Orangutans and the Flood

creationist biogeography

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#41  Postby Wortfish » Oct 26, 2016 5:07 pm

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.


Creationists generally accept speciation within the created kind.
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 115

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#42  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 26, 2016 5:18 pm

Wortfish wrote:
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.


Creationists generally accept speciation within the created kind.

That sentence is gibberish.
'Kind' is not a rigourous, never mind scientific, term.
Speciation means that a new species exists, that can no longer interbreed with the species it evolved from.
"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: 25605
Age: 27
Male

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

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#43  Postby Blackadder » Oct 26, 2016 5:44 pm

Wortfish wrote:
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.


Creationists generally accept speciation within the created kind.


Evolution proceeds at a pace and in a manner that is not impacted in the slightest by whether some vegetable-brained creationists "accept" it or not.

And if you wish to take up the challenge of redefining the entire subject of taxonomy using the Bible as your handbook, good luck. There are a few people on here who will school you on the subject, if they have the patience to address this steaming puddle of arse-gravy. In fact, it's already been done more than once, if you care to search the forum.
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: 3214
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#44  Postby tolman » Oct 26, 2016 5:59 pm

Wortfish wrote:
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.


Creationists generally accept speciation within the created kind.

Where are the definitions of these 'kinds', and is there a shred of evidence to suggest they could diversify (or have diversified) into lots of species in a few thousand years?

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

I think when you said 'argue', you actually meant 'moronically try to pretend'.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7102

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#45  Postby monkeyboy » Oct 26, 2016 9:41 pm

Wortfish wrote:
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.

Where would they get such a silly idea from? Many insects don't go underground at all in their lives. Why would they suddenly think to go underground just because it started raining?

The fig wasp lives exclusively in fig trees. They lay eggs inside figs on the trees. When the flood waters rose, the earth would be underwater and hence unreachable to these wasps before their habitat also became submerged. So the place of salvation to these critters would have been inaccessible to them before they even realised they needed it. They rely on fig trees for their habitat. Indeed, the male fig wasps only live inside the individual figs they hatch in, being themselves wingless. The fig trees also rely on the fig wasps. The females do have wings and when they hatch alongside their brothers, they mate with their wingless brothers and after their brothers have dug to the surface of the fruit for them, they leave and go off to pollinate other trees as they head inside the fruit to lay their eggs and begin the cycle again. The female then dies and is actually consumed by the growing fig, providing it with nutrition. It's actually a pretty cool codependence.

So the fig tree and the fig wasp are totally reliant on each other for their continued existence. If the earth was under a shit ton of water, the fig wasps die out and the fig trees (assuming they survive being totally submerged for months) now fail to pollinate each other and will also fail over time. Except we know full well that they flourish and so do fig wasps. So either your creationist friends haven't explained adequately in their naive explanation what hapened to insects like fig wasps or, as I strongly suspect, they're making it all up as they go along. The fig wasps wouldn't survive for just having had a breeding pair taken on the ark. They'd have needed taking on in large numbers along with several uprooted and replanted fig trees to sustain them. Now multiply just the one example of how awkward the speciaist habitats, breeding habits, dietary requirements etc by the number of other insects who don't use the ground in their day to day lives and all the extra stuff the ark would need to carry to sustain them and you might begin to see a small crack developing in the "insects stayed below the ground" idea. It's totally ludicrous and displays an ignorance of nature that baffles belief. I can understand generally ignorant bronze aged campfire gossips creating a flood story and finding it credulous but these days, with the amount of knowledge at our fingertips, you have to be either refusing to look at the info or terminally stubborn.
Last edited by monkeyboy on Oct 27, 2016 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 4907
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#46  Postby Oldskeptic » Oct 26, 2016 10:03 pm

Wortfish wrote:
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.


Genesis 6:19-20

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.
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: 6999
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#47  Postby Fenrir » Oct 27, 2016 12:58 am

Wortfish wrote:

Creationists argue that only living creatures "with nostrils" embarked aboard the Ark. The insects stayed below the ground.


Of course. That explains all the fossil evidence of insects burrowing up through all those kilometres of newly laid sediment. The mayfly data is particularly compelling. :snort:

Of course insects could hold their breath for years back then, before genetic entropy due to mans evil nature reduced them to the fragile shadows we see now.

*this is approaching AFDave territory.

**of course the AFDave equation is asymptotic, some fundies may temporarily approach Dave levels of tard but if they ever matched it the world would implode from the intense stupidity field generated.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 2825
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#48  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 29, 2016 3:34 pm

Fish have nostrils. Guess that blows another piece of apologetic fabrication out of the water.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 20484
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#49  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 29, 2016 4:31 pm

Fenrir wrote:Of course insects could hold their breath for years back then, before genetic entropy due to mans evil nature reduced them to the fragile shadows we see now.


Except that according to the requisite mythology, the so-called "fall" happened a good two thousand years or so before the fantasy Flud. So if wanktard creationists want to go down that route, they've got that little problem to attend to.

That's before we take note of the fact that insects were around for 300 million years or more before humans, and include huge swathes of taxa that could not possibly have survived for any length of time subject even to shallow burial, let alone burial under several kilometres of briny silt. For that matter, out of a million-plus insect species alive today, there are fewer than 50 that regularly live in a marine environment. There is no indication in the fossil record, that this tiny proportion of insects living in a marine environment was ever significantly greater. For example, whenever larvae of aquatic insects happen to persist in the fossil record, the geological facies are always indicative of the depositional environment being a freshwater one.

A case in point being provided by this paper:

Coxoplectoptera, A New Fossil Order Of Palaeoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta), With Comments On The Phylogeny Of The Stem Group Of Mayflies (Ephemeroptera)]/i] by Arnold H. Staniczek, Günter Bechly & Roman J. Godunko, [i]Insect Systematics & Evolution, 42:101-138 (2011) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Staniczek et al, 2011 wrote:Abstract

Mickoleitia longimanus gen. et sp.n. is described from the Lower Cretaceous limestone of the Crato Formation in Brazil. It is attributed to a new family Mickoleitiidae and a new fossil insect order Coxoplectoptera within the palaeopterous Ephemerida, based on the presence of an elongated costal brace. This fossil insect exhibits a very peculiar combination of derived characters like specialized forelegs with strongly elongated, free coxae, single-clawed pretarsus, and distinctly skewed pterothorax as in dragonflies. On the other hand, several plesiomorphies are present that exclude this taxon from modern Ephemeroptera, namely large hind wings with widened anal area and numerous cross veins that separate the elongate costal brace from the costal margin. Fossil larvae described by Willmann as larval Cretereismatidae are herein attributed to Mickoleitiidae fam.n., based on the shared presence of broad hind wing buds with distinctly broadened anal area, wing bud venation similar to the adult holotype, and subchelate forelegs with elongate free coxae. These larvae are also highly autapomorphic in the structure of their abdominal gills and laterally flattened body with vertically oval section that is unique within Ephemerida. On the other hand they possess plesiomorphic lateral wing pads with pronounced articulation like Palaeozoic pterygote larvae, while wing pads in modern insects are always secondarily fused to the tergum. A similar fossil larva from the Jurassic of Transbaikals was earlier described as Mesogenesia petersae and classified within modern mayflies. It is herein attributed to Mickoleitiidae fam.n. Coxoplectoptera are recognized as putative sister group of modern Ephemeroptera based on the shared presence of only 7 pairs of abdominal gills, while Permoplectoptera still have retained 9 pairs of gills. The phylogenetic reclassification of the mayfly stem group by Willmann is critically discussed and modified.


This recently discovered fossil clade exhibits a number of features, both in adult and larval form, that immediately call attention to themselves when examined by any entomologist or insect taxonomist more familiar with modern taxa. The larvae are particularly striking, and exhibit features that would not lead even an experienced taxonomist to consider them related to mayflies upon first examination. The larvae of Coxoplexctoptera look more like mantis shrimps than insect larvae, complete with raptorial forelegs and sabre like mandibles. They also possess shovel like head projections suggestive of a fossorial lifestyle, but one restricted to digging to shallow depths in river sediments. Their assignment as a sister clade to Ephemeroptera is based upon the possession of 7 pairs of abdominal gills (numerous other aquatic insect taxa have larvae with 9 pairs of abdominal gills, the Ephemeroptera being a notable exception) and 3 caudal filaments with dense coatings of swimming hairs (again a feature exhibited uniquely among modern insects by mayflies).

The adults exhibit features again indicating a relationship to Ephemeroptera, including wing venation that indicates a relationship thereto, but also features that set them apart, such as an oblique backward tilt to the pterothorax (the part of the thoxax bearing the wings), which indicates an earlier split of the Ephemeroptera and sister clades from the Odonata some time previously. Like the Odonata, the Coxoplectoptera have raptorial forelegs that are thrust forward by the re-orientation of the pterothorax, large compound eyes and fully functional mandibles (Ephemeroptera adults have non-functional mouthparts, at least amongst modern taxa). The more even distribution of wing area in Coxoplectoptera again suggests Odonata ancestry, but the venation is significantly different from that of stem group Odonata, and is much more akin to that seen in Ephemeroptera, though the hind wing venation is again different, courtesy of the reduction in wing size in many Ephemeroptera, and concomitant vein loss.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 20484
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#50  Postby ElDiablo » Oct 29, 2016 8:51 pm

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.


We shouldn't overlook the other beautiful and wonderfully kind aspect of the flood story. It killed the rest of life and humanity.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3034

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#51  Postby monkeyboy » Oct 29, 2016 11:28 pm

Including all the newborn puppies and kittens! Still, god must have known what evil fuckers they were destined to be, they obviously deserved to choke on every lungful of salty, muddy floodwater they got. Praise be to that most loving and merciful God. Now sing up, "Oh, the animals went in two by two, hurrah!"
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: 4907
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#52  Postby Just A Theory » Dec 08, 2016 4:05 am

Wortfish wrote:
Creationists generally accept speciation within the created kind.


For that to matter, there would have to be some sort of definition of a kind that was more robust than something that can be found in a 3 year old's picture book.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1226
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#53  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 08, 2016 5:20 am

monkeyboy wrote: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.


Pretty simple for a creationist to argue. God use some of that magic sleeping dust he used on Adam when he kiped a rib to make eve. Or, he simply made all the lions and tigers vegan and let them graze in the pasture next to the stegosaurus. Meanwhile, he fed the prey species a steady diet of viagra, redbull and cocaine. All things are possible with magic.
User avatar
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1165
Age: 54
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#54  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 08, 2016 5:37 am

If god can extend a man's life to 500 years (or 900) then is there really any further leap of faith required to think god didn't just preserve all the bugs, and solve all the unsolvable problems that render the ark implausible? It's why this falls on deaf ears with creationists. One magic can be any magic.

One does have to wonder though, if god is really capable of all that, why the fuck was the flood even required? Wouldn't a snap of his fingers kill off all the evil humans instantly? Ha! Your god is weak.

When I was little and in church, I think we were taught more pragmatically than the literalists teach. I seem to recall asking how it was possible to flood the entire Earth. I recall being told it was figurative and it was just a flood of all the world as far as Noah knew existed. The rest of the planet wasn't really flooded. Of course, even that was contradicted at times by other teachings. Can't nail a puddle to the wall.
User avatar
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1165
Age: 54
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#55  Postby Alan C » Dec 25, 2016 2:57 am

Just keeping tropical marine fishes alive [and Coral] would have been a right pain. Then there are the multitudes of fresh water fishes that would have been utterly fucked by the change in water conditions.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 1023
Age: 40
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#56  Postby scott1328 » Dec 27, 2016 4:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:

Creationists argue that only living creatures "with nostrils" embarked aboard the Ark. The insects stayed below the ground.

If I recall, cetaceans have nostrils as well. One wonders how Noah fit a pair of blue whales on the arc. :ask:

One also wonders how they made the hike to the Arc construction site, or the climb down from Ararat.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7185
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#57  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 27, 2016 4:47 pm

Alan C wrote:Just keeping tropical marine fishes alive [and Coral] would have been a right pain. Then there are the multitudes of fresh water fishes that would have been utterly fucked by the change in water conditions.


Been there and done that.

Likewise, there's the higher aquatic plants (aquatic angiosperms). The only genuinely marine higher plants are members of the Zosteraceae, and there's only 22 species of those. All of the rest (which includes both monocots and dicots) are exclusively freshwater. Among the monocots, you have Aponogeton, Cryptocoryne, Vallisneria, Echinodorus and Sagittaria, to name but five Genera popular in freshwater aquaria (that's 194 species in total), along with Wolffia (11 species), Zantedeschia (8 species), Anubias (8 species), Elodea 6 species) and a brace of others, bringing the total to something like 400 species. Among the dicots, you have Bacopa (70+ species), Ludwigia (82 species), Myriophyllum (69 species), Alternanthera (80+ species), Ceratophyllum (just 4 species), Hyrgophila (80+ species), Lilaeopsis (6 species) and dozens of others, bringing the total to around 1,000 species. None of these plants can survive even small amounts of salt dissolved in their water - 5% sea water will kill them if they're subject to about 7 days' exposure thereto, and 50% sea water will kill them off in less than 72 hours. The idea that any of these plants could survive the requisite mythological inundation is a non-starter. That's before you factor in the little matter of being buried under millions of tons of silt washed from what was previously land. Even those escaping said burial, will face cold, intense pressure, and total severance from the light needed for photosynthesis, courtesy of that extra 9,000 metres of water. The whole lot would have been wiped out.

I've had 35 years of aquarium keeping experience to teach me about all of this. Consequently, when factoring in the aquatic angiosperms, the stenohaline fishes (that's around 95% of them), the corals (and their symbiotic zooxanthellae, without which many corals die, because the relationship is an obligate mutualism for the corals), and several aquatic invertebrate groups that would be drop-kicked into extinction wholesale by the osmoregulatory shock and pollution overload involved in the "global flood" fairy tale, I conclude that is is a fairy tale.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 20484
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#58  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 27, 2016 5:00 pm

I'm sure any being capable of flooding the entire planet with water could probably manage the salinity of that water... it is well within the skill set of any high school chemistry student to work out the proper ratios.

You know the trump card is whatever card the creationist plays next. (sarc). Deductive reasoning is no match for the magic man.
User avatar
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1165
Age: 54
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#59  Postby Alan C » Dec 28, 2016 9:55 am

And how did the plants repopulate the Earth in sufficient number [and quickly enough]? I'm not sure many seeds tolerate salinity too well.
How would the marine food chain have coped with this disruption?
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 1023
Age: 40
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Orangutans and the Flood

#60  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 28, 2016 2:30 pm

Alan C wrote:And how did the plants repopulate the Earth in sufficient number [and quickly enough]? I'm not sure many seeds tolerate salinity too well.
How would the marine food chain have coped with this disruption?


Invoke the magic man... God did create all the land and all the plants on the land in a single day, once before.

Which does kind of beg the question, "Why did god need Noah?"

Fucking one hit wonder, that god, I guess. :dunno:
User avatar
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1165
Age: 54
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest