Orangutans and the Flood

creationist biogeography

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#21  Postby Wortfish » Oct 21, 2016 12:07 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
You're forgetting something: Creationists claim that kangaroos got to Australia in a short period time after getting off a boat as kangaroos in the middle east only 4000 years ago. If kangaroos did hop from the middle east to Australia 4000 years ago it could be expected to find some evidence of some kind of just that. Instead what we have is evidence of kangroos in Australia and nowhere else 25 MYA.


Why would the kangaroos leave a trail on their migration from the Near East to Australia if it was done in just a few years?
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 155

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#22  Postby Fenrir » Oct 21, 2016 12:29 am

Are we talking about a hypothetical radiation from the Middle East to Australia or a posited majickal migration without pause or rest to a pre-specified destination?

If the latter then we can just make up any old shit and assert it happened. I will assert koalas changed their diet and subsisted only on lemon gelatos during their hasty marathon. Said gelato procured from majical gelato carts which appeared only for that purpose and then conveniently disappeared without trace.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 2890
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#23  Postby Oldskeptic » Oct 21, 2016 5:51 am

Wortfish wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
You're forgetting something: Creationists claim that kangaroos got to Australia in a short period time after getting off a boat as kangaroos in the middle east only 4000 years ago. If kangaroos did hop from the middle east to Australia 4000 years ago it could be expected to find some evidence of some kind of just that. Instead what we have is evidence of kangroos in Australia and nowhere else 25 MYA.


Why would the kangaroos leave a trail on their migration from the Near East to Australia if it was done in just a few years?


You're right, what was I thinking? With only two of the unclean beasts setting off in a straight line at a steady 15 miles per hour they'd have been there in just a little over 21 days. That is if they could swim as well as they hop.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7103
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#24  Postby zoon » Oct 21, 2016 6:19 am

Wortfish wrote:I need some help which is why I have come to this site. I have tried explaining to a creationist that the fossil record does not comport with the notion that all species (or "kinds") disembarked Noah's Ark - presumably somewhere in the Middle East - and then migrated to all corners of the earth. The obvious example to draw is the kangaroo whose fossils are found only in Australia.

The creationist has responded to me by claiming that orangutans living in Sumatra and other places in SE Asia have no fossil record in Africa where the other great apes live. He asserts that orangutans were never related to chimps and gorillas and did not originate in Africa at all. Rather, when the waters from Noah's Flood receded, some apes headed towards Africa through the Sinai while others headed deep into Asia. He notes that in India fossils have been found of putative ancestors (pongids) of the orangutan who may have taken such a route on their migration from Ararat (the resting place of the Ark) to Sumatra.

I am a little stuck. If chimps, gorilllas and orangutans share a common ancestor where did it live? And why are orangutans so far removed in physical distance from their evolutionary cousins in Africa?

If your creationist accepts that fossils are evidence for previous life at all, then presumably that creationist also accepts that the world has been around for much longer than 4000 years? Or is this not a young earth creationist?

The natural processes which turn organic structures into rock take far too long for the biblical account to be correct, unless the god is supposed to have created the fossils along with everything else, which could have happened last Thursday for all we know. If God did everything by magic, then no evidence counts for anything. If the ancestors of orangutans were in India so long ago that their bones have fossilised, then this in itself is evidence that the biblical timescale is completely wrong. Would this argument help?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 2698

Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#25  Postby Wortfish » Oct 21, 2016 9:27 am

According to this nursey rhyme, the kangaroo was the first animal to board the Ark as a passenger:

Last edited by Wortfish on Oct 21, 2016 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 155

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#26  Postby monkeyboy » Oct 21, 2016 11:04 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
You're forgetting something: Creationists claim that kangaroos got to Australia in a short period time after getting off a boat as kangaroos in the middle east only 4000 years ago. If kangaroos did hop from the middle east to Australia 4000 years ago it could be expected to find some evidence of some kind of just that. Instead what we have is evidence of kangroos in Australia and nowhere else 25 MYA.


Why would the kangaroos leave a trail on their migration from the Near East to Australia if it was done in just a few years?


You're right, what was I thinking? With only two of the unclean beasts setting off in a straight line at a steady 15 miles per hour they'd have been there in just a little over 21 days. That is if they could swim as well as they hop.

I wonder if anyone could be bothered working out how long the sloths would have taken to reach their specialised habitat where they are found exclusively in South America at their stunning speed of 40m/130ft per day.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5158
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#27  Postby tolman » Oct 22, 2016 7:11 pm

zoon wrote:If your creationist accepts that fossils are evidence for previous life at all, then presumably that creationist also accepts that the world has been around for much longer than 4000 years? Or is this not a young earth creationist?

The natural processes which turn organic structures into rock take far too long for the biblical account to be correct, unless the god is supposed to have created the fossils along with everything else, which could have happened last Thursday for all we know. If God did everything by magic, then no evidence counts for anything. If the ancestors of orangutans were in India so long ago that their bones have fossilised, then this in itself is evidence that the biblical timescale is completely wrong. Would this argument help?

Indeed, if someone takes the view that 'God' placed fossils to deceive people, why are they so sure their sacred books are not also some divine deception?
Divinely-inspired 'knowledge' that the books are correct hardly seems to help, given that historically, people seem to have had wars with each other, with each side [supposedly] sincerely believing that their particular version of inspired 'knowledge' was correct.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#28  Postby tolman » Oct 22, 2016 7:12 pm

monkeyboy wrote:I wonder if anyone could be bothered working out how long the sloths would have taken to reach their specialised habitat where they are found exclusively in South America at their stunning speed of 40m/130ft per day.

Or, indeed, how close to the Near East (or wherever else Noah is supposed to have lived) they'd have to have been living beforehand to make it to the boat before it sailed.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#29  Postby monkeyboy » Oct 22, 2016 8:31 pm

tolman wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:I wonder if anyone could be bothered working out how long the sloths would have taken to reach their specialised habitat where they are found exclusively in South America at their stunning speed of 40m/130ft per day.

Or, indeed, how close to the Near East (or wherever else Noah is supposed to have lived) they'd have to have been living beforehand to make it to the boat before it sailed.

Ha ha, they'd probably have had to set off before the earth was created.........
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5158
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#30  Postby Blackadder » Oct 22, 2016 9:11 pm

Only someone with the information processing prowess of an avocado would actually believe the Ark story as a factual account.

I trust our "newly" acquired marine dwelling friend isn't one of those, although its posts suggest that this as a hilarious possiblity.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3261
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#31  Postby Wortfish » Oct 23, 2016 1:34 am

Blackadder wrote:Only someone with the information processing prowess of an avocado would actually believe the Ark story as a factual account.

I trust our "newly" acquired marine dwelling friend isn't one of those, although its posts suggest that this as a hilarious possiblity.


The Ark story is plausible...except when the dinosaurs are included. Then the Ark becomes a sort of floating Jurassic Park. Also, there are severe problems associated with nutrition, ventilation and sanitation.
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 155

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#32  Postby laklak » Oct 23, 2016 1:34 am

Don't dis avocados, they may be a bit slow but they're tasty and good for you. Unlike creationists, who tend to repeat on me and go straight to my hips.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 16048
Age: 63
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#33  Postby Oldskeptic » Oct 23, 2016 3:04 am

Wortfish wrote:
Blackadder wrote:Only someone with the information processing prowess of an avocado would actually believe the Ark story as a factual account.

I trust our "newly" acquired marine dwelling friend isn't one of those, although its posts suggest that this as a hilarious possiblity.


The Ark story is plausible...except when the dinosaurs are included.


Just what do you find plausible? That a 500 year-old man and his sons took 100 years to build a boat? That a wooden boat that big would even float without coming apart? That any boat could be built big enough to hold two to fourteen of every animal on earth including birds and insects and all the food and water they would need for almost a year? Or do you find it plausible that there was enough water to cover the tallest mountains?

Wortfish wrote:Then the Ark becomes a sort of floating Jurassic Park. Also, there are severe problems associated with nutrition, ventilation and sanitation.


Yet you still find it plausible if we just leave Ken Ham's dinosaurs out of it?
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7103
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#34  Postby monkeyboy » Oct 23, 2016 7:16 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
Just what do you find plausible? That a 500 year-old man and his sons took 100 years to build a boat? That a wooden boat that big would even float without coming apart? That any boat could be built big enough to hold two to fourteen of every animal on earth including birds and insects and all the food and water they would need for almost a year? Or do you find it plausible that there was enough water to cover the tallest mountains?

Doesn't end there either. You let all the animals which are prey for others off and they need to go breed like fuck for years before the carnivores get let loose. So you've got lions and tigers etc to feed for years on fuck knows what, whilst their regular dinners reestablish their herds. Even my daughter could work this issue out when she was 7. That if a lion ate attacked and killed an antelope just after they got off the ark, antelopes would go extinct and then what would the lions eat?
Play that out up and down the food chain, considering those creatures with highly specialised diets etc and it's pretty fucking obvious that someone didn't understand what they were talking about when they dreamt this shit up.
The whole stupid story is implausible, from start to finish. I can't believe there are adults with functioning brains who still consider it to be remotely achievable.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5158
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#35  Postby Blackadder » Oct 23, 2016 7:23 am

Wortfish wrote:
The Ark story is plausible


:lol: No, it's really not. Not even close. Just for starters, how long do you think it would take you to collect 350,000 species of beetles, Fishy? Give your head a wobble and try using the stuff inside it.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3261
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#36  Postby Rumraket » Oct 23, 2016 8:02 am

Wortfish wrote:
Blackadder wrote:Only someone with the information processing prowess of an avocado would actually believe the Ark story as a factual account.

I trust our "newly" acquired marine dwelling friend isn't one of those, although its posts suggest that this as a hilarious possiblity.


The Ark story is plausible...except when the dinosaurs are included. Then the Ark becomes a sort of floating Jurassic Park. Also, there are severe problems associated with nutrition, ventilation and sanitation.

Right, the ark story is plausible right up to the point you actually start to think about it. Never mind the dinosaurs.

The insects alone makes a mockery of the whole thing. And parasites. And viruses. All species on the planet are plagued by countless parasites and viruses. How did they survive the flood? They all carried multiple viral infections and parasites magically without dying?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12457
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#37  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 23, 2016 10:09 am

Wortfish wrote:
Blackadder wrote:Only someone with the information processing prowess of an avocado would actually believe the Ark story as a factual account.

I trust our "newly" acquired marine dwelling friend isn't one of those, although its posts suggest that this as a hilarious possiblity.


The Ark story is plausible

Blind assertion.
Demonstrate that it's plausible.


Wortfish wrote:...except when the dinosaurs are included.

And even when they're not included.

Wortfish wrote: Also, there are severe problems associated with nutrition, ventilation and sanitation.

So you admit it's not plausible at all.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 26324
Age: 27
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#38  Postby tolman » Oct 23, 2016 11:16 am

The amusing thing is that for any ark-type story to even approach plausibility in a hypothetical universe where there was immense post-ark diversity, one thing that clearly would be required is extraordinarily rapid evolution.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#39  Postby Blackadder » Oct 23, 2016 11:22 am

tolman wrote:The amusing thing is that for any ark-type story to even approach plausibility in a hypothetical universe where there was immense post-ark diversity, one thing that clearly would be required is extraordinarily rapid evolution.


Oh man. Don't go there. When you find yourself arguing with someone whose entire system of taxonomy consists of the word "kind", you're not likely to find much of a sense of irony. That way lies only insanity.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3261
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#40  Postby Wortfish » Oct 26, 2016 5:06 pm

Blackadder wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
:lol: No, it's really not. Not even close. Just for starters, how long do you think it would take you to collect 350,000 species of beetles, Fishy? Give your head a wobble and try using the stuff inside it.


Creationists argue that only living creatures "with nostrils" embarked aboard the Ark. The insects stayed below the ground.
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 155

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest