark from above.
Do we have all the answers? Far from it. But after just a few run-in's with the average creationist one does have all the answers to almost everything creationists come up with. After a certain point one abandons all hope of encountering an exception to the rule.

Frankly, I feel especially (bleep)ed off when a creationist not only regurgiposts the same old nonsense again but obviously does it with the firm (and ignorance-based) conviction that it must be some kind of totally shocking news to us. It betrays a level of willful ignorance and arrogance that, I think, is hard to put into words.

 

[tocis]

At a uniform, worldwide temperature of 100 degrees F, the vapor pressure of water is equivalent to about 1 cubit of water. So the young lady's vapor canopy would account for at most that much water.

Umm... no. The atmospheric pressure above a certain point (or, rather, area) on the earth's surface depends on the total weight of air, water, and whathaveyou in the atmosphere above it. Granted that there's some minor variation depending on weather effects, but anyone who dares to claim that a vapor canopy equivalent of some 9000 meters of water wouldn't kill all life as we know it below is either severely ignorant... or a liar.
Unless, of course, one subscribes to that goo' ol' "earth was without mountains until after the flood" idea... which fails for different reasons, but just as utterly.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Okay Mathematician, I’ll bite too. It’s been awhile since someone has brought something fresh to the table and although I’m no expert in math or desert predators I think sometimes a fresh perspective coming from a layperson asking questions can throw new light on a problem.

That is, to the extent evolution is possible, everything converges towards the same traits and properties.

An example, it is a well-known observation amoung predator hunters that the kit fox and the gray fox share precisely the same ecological nuche in areas where kit fox live. We understand that kit fox (which are not hunted) are typically about 6 lbs for a full grown male. Gray fox in that same area will almost certainly be 6-8 lbs. No coyotes or bobcats will be found in that area (by the methods used by predator hunters).

In areas where no kit fox live, any gray fox will be over 15 lbs. In records of hundreds of foxes going back as many as 50 years by dozens of my fellow researchers, no mature male gray fox between 10 and 15 pounds has ever been taken.

In areas where coyotes run with either gray fox or bobcat, the adult male coyotes run 24 to 28 lbs and the females 20 to 25.

In areas where coyotes are the only predator, they are almost always over 30 lbs and usually approach 40.

We've seen kit fox and small gray fox get their butts kicked by jack rabbits. A large gray fox can easily take a rabbit and can successfully hunt a fawn. Large coyotes can successfully take deer but small coyotes can't.

The principle of the ecological niche would seem to indicate that kit fox would specialize on mice, small birds, and insects, and gray fox would grow larger and specialize on rabbits. Instead they grow to the same size and directly compete against each other for the same food sources.

The same principle would seem to indicate that coyotes and gray fox would grow to diverse sizes and specialize on food sources. Yet we also see that they grow to within their species limits of being the same size, and compete directly against each other.

It's in the absence of competition between species that you see the species going to what you would think is the optimum size.

Over the last few decades, coyotes have moved into former wolf habitats. It has taken just a few generations for these coyotes to reach sizes rivaling that of the wolves that used to inhabit those areas.

Given this experience, it seems reasonable that there is a tremendous amount of preassure towards convergence of the species, that is, all species evolve towards one common species. Each species hits its limits in just a few generations and stays there.

A few decades seems a rather small amount of time for any population to vary genetically to exploit a niche. The first problem that comes to mind is the vast number of variables that need to be tied down. For example, In the case of a small predator it’s advantage would be that it needs less food to sustain and thrive. So this would be an advantage in areas where food was scarce or hard to catch. From my observations, it seems that many similar predators will not mess with other predators unless the competition for food escalates. In this case the different predators may optimize their weight to their environment based on the available food. It could be that being smaller and more agile helps catch the small fast prey even if it’s abundant. In other cases maybe the prey is larger and slower so it will necessitate larger predators to exploit the niche. I guess the question to you before I ramble too much is for details. What is the food available to each predator? Is it small and fast? Are the predators fighting with each other all the time over the food? Is the food scarce or abundant? Is there more competition over water? All these must play a contributing factor in what is the optimal size for a predator to exploit a niche. If these predators are not in hostile competition for the prey then I think it would make sense to be the same size because it would be dictated by the niche and not the competition.

Given this strong tendency towards convergence, any preferred mutations would certainly be those that favored further convergence. Working backwards from convergence, implies that any divergence must be part of the initial condition.

Now I think were taking the convergence theory and running too far with it without clarification. I’ll stop here to hash out the first part before we move on.

 

[tocis]

This verse specifically mentions water above the sky. I think there was a layer of water above the earth and then the " Fountains of the deep " broke open and the world was flooded. I think that explains some of the fault lines we see in the earth and it also explains how people were able to live to be 900 years old.

Which part of "scientific" did you not understand?

In my non expert opinion I'd say the water is still here for the most part. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water.

Umm. "Non-expert" you admit. Okay, you're forgiven then. But please take in some information from good science books or other neutral, non-creationist sources before you try that tired old "vapor canopy" trick again. See also my reply to RWG referring to this long-debunked claim.

 

[tocis]

...Most of which are things I'm still looking into and researching on my own.

Aye, please do so.

 

[tocis]

The evidence is all around us for Creation, if you would get your head out of the sand, you would see that.

Let's just extrapolate now for some few steps into the future, based on the vast majority of discussions like these, shall we?

Next: We'll ask you for examples of this legendary "evidence".

After that: You will at best present philosophical interpretations of something, at worst long-debunked nonsense, or you might take the middle ground and not reply anything meaningful at all.

And following that: We will point out that fact.

So, what now?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

[creationist persona]The evidence is all around us! All of creation is evidence of my god’s existence… and… look! A PUPPY![/creationist persona]

The evidence is all around us for Creation, if you would get your head out of the sand, you would see that.

So close… and I didn’t even take one creationist mime class.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay Mathematician, I’ll bite too. It’s been awhile since someone has brought something fresh to the table and although I’m no expert in math or desert predators I think sometimes a fresh perspective coming from a layperson asking questions can throw new light on a problem.

A few decades seems a rather small amount of time for any population to vary genetically to exploit a niche. The first problem that comes to mind is the vast number of variables that need to be tied down. For example, In the case of a small predator it’s advantage would be that it needs less food to sustain and thrive. So this would be an advantage in areas where food was scarce or hard to catch. From my observations, it seems that many similar predators will not mess with other predators unless the competition for food escalates. In this case the different predators may optimize their weight to their environment based on the available food. It could be that being smaller and more agile helps catch the small fast prey even if it’s abundant. In other cases maybe the prey is larger and slower so it will necessitate larger predators to exploit the niche. I guess the question to you before I ramble too much is for details. What is the food available to each predator? Is it small and fast? Are the predators fighting with each other all the time over the food? Is the food scarce or abundant? Is there more competition over water? All these must play a contributing factor in what is the optimal size for a predator to exploit a niche. If these predators are not in hostile competition for the prey then I think it would make sense to be the same size because it would be dictated by the niche and not the competition.

Even if the predators are in hostile competition I could see how they would stay the same size. They might even stay the same size because of hostile competition.

To grow larger, one also needs more food. I could imagine that in an area where there is a competition for food resources with another, similar variety, the foxes cannot get enough food to grow big enough to catch the larger prey. In an area where food is abundant, small prey is abundant from the start, allowing the foxes to grow bigger in size.

Now I think were taking the convergence theory and running too far with it without clarification. I’ll stop here to hash out the first part before we move on.

 

[Kripost]

I believe the earth cracked open to let the water in and thats why you see fault lines. I believe the water above the earth would protect people on earth from many environmental elements like UV rays and so forth.

I don't know the conditions of the Earth before the flood, and I'm certainly no expert on this things ... Most of which are things I'm still looking into and researching on my own.

Underwater fault lines results in lava flowing out, not water flowing in. Lava flows out due to pressure, which also means water cannot flow in. Although large amount of water flowing under the earth after the flood is possible if you use ancient Hebrew cosmology, geologically, it poses a problem.

If the water canopy did exist, such that the amount of water is enough to fill the whole earth, it would mean that atmospheric pressure would be great enough to crush a human body, or that there was rapid decompression during the flood, and every single organism did not get bends. Also, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. That amount of water vapour in the air would cause the earth to look more like Venus instead.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Even if the predators are in hostile competition I could see how they would stay the same size. They might even stay the same size because of hostile competition.

True. Now that I think about it the Kodiak Bear are a good example of this and they only had to compete with themselves.

To grow larger, one also needs more food. I could imagine that in an area where there is a competition for food resources with another, similar variety, the foxes cannot get enough food to grow big enough to catch the larger prey. In an area where food is abundant, small prey is abundant from the start, allowing the foxes to grow bigger in size.

Indeed… it’s all in the details. Thus far the convergence theory seems to be a drastic oversimplification of what is actually going on but I’ll reserve judgment for when math gives up more details. The problem is that creationists seem to latch onto these oversimplifications quite readily. I’m afraid we may be looking at he birth of a new PRATT.

 

[Jet Black]

The principle of the ecological niche would seem to indicate that kit fox would specialize on mice, small birds, and insects, and gray fox would grow larger and specialize on rabbits. Instead they grow to the same size and directly compete against each other for the same food sources.

I am not too sure about that. while it might seem an obcvious solution, I can think of a few factors that I wonder whether you have taken into account. First and foremost perhaps is the mate selection behaviour of the foxes. what is the female preference for mates? What are the hunting habits of the different sizes of fox? Do the larger foxes where they exist, actually specialise on only one sort of prey, or do they end up eating both when they can get them? It would seem strange if the larger foxes concentrated only on larger prey and the smaller prey bred exponentially. When there are two different groups if intermediate size, what is the interplay between the different groups? If one artificially introduces a large group of one type and a small group of another, does this dynamic change at all? I think this latter one is pretty interesting. Not only do niches depend on the available food, but they also depend on the availability of territory. If there were a group of larger foxes in an area preying on larger game, and a group of smaller foxes, I doubt that the larger foxes would actually let the smaller ones exist in the same territory. To that end, the larger foxes would be territorially dominant and would expand to fill the terrotory of the smaller foxes, driving the smaller ones to extinction, unless the smaller ones grew large enough to compete with the larger ones, leading back to the intermediate ones again due to limited resources, which tends to shrink species.

Youre precis there seems a little limited in its scope, I'm sure the actual thesis itself isn't, but I would be interested to know to what extent you have taken these additional effects into account.

 

[Jet Black]

I believe the earth cracked open to let the water in and thats why you see fault lines.

on what basis do you believe that?

I believe the water above the earth would protect people on earth from many environmental elements like UV rays and so forth.

have you any evidence that shielding people from a few limited environmental conditions would allow them to live to what... 900 years old?

and why doesn't this canopy boil?

I don't know the conditions of the Earth before the flood, and I'm certainly no expert on this things ... Most of which are things I'm still looking into and researching on my own.

good, please make sure you research from a variety of sources, not just those that agree with your conclusions.

 

[Loudmouth]

6And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day.

This verse specifically mentions water above the sky. I think there was a layer of water above the earth and then the " Fountains of the deep " broke open and the world was flooded. I think that explains some of the fault lines we see in the earth and it also explains how people were able to live to be 900 years old.

That is what the bible says, but what we are looking for is evidence that this canopy did exist. What we know of physics and physiology seems to indicate that such a canopy did not exist 6,000 years ago or at any time in the last 4.5 billion years.

Also, why would a vapor canopy allow people to live for 900 years? A vapor canopy does not prevent mutations that are caused by replication errors when cells divide, by chemical mutagens in the environment, the removal of telomeres, etc. All of these factors guarantee that humans will acquire cancer sometime in their first 150 years.

In my non expert opinion I'd say the water is still here for the most part. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water.

You need 100% of the Earth covered in water, and this water needs to cover the tallest peak at over 5 miles. This requires more water than is found on earth by a factor of 3 or 4.

 

[Mathematician]

Vipertaja,

Care to cite some sources to go with that?
I don't recall seing this argument before, I'll give you that.

The observations and the idea are mine. You wanted real creationist science. You are in on it from the begining. The data on desert predators is largely anecdotal and not of the quality necessary to actually demonstrate my theory. I'm not a biologist and do not understand their standards for gathering and reporting evidence. And if I did, my "research associates" would not be willing to go to the extra effort. I am however a professional scientist and understand the issues.

We have two types of data. Interviews of people who live in the area. "Where's a good place to hunt coyotes?" "Have you seen any foxes?" That sort of thing. And animals actually seen, some of which are shot.

Sometimes we call the critters by mimicking injured prey. Only hungry animals will be interested. Sometimes we call by mimicking a social visit or a challenge. Again only interested animals will respond.

The data is good enough to call the principle of an ecological niche into question, especially as it relates to the promised optimization by evolution. And the data is good enough to allow the creation of a new hypothesis (which I've done). But this data can not properly be used to "prove" the hypothesis by the standards required by good science.

I was told that there were biologists here that could help me out in that area and would be interested in doing so.

As for the math, it requires a good command of second year calculus, matrix algebra, and statistical expectations of the sort you see in early graduate courses for technical majors (or senior level classes for math majors). If anyone is still interested, I'd be happy to discuss it at any level. (I might even be persuaded to send a copy to someone who would promise to read it.) All that plus a background in neural networks makes the problem and results trivial to explain.

If you aren't field biologist and don't have the mathematical skills, then either sit back and watch and see if something comes of this. Or dismiss me as a liar (afterall I am a Creationist and a Hunter, so its a safe assumption on your part) and just ignore me.

Ed,

Evidence?

I've explained the nature of the evidence I have. What would you like to see?

OC1,

... I think [your] conclusion:


Is a bit of a stretch.

Hopefully, we will see.

Electric,

All of the above is hardly surprising, and is just what evolutionary theory would predict. All you are talking about is various similar species in the same environment. Foxes, coyotes, and wolves are obviously very similar animals, and you are talking about them in very similar environments. It would be surprising if they DIDN'T evolve to the same size, given the fact that they hunt, eat, digest etc. in very similar ways. What is the best food for one is pretty much the best food for all...so they all tend to evolve to the optimal size to hunt that food. What's surprising about that?

If I didn't tell you my observations first, would you have suggested this? I think not. Large coyotes are capable of killing deer. Several years ago, a pack of city coyotes took down a horse (along Santiago Rd. at the edge of town). The areas that gray fox and small coyotes share are generally the same areas that DFG reports as having the largest deer populations.

Physics_guy,

Really, in 20 years? What is that, about 6 six generations for these mammals? I wouldn't expect most biologists to think that it has changed that much over that time.

Also I still think you are too much discounting the energy and heat sink problems of larger size - there are no large predators in deserts for a reason.

Just wondering, but were there no bears? Thought they were plentiful in WA. Just an aside.

Traits that are within the species limits can change very fast. That's a different problem from changing genes through mutation.

The high elevations of the East Mojave National Preserve contain large amounts of water, deer, gray fox, and small coyotes. The lower elevations have little water, few deer, no fox, and large coyotes.

When I was out with the Boy Scouts at Joshua Tree NP, three weeks ago (Even lower elevation and hotter still), there were no signs of deer or fox in the area. In camp were more small birds and small rodents than we could count, but no sign of rabbits. The coyotes would have made fine trophies had I been allowed to take one home.

The hotter and dryer, the bigger the coyote. The energy and heat sink problems don't work the way you or I would have suspected. The areas with kit and small gray fox but no coyote look most like the low elevations of the preserve.

I was surprised at the lack of diversity in the rainforest also.

Tocis,

*nods his head in acknowledgment*
Okay, that's definitely possible, and it does have quite a degree of probability. Of course it's not what the bible says when you take it literally... but it is very possible.

The Bible gives a location for the Flood, lower Mesopotamia where the Tigris, Euphrates, and two other rivers come together. The water broke from underground as well as rain. All of the surrounding countryside even the high hills in an area flatter than Nebraska were covered. The wind blew and the ark ran aground in the foothills east of Mesopotamia, where olive trees grow. The giants mentioned in Gen. 6 were still around in Deut. 2. I didn't see them get on the ark. I have taken the Bible completely literally. Take a look at Dick Fischer's book, The Origins Solution.

Everyone who disagrees with my summary here has chosen alternate definitions of the ancient Hebrew words. The standard YEC interpretation ends up having to ignore or explain away certain verses that can't be made to match their story. So their version is not literal.

Agnostic,

Okay Mathematician, I’ll bite too. It’s been awhile since someone has brought something fresh to the table and although I’m no expert in math or desert predators I think sometimes a fresh perspective coming from a layperson asking questions can throw new light on a problem.

A few decades seems a rather small amount of time for any population to vary genetically to exploit a niche. The first problem that comes to mind is the vast number of variables that need to be tied down. For example, In the case of a small predator it’s advantage would be that it needs less food to sustain and thrive. So this would be an advantage in areas where food was scarce or hard to catch. From my observations, it seems that many similar predators will not mess with other predators unless the competition for food escalates. In this case the different predators may optimize their weight to their environment based on the available food. It could be that being smaller and more agile helps catch the small fast prey even if it’s abundant. In other cases maybe the prey is larger and slower so it will necessitate larger predators to exploit the niche. I guess the question to you before I ramble too much is for details. What is the food available to each predator? Is it small and fast? Are the predators fighting with each other all the time over the food? Is the food scarce or abundant? Is there more competition over water? All these must play a contributing factor in what is the optimal size for a predator to exploit a niche. If these predators are not in hostile competition for the prey then I think it would make sense to be the same size because it would be dictated by the niche and not the competition.

I've said nothing about the populations varying genetically. I've assumed that these changes occur completely within the genetic limits of each species. And yes the changes take just a few generations. They demonstrate an extreme amount of "pressure" from something in the environment to cause them to conform. This same pressure would also be brought to bear on any mutations (if they occurred).

I believe I answered your other concerns above.

Tom,

I hope I answered your concern.

Agnostic,

True. Now that I think about it the Kodiak Bear are a good example of this and they only had to compete with themselves.

Indeed… it’s all in the details. Thus far the convergence theory seems to be a drastic oversimplification of what is actually going on but I’ll reserve judgment for when math gives up more details. The problem is that creationists seem to latch onto these oversimplifications quite readily. I’m afraid we may be looking at he birth of a new PRATT.

Any oversimplifications here are only to help get a very complicated idea across. What's a PRATT?


Jet,

I am not too sure about that. while it might seem an obcvious solution, I can think of a few factors that I wonder whether you have taken into account. .... If one artificially introduces a large group of one type and a small group of another, does this dynamic change at all? ....

Youre precis there seems a little limited in its scope, I'm sure the actual thesis itself isn't, but I would be interested to know to what extent you have taken these additional effects into account.

I don't know much about the mating habits of foxes, I only hunt them and shoot them. I don't think any of these species specialize. They eat everything from insects to the largest thing they can take. Gray fox are only at the extreme ends of there size range, none of intermediate size exist. Same for coyotes. Your proposed experiment would be illegal for me to try but would be interesting.

My nature is to question everything and try every detail. But this is outside my training and I'm certain I've missed some issues.

If I missed anyone, I'm sorry. I hope I've conveyed the issue clearly enough.

 

[vipertaja]

Well, Mathematician...

What can I say? Your entrance was all 'igh and mighty and you felt like
dealing a few sharp comments, but in the end...it all basically comes down
to what you think it is or possibly want it to be.

You tell me to back off if I'm not a biologist, yet you deny that you yourself
are one? Sure I admit I'm an expert at neither math nor biology, but you
basically say you hunt and you can count real good? I'm not sure I'd call
you a liar, but you WERE missleading.

Why not tell it like it was to begin with? This thread was meant for
arguments with some kind of proof. That was the whole point of it. Still, I
have nothing against you discussing your hypothesis here...even though it
could have had a thread of it's own. At least your argument is fresh and it
is not entirely off topic in my opinion.