Punctuated Equilibrium

[Chalnoth]

Approximate numbers of currently described species from the IUCN Red List summary statistics:

Mammals: 5488
Birds: 9990
Reptiles: 8734
Amphibians: 6347
Fishes: 30700

Are you trying to tell us that dinosaurs still rule the earth?

 

[Naraoia]

Are you trying to tell us that dinosaurs still rule the earth?

You could look at it that way

 

[ragarth]

Are you trying to tell us that dinosaurs still rule the earth?

Looks to me like we should all be bowing down to our aquatic overlords.

 

[ragarth]

So glad you mentioned cheetahs

Great prediction, by the way. I think it's reps

Yes, I figured they would be very apt for the question. Cheetahs apparently suffered a terrible catastrophy around 10,000 years ago that severely bottlenecked their genetic diversity. They actually serve multiple purposes in this context: First they show a proven genetic history beyond 6,000 years, they show that there was no 'uniform ratio' of 'clean' and 'unclean' animals off the ark, and they prove that God didn't 'accelerate' the development of genetic diversity within populations, unless God just doesn't like cheetahs.

 

[NailsII]

Funny how quiet it has gone in here now that evidence is being presented.

 

[ragarth]

Funny how quiet it has gone in here now that evidence is being presented.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's that. Human attention is a flighty thing, people may have just grown bored, or found something else that interests them more.

 

[NailsII]

I wouldn't necessarily say it's that. Human attention is a flighty thing, people may have just grown bored, or found something else that interests them more.

In many instances I may agree with you, but some people have a track record for this sort of behaviour.

 

[Naraoia]

Let's not forget it's not easy when you're alone against a crowd. I left the OriginsTalk mailing list essentially because I felt completely alone and couldn't find the strength to cope with all the huge posts (some way outside my field) addressed to me all on my own.

(Just reminding y'all that people may quit threads for other reasons than inability to face defeat.)

 

[NailsII]

Let's not forget it's not easy when you're alone against a crowd. I left the OriginsTalk mailing list essentially because I felt completely alone and couldn't find the strength to cope with all the huge posts (some way outside my field) addressed to me all on my own.

(Just reminding y'all that people may quit threads for other reasons than inability to face defeat.)

You are of course correct, but RB has a history of posting and running - I often suspect he doesn't read many replies.
I seem to remember you have had a previous issue with this particular poster....

 

[Naraoia]

You are of course correct, but RB has a history of posting and running - I often suspect he doesn't read many replies.
I seem to remember you have had a previous issue with this particular poster....

When I challenged him he eventually replied. Multiple times. They weren't the greatest replies, and I don't think he really understands the issues at hand (or, as you suggest, he may simply ignore most of a post), but at least he tried.

 

[RobertByers]

Wouldn't that be 7:2, bro?Note the chapter and verse as well --- coincidental?

Cute.
Wait a minute. It was 2 of unclean and 14 of clean. So 1:7. My math is bad but I got . I hope.
By the way 1 couple of the clean were sacrified after the flood.
yet the bible says clearly there was a ratio advantage. so was this the ratio before the flood. or 50/50 or what.
Since the fossil record is so dino/reptilish below the k-t line then we can conclude it was a unclean dominance before the flood and the opposite after for God's reasons.
You could say the bible predicted the fossil record results as a option.

 

[RobertByers]

So do the Cambrian/Ordovician, Ordovician/Silurian, Late Devonian and Periman/Triassic lines before the k-t line, as does the holocene extinction after the k-t line. What are those supposed to be then? Also, while the mass extinction around the k-t line goes on for quite some time in the triassic (above the k-t line).


It's only a mammal world if you ignore most of the species.

The only thing simple here is your ignorance of the actual facts. But that has already been established without a doubt.

I'm not ignorant. A different opinion.

These claimed ages you listed are errors. They are just different stages or areas caught up in the single flood year.
Triassic is not above the line. anyways the line is the fauna line. K-t just fits and is admitted as important. they have too.
The k-t line is a beautiful piece of evidence of the reality of the biblical flood.
couldn't ask for more. Well more is good too.

 

[RobertByers]

A couple problems here:
1) assumptions:
the k/t line represents the biblical flood
there were no world wide floods after the bliblical flood
the biblical flood modified the geologic strata before it to create a false representation of a timeline

Given these assumptions, we should see a marked difference between the geologic strata between samples before and after the flood. Is this the case?

2)assumptions:
flora and fauna can be divided into 'clean' and 'unclean' groups
before the flood the 'unclean groups' were dominant
after the flood the 'clean' groups were dominant
this shift in dominance is due to artificial selection by noah, ie, 7 clean to 2 unclean

If this is true, then we should see higher genetic diversity amongst the clean groups than the unclean groups. Is this the case across the board? Do we see higher genetic diversity amongst cheetahs, apes, and wolves than over turtles, crocodiles, snakes, etc?

To me, these are both predictions by the flood model stated above. Both predictions must be met for the flood model to have validity since these predictions arise from core assumptions of it. standard nota bene: referencing the supernatural to explain away these predictions invalidates the hypothesis, supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.

Yes the strata is very different where accurately separated. The k-t line is relevant only for the fauna difference. What the k-t line is can be mistaken where the fauna is not in evidence. Its the fauna and the k-t line fits.

Diversity in genetics is a assumption of evolution and not creationism.
Genetics just goes hand in hand with body change. the body can change instantly like with placentals into marsupials.

Keep your eye on assumptions.

 

[RobertByers]

Is it me or does my previous post already answer your reply to it?

Why are there no homonid - or anything similar - remains found below the KT boundary. Your bible says that humans were made in creation week, lived for hundreds of years (well, some did anyway) and were fruitful and multiplied. So we should see human remains alongside the dinos.
Tell me why we don't see any.

The point you have totally missed is that 'the flood' would not show a "clear difference in fauna/flora suddenly between two fossil assemblages" because exactly the same animals are inhabiting the earth - just in different ratios.
So your point is mute.
Well, lame actually.

Not how it worked.
It was a completly unclean world before the flood. I don't want to find the clean mammels. Its impossible. (save little ones).
There could not be mingling of sheep or giraffs with t-rex.
Therefore whatever mammals/clean creatures looked liked it must still of been in obscure and limited areas on earth. in fact probably they lived close to the people. The people must of been more separated from the unclean world by some geography means.
Indeed after the flood god had to put the fear of man into creatures. This it seems because there was no issue before.
Segregation must of been going on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the fossil record is so dino/reptilish below the k-t line then we can conclude it was a unclean dominance before the flood and the opposite after for God's reasons.
You could say the bible predicted the fossil record results as a option.

Good point, bro --- I never looked at it that way ---

 

[Chalnoth]

You could say the bible predicted the fossil record results as a option.

As an option? Seriously? How does it count as a prediction if it could be taken a different way?

 

[ragarth]

Yes the strata is very different where accurately separated. The k-t line is relevant only for the fauna difference. What the k-t line is can be mistaken where the fauna is not in evidence. Its the fauna and the k-t line fits.

Diversity in genetics is a assumption of evolution and not creationism.
Genetics just goes hand in hand with body change. the body can change instantly like with placentals into marsupials.

Keep your eye on assumptions.

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.

 

[NailsII]

Not how it worked.

How convenient.

It was a completly unclean world before the flood. I don't want to find the clean mammels. Its impossible. (save little ones).

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

There could not be mingling of sheep or giraffs with t-rex.

Really?

Genesis 6:13

13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

No mention of evil dinos then.

Genesis 6:19-21

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

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

Therefore whatever mammals/clean creatures looked liked it must still of been in obscure and limited areas on earth. in fact probably they lived close to the people.

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

The people must of been more separated from the unclean world by some geography means.

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

Indeed after the flood god had to put the fear of man into creatures. This it seems because there was no issue before.

Segregation must of been going on.

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?

Good point, bro --- I never looked at it that way ---

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

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

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

 

[Naraoia]

These claimed ages you listed are errors. They are just different stages or areas caught up in the single flood year.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

That is correct --- but the new climate would not support the non-avian dinosaurs, and they eventually became extinct.

The non-avian dinosaurs were evidently adept at living under uni-tropical conditions --- which, of course, changed after the Flood.

Only life that could adapt to the new climate would continue.