Punctuated Equilibrium

[AV1611VET]

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

Next to the verse that says Ruth wrote Ruth and 1 Chronicles wrote 1 Chronicles.

QV please --- 325 .

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Adam would have had to have been a LOT older than 900 years to write this. After all, it (according to creationism), must be post-Flood.

Traditionally, the Pentateuch is ascribed to Moses. Nothing about any pre-Mosaic writings. Any writings the Hebrews would have had did not survive their internment in Egypt.

However, it is clear that Genesis 1 is part of the P tradition. As such, it was written about 500 BC, either toward the end or shortly after the Babylonian captivity.

No, it was not written by a Babylonian scientist. I didn't say it was. I said the OT incorporated the best science of its day: the Babylonian cosmology. Just like today everyone has heard of the Big Bang, in that day everyone had heard of the Babylonian cosmology.

BTW, wherever did you get the idea that Moses was a "scientist"? Making things up again, aren't you?

You claim to respect the Bible. Why do you continually abuse it by making things up it does not say?

 

[lucaspa]

Next to the verse that says Ruth wrote Ruth and 1 Chronicles wrote 1 Chronicles.

QV please --- 325 .

Well, your examples are obviously wrong, just like your idea that Adam wrote Genesis 1-3. Your source isn't a verse, it's handwaving. Tell me, if Adam wrote Genesis 1-3 why does Adam, after telling us creation took 3 days, say in Genesis 2:4 that at least the first 4 days all took place in a single day? Why does Adam have references to the Babylonian gods Tiamet and Apsu in Genesis 1 when those gods aren't even invented yet?

Why does Adam suddenly use a different term from God between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Why does Adam give us a different order of creation in Genesis 2 than Genesis 1? I could go on with the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. These caused Christians in 1715 (long before evolution) to realize that there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

BTW, why does Noah have yet a different creation story in Genesis 5?

 

[NailsII]

Traditionally, the Pentateuch is ascribed to Moses. Nothing about any pre-Mosaic writings. Any writings the Hebrews would have had did not survive their internment in Egypt.

Only if ALL the Jews were in Egypt.

Well, your examples are obviously wrong, just like your idea that Adam wrote Genesis 1-3. Your source isn't a verse, it's handwaving. Tell me, if Adam wrote Genesis 1-3 why does Adam, after telling us creation took 3 days, say in Genesis 2:4 that at least the first 4 days all took place in a single day? Why does Adam have references to the Babylonian gods Tiamet and Apsu in Genesis 1 when those gods aren't even invented yet?

Why does Adam suddenly use a different term from God between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Why does Adam give us a different order of creation in Genesis 2 than Genesis 1? I could go on with the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. These caused Christians in 1715 (long before evolution) to realize that there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

BTW, why does Noah have yet a different creation story in Genesis 5?

I could offer one simple explanation, but I'm not sure you would agree with me.......

 

[BananaSlug]

Next to the verse that says Ruth wrote Ruth and 1 Chronicles wrote 1 Chronicles.

QV please --- 325 .

It is funny that you never gave me an actual verse that shows Adam wrote the Genesis creation story.

 

[RobertByers]

If the actual geologic strata are formed by the flood, then the flood could not have produced geologic strata after the k/t line, so if we see geologic strata after the k/t line then it would have to be produced by a mechanism that existed both before and after the creation of the k/t line, which the flood did not. I can verify this because my house is not floating atop 5 miles of water.

So I ask, what are the differences in the geologic strata before and after the flood? I'm sorry, but being possessed of a scientific mind, I do need proof or reasoning to back up claims.

In terms of genetic diversity, you're ignoring a whole mass of proof outside of evolution for genetic diversification of a species over time, simply because genetic diversification is related to evolution. Genetic diversity can be geographically mapped, and this has been correlated with environmental changes that would have caused population fluctuations, so there is a backing of proof for genetic diversification of a species over time. Note that genetic diversification is not speciation, it's the accrual of mutations over time that create diversity within a species, not to split a species.

Gena

Genetic change is still in its infancy. i see genetic change happening in sudden ways. So evolutions ideas on genetics mean nothing to me.

Strata after the flood would come from post flood actions. So yes there was great post flood rock creation in a small percentage of earth. in fact this creationist needs this to justify creatures being from the ark above the k-t line and to explain my ideas on same shaped creatures being the same despite present classification systems.

 

[RobertByers]

How convenient.

Not completely, but by your definition of clean it still is an unclean world.

Really?

Genesis 6:13

No mention of evil dinos then.

Genesis 6:19-21


No mention of exclusions, specifically meat-eating dinosaurs there either.


So why do we find their remains all over the planet - on every continent, even the middle east and Northern Africa?


Seperated by time in fact, approx. 60 million years of it.

Look around you, watch a few nature programmes. Do lions look scared of humans?
Crocodiles?
Sharks?
Bacteria?
And I suppose there was no rain either - as it was not written in your great book either.
Tell me, did any biblical characters defacate, because I can't find any mention of that either. And if it's not in the book, it didn't happen, right?

But you still need to back up your assertion that God didn't save any dinosaurs.
The book says save all the animals - no exceptions.
So after 'the flood' the world would be populated by the same animals, but in different starting ratios.
Is that supported by the evidence?

Genesis 7
It's not even supported by the bible....

Dinos were on the ark. Yet the clean dominance took over and the last dino dies within two centuries of the flood at latest.
Remains of mammal prehistoric creatures are from post flood actions of fossilization.
Oh yes creatures are afraid of man. Thats why it was written in the bible. no one on the ground would question it.
Nature shows always confirm to me that wild creatures in africa are afraid of men in areas men are seldon seen. If not creatures would of historically preyed on man to a great extent. In anada bears, wolves, big cats can be frightened away with jingling your keys.
In fact nature walkers are told animals will flee before people and are not hunting people of staring you down.

 

[gaara4158]

Dinos were on the ark. Yet the clean dominance took over and the last dino dies within two centuries of the flood at latest.
Remains of mammal prehistoric creatures are from post flood actions of fossilization.
Oh yes creatures are afraid of man. Thats why it was written in the bible. no one on the ground would question it.
Nature shows always confirm to me that wild creatures in africa are afraid of men in areas men are seldon seen. If not creatures would of historically preyed on man to a great extent. In anada bears, wolves, big cats can be frightened away with jingling your keys.
In fact nature walkers are told animals will flee before people and are not hunting people of staring you down.

Tell that to the thousands who have been mauled on camping trips.
Anyway, this makes sense in light of evolution; man has been hunting wild beasts for millenia. The skittish ones survived by fleeing at the first sign of a human, and thus they survive to pass on their skittish genes. Saber tooth tigers weren't so cautious, and are they still here? No. We're generally on top of the food chain. That's why they're afraid of us, not because God told them to fear us.

 

[RobertByers]

Nails, see what I'm talking about? And it didn't really matter when I told him that an extinction event that's clearly not the K/T is recorded all over the globe.

By the way, Robert, if you are reading this.

I don't think this has occurred to me before:

If all the other extinctions are just the same flood in different areas (I think that was your contention back in the other thread), then the creatures that came after them must belong to the clean world of today, right?

So, is Lystrosaurus a clean animal? Proterosuchus? Procolophon?

These represent some of the typical land vertebrates just above the Permo-Triassic boundary. The most mammal-like thing you find in the same layers is probably a thrinaxodontid cynodont like this. Doesn't look like a clean, modern fauna to me.

I thought you agreed with me in the end. (Just kidding)

No. These extinctions of yours are just the great death assemblages from the great flood ,as long as below the k-t line (fauna thing not rock),.
They represent areas on earth with probably more order then the world is today.
Any segregation of creatures found in sediment is still from the single flood event. (Save post flood). There is no reason to see these death assemblages as any thing other then what they are. All caught up in the great flood.

 

[ragarth]

No. These extinctions of yours are just the great death assemblages from the great flood ,as long as below the k-t line (fauna thing not rock),.
They represent areas on earth with probably more order then the world is today.
Any segregation of creatures found in sediment is still from the single flood event. (Save post flood). There is no reason to see these death assemblages as any thing other then what they are. All caught up in the great flood.

I propose a test of your assertion.

The prediction: If the perceived order of the fossil record is in actuality totally random, then false patterns should arise under similar patterns when chaotic organization is applied to groups of bones.

The assumption: The false pattern is repeatable, if it's not repeatable, then it's either a one time occurrence (Highly unlikely by natural processes), there are unknown variables (Define them and modify the test, or provide your own test that takes them into account, alternatively expand the experiment to find those unknown variables), or God did it (Drop it, you aren't talking science and therefore are making no sense.)

The foot work: Study the organization of fossils as claimed, confer their relationships and develop an estimated statistical chance of a similar organization occuring on a per fossil basis.

The test: Take a container, the bigger the better (anything from large bowl to kiddie pool) and fill it with fine-grained sand. Put in water at the ratio of 1 cup water per 3 cups sand and mix it up. Obtain the bones of several animals, mice, rabbits, chipmunks, etc. A mix of species would be good for this, and put them in the container. Shake up the container and see if an artificial pattern is produced. Repeat as many times as needed for the number of bones proportional to your statistical chance calculated previously.

The test can further be modified, varying the bones, the ratio of water to sand, changing sand to dirt to rocks, and the method of agitation (putting sprinklers underneath the sand, and using water hoses above it)


There we go, I've provided you the tools to prove your claim that the organization found in the fossil record is false.

 

[Hespera]

Gena

Genetic change is still in its infancy. i see genetic change happening in sudden ways. So evolutions ideas on genetics mean nothing to me.

Strata after the flood would come from post flood actions. So yes there was great post flood rock creation in a small percentage of earth. in fact this creationist needs this to justify creatures being from the ark above the k-t line and to explain my ideas on same shaped creatures being the same despite present classification systems.

It would be so nice if you would take even biology 101 and geology 101.

You are like someone arguing that a car can run on water, but Detroit and the oil companies are keeping it a secret. You just look foolish doing that.

Just a LITTLE basic knowledge would tell you that water cant burn no matter what you do to it.

Your ideas about geology are on the same level. Sorry. But you are arguing out of total ignorance.

 

[ragarth]

It would be so nice if you would take even biology 101 and geology 101.

You are like someone arguing that a car can run on water, but Detroit and the oil companies are keeping it a secret. You just look foolish doing that.

Just a LITTLE basic knowledge would tell you that water cant burn no matter what you do to it.

Your ideas about geology are on the same level. Sorry. But you are arguing out of total ignorance.

Just a note, a japanese company a bit back claimed to have developed a catalyst that allows water to be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen for less energy input than what is obtained from it. I haven't heard head or tail of that for around a year, so it could potentially have been a fly by night scam.

 

[Chalnoth]

Just a note, a japanese company a bit back claimed to have developed a catalyst that allows water to be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen for less energy input than what is obtained from it. I haven't heard head or tail of that for around a year, so it could potentially have been a fly by night scam.

Well, since the bond energies of the output molecules are always higher than that for water, and that energy must come from somewhere, yes, it was almost certainly a scam. You just can't get energy for free.

 

[ragarth]

Well, since the bond energies of the output molecules are always higher than that for water, and that energy must come from somewhere, yes, it was almost certainly a scam. You just can't get energy for free.

When I read the article, my original assumption was that the word 'catalyst' was being used loosely and that it was actually a chemical reaction generating the H2 and O2, which would over time use up the reactant. Still though, if it's stable away from water, and is cheap to produce, it would have been great.

 

[Naraoia]

No. These extinctions of yours are just the great death assemblages from the great flood ,as long as below the k-t line (fauna thing not rock),.
They represent areas on earth with probably more order then the world is today.
Any segregation of creatures found in sediment is still from the single flood event. (Save post flood). There is no reason to see these death assemblages as any thing other then what they are. All caught up in the great flood.

I'll spell it out for you once more.

There clearly is a change of fauna at the P/Tr boundary. If that was the same flood as the K/T extinction, then the fauna directly afterwards should show a "clean" dominance.

To cut it short, that's not the case.

(Do you understand what I'm saying? Could you paraphrase it? I really don't know what to do with you any more, because your posts read as if you had no idea what I was talking about)

 

[Chalnoth]

When I read the article, my original assumption was that the word 'catalyst' was being used loosely and that it was actually a chemical reaction generating the H2 and O2, which would over time use up the reactant. Still though, if it's stable away from water, and is cheap to produce, it would have been great.

Well, if there's a reactant that is being used up over time, then it's reasonable. But then that reactant itself is the fuel, and it just seems massively unlikely to me that the energy balance would be very good. I would also wonder about the other byproducts of the reaction.

 

[ragarth]

Well, if there's a reactant that is being used up over time, then it's reasonable. But then that reactant itself is the fuel, and it just seems massively unlikely to me that the energy balance would be very good. I would also wonder about the other byproducts of the reaction.

They're good points, but working on near 0 information aside from a video clip of a moving vehicle and the statement that it runs on water using a supersecret ninja catalyst, I was left to my imagination.

 

[RobertByers]

I propose a test of your assertion.

The prediction: If the perceived order of the fossil record is in actuality totally random, then false patterns should arise under similar patterns when chaotic organization is applied to groups of bones.

The assumption: The false pattern is repeatable, if it's not repeatable, then it's either a one time occurrence (Highly unlikely by natural processes), there are unknown variables (Define them and modify the test, or provide your own test that takes them into account, alternatively expand the experiment to find those unknown variables), or God did it (Drop it, you aren't talking science and therefore are making no sense.)

The foot work: Study the organization of fossils as claimed, confer their relationships and develop an estimated statistical chance of a similar organization occuring on a per fossil basis.

The test: Take a container, the bigger the better (anything from large bowl to kiddie pool) and fill it with fine-grained sand. Put in water at the ratio of 1 cup water per 3 cups sand and mix it up. Obtain the bones of several animals, mice, rabbits, chipmunks, etc. A mix of species would be good for this, and put them in the container. Shake up the container and see if an artificial pattern is produced. Repeat as many times as needed for the number of bones proportional to your statistical chance calculated previously.

The test can further be modified, varying the bones, the ratio of water to sand, changing sand to dirt to rocks, and the method of agitation (putting sprinklers underneath the sand, and using water hoses above it)


There we go, I've provided you the tools to prove your claim that the organization found in the fossil record is false.

no tests needed. anyways its snow here.
Fossilization just shows local areas suddenly overthrown in a big way.
No chaos is needed or desired. The flood pressure was fantastic. Not like a modern river. whole earth chunks were frozen in place.
The fossil record is as a creationist wants to find it. Whole areas frozen at once. I would add also before the flood there was different organization of fauna on earth. Not mingling like now.

 

[Chalnoth]

no tests needed.

This effectively sums up the creationist perspective: no need to do any tests. No need to actually examine whether or not our claims are accurate. Because we just know they must be!

 

[RobertByers]

I'll spell it out for you once more.

There clearly is a change of fauna at the P/Tr boundary. If that was the same flood as the K/T extinction, then the fauna directly afterwards should show a "clean" dominance.

To cut it short, that's not the case.

(Do you understand what I'm saying? Could you paraphrase it? I really don't know what to do with you any more, because your posts read as if you had no idea what I was talking about)

No. This p/tr line of yours is a error. its just different sorting actions during the great flood.. No clean above that line.
The k-t line is different. The fauna is the clue to its being the boundary. this because the mammal dominance is what we live in today.