Punctuated Equilibrium

[AV1611VET]

I always thought ancient people thought the blue sky was made of water. They had know clue that the blue color is because of the diffusion of blue spectrum light because of our atmospheric gas content.

I have no idea what the ancient people thought about the sky's color --- nor do I care.

I have enough trouble with 21st-century thinkers.

 

[Danyc]

Oh, my --- someone needs a wake-up call.

Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."

Have you ever wondered why It's called the HOLY BIBLE?

Anyway, to expose your error in thinking ---Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?

I'm sorry --- what did you say?

"I don't know?" --- good deal ---

So instead of suggesting that the verse is talking about clouds, a perfectly normal phenomena, you instead choose a completely-impossible-without-the-use-of-magic water canopy?

Nice thought process there.

And I'd expect it's called the Holy Bible because the people who wrote it believed it to be holy.

 

[Naraoia]

According to the Water Canopy Theory, in earth's distant past, prior to Genesis 6, the earth was one tropical climate --- I'd say around 75 degrees year-round.

For a moment I wondered how any animal would survive at 75 degrees

*stops thinking in Celsius*

Though... if there was a whole canopy of water vapour, not condensed into light-reflecting clouds, around the earth, that would have made 75°C more likely than 75°F... Water is a wonderful greenhouse gas, if memory serves.

Pangaea --- (a.k.a. Eden).

You do realize that Pangaea was comprised of vast deserts on the interior of the continent and was prone to wild fluctuations of temperature between day and night?

The Slug beat me to it

Slugs aren't supposed to be quick!

I always thought ancient people thought the blue sky was made of water. They had know clue that the blue color is because of the diffusion of blue spectrum light because of our atmospheric gas content.

Diffraction

(It seems I'm too tired to post anything constructive tonight.)

 

[gaara4158]

Now ain't that a pity?

Looks like scientists think they have a monopoly on theories, doesn't it?

For shame, for shame --- someone needs to learn to share?

Slow down, old chap. The title "theory" isn't a batch of cupcakes that scientists are keeping for themselves just to spite creationists. It's a way of organizing known facts in a way that helps us understand the universe and nature. You can go about discovering the universe and nature however your heart desires, but unless you meet the criteria, you cannot call it a theory. If you find your ideas unable to meet these criteria, then perhaps you should rethink your ideas; don't shoot the messenger.

Wikipedia can take a hike.

Oh, he's a maverick, this one. Everything can take a hike unless it helps me prove you wrong.

Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."

Oh, I quite agree that it's poetic and intellectually stimulating on many points. So is The Iliad. Scripture isn't what he was calling superficial, your "water canopy theory" is.

Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?

I'm sorry --- what did you say?

"I don't know?" --- good deal ---

This is quite possibly my most triumphant QV, please moment ever!!!
*dances*

 

[AV1611VET]

This is quite possibly my most triumphant QV, please moment ever!!!
*dances*

I hate to interrupt your dance, but which one of those clouds dropped rain for 40 days and 40 nights through the "windows of heaven"?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

[gaara4158]

I hate to interrupt your dance, but which one of those clouds dropped rain for 40 days and 40 nights through the "windows of heaven"?

"Windows of Heaven" could easily be kenning for clouds. Saying a window opened up was probably more to describe the deluge than it was to describe the source. And it probably didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights. A water canopy can't cause rain at all, so clouds are actually your best bet.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it probably didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Then why, may I ask, are we having this conversation?

 

[gaara4158]

Then why, may I ask, are we having this conversation?

We're extinguishing your water canopy idea. It's scientifically impossible and Biblically indefensible. You've gradually sidestepped the issue, but it's not going away.

 

[AV1611VET]

We're extinguishing your water canopy idea.

By telling me it didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights?

Sounds to me you're trying to extinguish the whole story while you're at it.

If you want to extinguish the Water Canopy Theory, why don't you just do it like you're doing the rest of the story?

Just say: IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I won't say one word in reply --- promise.

 

[gaara4158]

By telling me it didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights?

Sounds to me you're trying to extinguish the whole story while you're at it.

If you want to extinguish the Water Canopy Theory, why don't you just do it like you're doing the rest of the story?

Just say: IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I won't say one word in reply --- promise.

Because then you'll keep on using your water canopy argument, which will only discredit you and annoy everyone else. I personally don't believe it happened, but what we're arguing here is whether or not a water canopy is even possible. The laws of physics say no, and the Bible says nothing about it. If it did rain for 40 days and 40 nights, then it was from a cloud, not from some magical ring of water magically suspended above the Earth. Have you never been to Seattle?

And I'm quite sure that if I used the only answer you understand -- IT DIDN'T HAPPEN -- then you'd have nothing else to say, because you have no facts, evidence, or even theories to back up the contrary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because then you'll keep on using your water canopy argument, which will only discredit you and annoy everyone else.

You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles. It was taught long before I was born, and I'm sure it will be taught after I'm gone.

I personally don't believe it happened, but what we're arguing here is whether or not a water canopy is even possible.

Hopefully, it would be scientifically impossible --- that would make the miracle stand out even more. Just like the order of the events in Genesis 1. And I think this is a good place to repeat this mantra of mine: If you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

The laws of physics say no...

Okay --- thank you --- see my last point.

... and the Bible says nothing about it.

I disagree.

If it did rain for 40 days and 40 nights, then it was from a cloud, not from some magical ring of water magically suspended above the Earth.

Thank you for being honest enough to use the word "magic". This further confirms where the problem lies.

Have you never been to Seattle?

No.

And I'm quite sure that if I used the only answer you understand -- IT DIDN'T HAPPEN -- then you'd have nothing else to say, because you have no facts, evidence, or even theories to back up the contrary.

Keep talking --- you're just making yourself look bad --- not me.

 

[gaara4158]

You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles. It was taught long before I was born, and I'm sure it will be taught after I'm gone.

As will flat-earth-ism.

Hopefully, it would be scientifically impossible --- that would make the miracle stand out even more. Just like the order of the events in Genesis 1. And I think this is a good place to repeat this mantra of mine: If you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

To be scientifically impossible defeats the entire purpose of the water canopy; the argument is offered up as a scientific cause for the Eden-like climate. If the cause itself is scientifically impossible, why must the effect be scientifically possible? It's like trying to keep yourself from falling by grabbing something else that's also falling; it won't hold up.

Okay --- thank you --- see my last point.

See mine.

I disagree.

I see clouds. Do you have any more passages, or is that all you're working with?

Thank you for being honest enough to use the word "magic". This further confirms where the problem lies.

If I change the word to "miracle," what changes? It's still something physically impossible happening, which is our main problem. It matters not what you call it.

No.

No matter. It seems I had the place confused with Manchester, where it rains around 300 days a year. 40 days and nights of rain is very plausible by completely natural causes.

Keep talking --- you're just making yourself look bad --- not me.

You just keep telling yourself that.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be scientifically impossible defeats the entire purpose of the water canopy; the argument is offered up as a scientific cause for the Eden-like climate. If the cause itself is scientifically impossible, why must the effect be scientifically possible? It's like trying to keep yourself from falling by grabbing something else that's also falling; it won't hold up.

I have to admit --- you've got a point here --- and a good one at that.

 

[gaara4158]

I have to admit --- you've got a point here --- and a good one at that.

Thank you

 

[NailsII]

Looks like scientists think they have a monopoly on theories, doesn't it?

For shame, for shame --- someone needs to learn to share?

There is a reason for using terms like 'theory' and 'hypothesis'.
It is for clarity, and to meet either term it has to follow the rules as it were. This is to stop 'theories' being bandied around as science when they have no scientific merit - in the same way that the bible was canonised if you like. Anything that didn't meet certain criteria was deemed heretical.

Wikipedia can take a hike.

not totally unexpected.

Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."

I didn't say scripture was superficial, I said you like the theory because it superficially meets your needs.

Have you ever wondered why It's called the HOLY BIBLE?

No, not really.

Anyway, to expose your error in thinking ---Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?

Poetic language, metaphor, fantasy and allegory.

I'm sorry --- what did you say?

"I don't know?" --- good deal ---

I can say with all confidence that it never happened, because the bible is the only piece of evidence for it. That may be enough for you, but it isn't for me.

Either that, or because of blasphemy, I told Dantose he could go ahead and close it if he want to.

Sorry, I honestly thought you were simply beaten into submission but didn't want to admit it.
I withdraw the comment.

No comment.

Sorry, cheap shot and totally unwarranted.
I will refrain from making insulting comments like that in future.

You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles.

Even Creatapedia describes it as discredited. Doesn't that tell you something?

It was taught long before I was born, and I'm sure it will be taught after I'm gone.

As will the Qu'ran - still doesn't make it true.

Hopefully, it would be scientifically impossible --- that would make the miracle stand out even more.

Science fiction is often scientifically impossible, it makes for a good story.
Same as Harry Potter, Jason and the Argonauts and several other creation myths.

To coin a phrase, you need to seperate the wheat from the chaff - but it helps if you use the same criteria each time, objectively.

 

[lucaspa]

I received a "challenge" from a member of this forum a while back to explain punctuated equilibrium in terms a kindergardener would understand. Here I go... How did I do?

It's simpler that this. Phyletic gradualism states that most evolution consists of large populations slowly transforming over generations to a new species. You start with one species and you end with one species (anagenesis). What's more the population was large (tens of thousands of individuals at least) all the way thru the transformation.

PE states that most evolution occurs by allopatric speciation. In allopatric speciation a small population is isolated geographically from the large parent population. The small population faces a new environment and transforms to a new species. Then the population expands and expands its range, appearing "suddenly" in the fossil record because it migrated in to the site where the paleontologists are digging.

Allopatric speciation is cladogenesis because you start with 1 species and end with 2 or more. (Notice, however, that in the small population you do have anagenesis.)

Stasis happens because large populations are resistant to change:
1. They became a large population because they were well-adapted to the environment. Thus, they are under stabilizing selection instead of directional selection.
2. Even if there is some directional selection with a small selection coefficient, the population is so large that it takes many, many generations for the new trait to become fixed (every individual has it). The sheer size of the population means that it takes a long time for a new population to become fixed.

PE, in its simplest form, says that most speciation in the past was allopatric. We find relatively few instances of transitional individuals from species to species because this took place in a small population (with only a small percentage of individuals preserved as fossils, a small population means very few fossils) in a small geographical area. It's unlikely that, over the entire planet, that the paleontologist is going to be digging at that particular spot. It does happen, and we do have examples of transitional individuals linking species to species and across higher taxa, but they are relatively rare.

 

[lucaspa]

You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles.

The water canopy idea is listed by Answers in Genesis as an argument that is in "doubt": http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

A scientist at ICR wrote, many years ago, that there was no water canopy.

The "waters above" in Genesis are a reflection of Babylonian science. In Babylonian cosmology there were caverns full of water below a flat earth, a crystal dome above the flat earth, and then storehouses of water and snow above the canopy.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "waters above" in Genesis are a reflection of Babylonian science.

A Babylonian scientist didn't write that passage though, did he?

It was written, in my opinion, by Adam, himself; then later rewritten by an [ex]-Egyptian scientist --- Moses.

 

[Naraoia]

PE states that most evolution occurs by allopatric speciation. In allopatric speciation a small population is isolated geographically from the large parent population.

Small quibble: AFAIK, that's peripatric speciation. Allopatric speciation can happen with two populations of any size, peripatry is a special case with a small isolated population.

 

[BananaSlug]

A Babylonian scientist didn't write that passage though, did he?

It was written, in my opinion, by Adam, himself; then later rewritten by an [ex]-Egyptian scientist --- Moses.

Such a liberal interpretation for a claimed Literalist. Tell me AV, where exactly is the verse that says Adam wrote the creation story?