30,000 feet of water?????

[1213]

The fact that ice floats alone refutes your beliefs.

How it refutes what I said? Not all ice is on top of water.

 

[1213]

...The white cliffs of Dover also refute your myth...

Only in your imagination.

As does the picture that I presented of Goosenecks State Park that you totally failed to explain.

Sorry, in what post that was?

 

[1213]

This is from the joggins cliff of Nova Scotia. the rock the tree trunk is burred in is uniform sandstone with inclusions It was deposited in a relatively short period of time from glacial deposits...you know own of the three kids of sedimentation that polystrate fossils form in

Ok, nice, we can agree that it happened in a relatively short time.

Without evidence to back up your claim why should anyone believe you?

I don't in any case say that someone should believe me in anything. I recommend people to be reasonable and understand things correctly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please demonstrate that it is as you say.

Why? It's not like you did that with your bare claims.

Pick up any high school geology textbook if you are actually interested.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think there is even 15 specification events. Can you list even 10, what are they?

It's what you necessarily have to believe if you think there were only 3000 species on the physically impossible Noah boat just a couple thousand years ago, which then went on to repopulate the earth and became the millions of species we observe today.

These are your claims, not mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't in any case say that someone should believe me in anything. I recommend people to be reasonable and understand things correctly.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think there is even 15 specification events. Can you list even 10, what are they?

Correction: you don't feel there is speciation.
Thinking would entail critical analysis of observed, tested, verified facts. This is not the process by which you arrived at your belief.

So each species just popped into existence fully formed? Does that seem reasonable? Has such an event ever been witnessed? Is there any known mechanism by which such a thing could happen?
And yet you believe this over massively evidenced, easily observed, natural mechanisms.

 

[Argentbear]

Ok, nice, we can agree that it happened in a relatively short time.

because glaciers move on

I don't in any case say that someone should believe me in anything. I recommend people to be reasonable and understand things correctly.

Please take your own advice

 

[Subduction Zone]

How it refutes what I said? Not all ice is on top of water.

Once, again, we can measure the ages of the ice sheets by various independent means. That tells us that they are hundreds of thousands of years old. Your only excuse is to claim that God lies. I mean you can use that excuse if you want to, but I would not. In other words we do have very good reasons to accept the fact that the icecaps are older than humans and you have no answer to that. Ice floats. The rising water would have caused the ice sheet to float from the edges to towards the center. We can observe what happens when ice meets water today. it causes ice bergs to form and float away.

And yes, some ice is on land and we should not see that if the myth is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in your imagination.

Now you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. Just because you insist that God is a liar does not mean that he is one.

Do you know what the White Cliffs are made of?

Sorry, in what post that was?

The picture of the imbedded meanders. That absolutely refutes the flood as well. You could not come up with anything close to a plausible explanation.

 

[1213]

Once, again, we can measure the ages of the ice sheets by various independent means. That tells us that they are hundreds of thousands of years old.

I don't believe that.

...we do have very good reasons to accept the fact that the icecaps are older than humans

I don't think we have. Please give even one good reason to believe that.

and you have no answer to that. Ice floats. The rising water would have caused the ice sheet to float from the edges to towards the center. We can observe what happens when ice meets water today. it causes ice bergs to form and float away.

Ok, thank you, now I think I understand what you meant with the claim. I don't think the glaciers existed before the flood. They are the result of the flood. The long rainy period caused cooling of the planet and led to ice age. And one reason why the water level decreased is that the glaciers were formed.

Just because you insist that God is a liar does not mean that he is one.

I have not insisted God is a liar, please stop making false claims.

 

[1213]

So each species just popped into existence fully formed? Does that seem reasonable?

Yes. I don't think we would have the species in any other way.

And yet you believe this over massively evidenced, easily observed, natural mechanisms.

I believe it because it is the most reasonable explanation. If it would be possible to happen in some other way, we could observe that to happen in nature.

 

[1213]

It's what you necessarily have to believe if you think there were only 3000 species on the physically impossible Noah boat just a couple thousand years ago, which then went on to repopulate the earth and became the millions of species we observe today.

Firstly, not all possible species needed to be in the ark. Even if we would go by modern number of species, it would not be millions, if we speak only about the species that would be necessary to be in the ark, it would have been about 5500 mammal, 1000 bird and 9000 reptilian species. And even with them, there could have been some that can survive outside the ark.

Secondly, for example in the case of bears, if all modern bears are the offspring of the two in the ark, there are not really many differences in them. Main differences are in color and size. So it is like with humans, humans also are not all same size or color, yet we don't call people different species by those differences.

So, no, there is no physical impossibility in this. If you disagree, please give something substantial to back up your claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Firstly, not all possible species needed to be in the ark. Even if we would go by modern number of species, it would not be millions, if we speak only about the species that would be necessary to be in the ark, it would have been about 5500 mammal, 1000 bird and 9000 reptilian species. And even with them, there could have been some that can survive outside the ark.

Funny.

1. that would still translate into the need of plenty of speciation events per day to get the variation we have today
2. you previously said there were only 3000 animals on the ark. Now you are talking about 15.500 species. So you just multiplied it by 5. It's almost as if you are making it up on the spot. Almost.

Secondly, for example in the case of bears, if all modern bears are the offspring of the two in the ark, there are not really many differences in them.

Bears are relatively closely related. But the idea that they diverged only a couple thousand years ago is completely bonkers, and requires - as I said - a version of evolution on insane steroids.

Main differences are in color and size.

lol

You might want to read up. They diverge in plenty of anatomical ways as well as diet.

So it is like with humans, humans also are not all same size or color, yet we don't call people different species by those differences.

Because they aren't different species. Polar bears and black bears are not the same species.
You seem really clueless.

So, no, there is no physical impossibility in this. If you disagree, please give something substantial to back up your claim.

It's as easy as pointing out that there are millions of extant species living today. To get to the variation of today from the handful of only a couple thousand years ago, you require a version of evolution that progresses hundreds, thousands of times faster then we observe in the real world.

 

[Argentbear]

I don't believe that.

Your denial doesn't change reality.

 

[Argentbear]

Firstly, not all possible species needed to be in the ark. Even if we would go by modern number of species, it would not be millions, if we speak only about the species that would be necessary to be in the ark, it would have been about 5500 mammal, 1000 bird and 9000 reptilian species. And even with them, there could have been some that can survive outside the ark.

I beleive you just made all this up

Secondly, for example in the case of bears, if all modern bears are the offspring of the two in the ark, there are not really many differences in them. Main differences are in color and size. So it is like with humans, humans also are not all same size or color, yet we don't call people different species by those differences.

So, no, there is no physical impossibility in this. If you disagree, please give something substantial to back up your claim.

interesting that you demand substantial evidence but refuse to provide any evidence for your claims

 

[1213]

Funny.

1. that would still translate into the need of plenty of speciation events per day to get the variation we have today
2. you previously said there were only 3000 animals on the ark. Now you are talking about 15.500 species. So you just multiplied it by 5. It's almost as if you are making it up on the spot. Almost.

Sorry, if I was unclear. I still think there was only 3000. I only told that the 15.500 would be the highest number of species necessary, if we would go by modern definitions.

How many specification events has happened to get Eurasian and African humans?

Bears are relatively closely related. But the idea that they diverged only a couple thousand years ago is completely bonkers, and requires - as I said - a version of evolution on insane steroids.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that. All the differences seem to be the same as with different dog breeds. The differences can be due epigenetics, without any changes to DNA sequences.

Because they aren't different species. Polar bears and black bears are not the same species.

By that standard, one could say Asian and European people are different species. Modern definitions for species are ridiculously illogical.

To get to the variation of today from the handful of only a couple thousand years ago, you require a version of evolution that progresses hundreds, thousands of times faster then we observe in the real world.

It really doesn't.

 

[Argentbear]

Sorry, if I was unclear. I still think there was only 3000. I only told that the 15.500 would be the highest number of species necessary, if we would go by modern definitions.

How many specification events has happened to get Eurasian and African humans?

thirty that we know of.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that. All the differences seem to be the same as with different dog breeds. The differences can be due epigenetics, without any changes to DNA sequences.

I have no reason to beleive that you know anything about Ursine DNA

By that standard, one could say Asian and European people are different species.

No. Asian and European people can interbreed. Black bears and polar bears cannot

Modern definitions for species are ridiculously illogical.

no, just your understanding

It really doesn't.

I have no reason to believe this

 

[1213]

thirty that we know of.

Please give one example of such a specification event.

Black bears and polar bears cannot

Why do you think so?

 

[Argentbear]

Please give one example of such a specification event.

Its anytime there is a new species. The human branch of the biological tree has 30 or so known species only one of which is alive today

Why do you think so?

science

Try it sometime