Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Jack,

Just another note about your total inconsistency of belief..

You said that before the Flood animals all lived on plants..

Correct.

Yet earlier you stated that fossils with teeth marks on them were also buried in the Flood !

Where did I say that? Provide the quote, please. I believe you're thinking of somebody else.

Hang on now.. what put those teeth marks there... the non-carnivorous animals ???

Panda bears are herbivores, yet they have very sharp teeth. If one bites you, does that mean it's trying to eat you?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker BTW I congratulate you on your managing to break away from the crazy spin of Hovind and those other YE charlatans.

Aussie, I know you didn't intend to offend, but I NEVER believed the type of propaganda Hovind puts out. I was more in the ICR camp. While I think ICR is frequently wrong, I really don't consider them charlatans of the same order as Hovind. I broke away from ICR-type views about 10 years back.

The earlier reference to my Hovind experience was in debating his groupies that were absolutely certain (sort of like OEJ) that Y2K would be a disaster. On the Y2K issue it was within my own field of expertise, so it was easy. Geology, mythology, and Hebrew translation aren't my fields of expertise so I have to study a little to put forth persuasive arguments.

I am curious about 1 thing.. are you still a Christian/Theist?

I don't consider myself a Christian, based on the common use definition of it today, but I am attempting to cling to a form of theism. I orginally came to this debating hoping to hear something persuasive and new from Bob. I'm still waiting.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Where did I say that? Provide the quote, please. I believe you're thinking of somebody else.

I'm still working on my ark-size analysis, but I had to respond to this. Please answer directly: Do fossils exist that have teeth marks on them? Are such fossils from Noah's flood? If you answered yes to both questions, please explain the reason there are animal teeth marks on fossils if the animals were all vegetarians?

I've never heard a YE'r explain this, so I look forward to your answer.

 

[CapnFungi]

Imagine a pack of wild dogs!

the alpha male will compete with the other males to keep power over the pack.. These competitions may result in a few bites, that doesn't mean that the alpha male then consumed the dog(s) that lost.

Not to mention! How often do you find a complete fossil remains of an animal that was consumed by other animals.. Chances are that if the fossil had bitemarks on it that the animal in question wasn't consumed by another animal.. If that were the case there would not have been any fossils..

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
I'm still working on my ark-size analysis, but I had to respond to this. Please answer directly: Do fossils exist that have teeth marks on them?

I don't know. Can you show me one?

Are such fossils from Noah's flood?

I don't know.

If you answered yes to both questions, please explain the reason there are animal teeth marks on fossils if the animals were all vegetarians?

First off, I'm not conceding that there are bite marks in fossils. I've read that there are, but I've never seen one, so I can't say for sure. There may be. Nonetheless, I'll offer a tentative explanation.

Animals bite when they fight. This doesn't mean they're trying to eat each other. They may be fighting over a mate, or trying to drive a competitor away from a food source.

I've never heard a YE'r explain this, so I look forward to your answer.

What do you think?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I don't know. Can you show me one?

Here's a recent example:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/photogalleries/majungatholus/photo3.html

I don't know.

Does this mean you allow for the existence of fossils that have nothing to do with the period of Noah's flood? I'm starting to see signs of hope

First off, I'm not conceding that there are bite marks in fossils. I've read that there are, but I've never seen one, so I can't say for sure.

You've never seen an ark filled with 30,000 animals floating around an entire globe covered with water, but you seem quite sure about that.

Animals bite when they fight.

So you require a reasonable mechanism to distinguish between a mere bite (during battle) and a gnawing action used to remove meat from the bone? I think that's reasonable. Any Paleo-pathologists around?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Here's a recent example:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/photogalleries/majungatholus/photo3.html

All I see are mangled bones. These marks may or may not be tooth marks.

Does this mean you allow for the existence of fossils that have nothing to do with the period of Noah's flood?

Sure. Ever seen a fly caught in amber?

I'm starting to see signs of hope

What are you hoping for?

You've never seen an ark filled with 30,000 animals floating around an entire globe covered with water, but you seem quite sure about that.

I believe the word of God.

So you require a reasonable mechanism to distinguish between a mere bite (during battle) and a gnawing action used to remove meat from the bone? I think that's reasonable. Any Paleo-pathologists around?

I dunno. I haven't seen any around here, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone showing up making that claim.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by CapnFungi Chances are that if the fossil had bitemarks on it that the animal in question wasn't consumed by another animal.. If that were the case there would not have been any fossils.

Most fossils are not whole organism preservations (i.e. with flesh and soft parts). The bones of an animal (left over after they were somebodies dinner) can later be buried (rapid burial is NOT required) and still form a fossil. Ever seen a dog bury a bone after gnawing the meat off?

 

[CapnFungi]

1

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack What are you hoping for?

Nevermind, it's gone already.

I believe the word of God.

Actually, you believe your interpretation of the translation of a sub-set of ancient manuscripts written, edited, and copied by many anonymous people and selected by those in political power to be kept as sacred writings. But if you want to consider that the word of God, you are free to do that. I, on the other hand, am still waiting for some golden plates to descend from heaven in some obviously god-induced miracle.

I need to go back now and work on arranging my sheep in the ark. I think I've shown enough insite into fossils to this group for one day.

 

[ex_fundy]

Jack,

I have a question about those 30,000 animals that you envision on the ark. Since you preceded that estimate by saying the ark had room for 100,000 sheep-sized animals, I took that as you were inferring a sheep is a good mean-sized animal to use for calculations ("The Genesis Flood" - Witcomb & Morris use sheep). Will you accept that or will you discount all my calculations, claiming the mean animal size was way smaller than a sheep?

I've heard estimates ranging from a small dog up to a +700 lb animal for required mean size. I need to know what you'll accept before I spend more time arranging sheep and performing computations.

 

[NATEDOG]

There are fossils of extinct fish being eaten by bigger fish.
I saw that on an ICR video.

 

[D the Atheist]

Bob Enyart has made reference to the sand argument I postulated.

He has wilfully missed the point of the sand argument. Whether each grain is fungible (Equally interchangeable) or not is not the point. Every one of those grains of sand is very likely to be comprised of a differing number of sand molecules, shaped differently. They are individuals. The predictive chances that they end up in a 50 mile line up, geometrically positioned as they are, (Touching each other in particular ways) even as you say, from just one day before, is beyond calculation.

The main point is they have ended up in that order. And so have we.

Understanding the mathematics of life is something all religious people have knowledge of…don’t they? Why hasn’t this been accepted or rejected and explained to we mere mortals by the religious bystanders in the debate.

The reason is that dear Bob is on his own little planet de confusion about this.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Jack,

I have a question about those 30,000 animals that you envision on the ark. Since you preceded that estimate by saying the ark had room for 100,000 sheep-sized animals,

Actually I followed the estimate with the reminder that the Ark had room for over 100,000 sheep. Just trying to keep you honest here.

I took that as you were inferring a sheep is a good mean-sized animal to use for calculations ("The Genesis Flood" - Witcomb & Morris use sheep). Will you accept that or will you discount all my calculations, claiming the mean animal size was way smaller than a sheep?

Most of the animals were probably smaller than sheep, although a few were significantly larger. I think sheep-sized is a pretty fair estimate for a mean animal size.

I've heard estimates ranging from a small dog up to a +700 lb animal for required mean size. I need to know what you'll accept before I spend more time arranging sheep and performing computations.

Just show me your calculations, and I'll tell you if I agree or not. I'm pretty good at math.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
There are fossils of extinct fish being eaten by bigger fish.

Are you sure these are extinct fish? They thought the coelacanth was extinct for a long time, until somebody caught one.

I saw that on an ICR video.

I've seen a couple fish fossils where it appears as if a bigger fish had swallowed (or was in the act of swallowing) a smaller fish whole. I think I've even seen one where a fish looked like it was giving birth. But again, any flood carrying significant sedimentation has the potential to form fossils, especially fish fossils, since they already live in the water.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
Bob Enyart has made reference to the sand argument I postulated.

He has wilfully missed the point of the sand argument. Whether each grain is fungible (Equally interchangeable) or not is not the point.

It is the point, because it shows the flaw in your argument. You can't compare a beach composed of fungible elements with a biological life form. You start throwing proteins together willy-nilly, all you're going to get is a mess.

 

[D the Atheist]

"all you're going to get is a mess."

This is a statement - not a proof!

 

[D the Atheist]

Arguments concerning the causation for the beginning of life are all highly speculative at best. Life does exist, so it happens. To jump to a god was that cause is no different to stating that an infinite number of universes (Or something else) were the cause. Even Bob would agree that an infinite number of universes would produce life. An independent argument for causation is not yet resolvable without the above or similar additions.

It is best to leave it alone and stop making up answers and making out we do know, as we do not have enough information.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It is the point, because it shows the flaw in your argument. You can't compare a beach composed of fungible elements with a biological life form. You start throwing proteins together willy-nilly, all you're going to get is a mess.

Which ONLY shows that the "assumed" mechanism, does NOT work that way, neither has any scientific theory claimed that it WOULD work that way!

Moreover: if we were to assume that the creation of mere imagination in the form of the totally absurd probabilistic mechanism that Mr Bob Enyard himself proposed (while the acknowledged and agreed statement was that NO EXACT mechanism or development process was conceived of yet) would also be the mechanism through which in everyday life DNA would reproduce itself, at the same way it could be proved that not a single DNA could ever reproduce itself!

If one states that the exact way and bio-chemical line of development in which nature had produced DNA and proteins is not yet known, then HOW CAN ONE MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS OF THAT MECHANISM THAT COULD FORM A BASIS FOR A CALCULABLE PROBABILISTIC APPROACH???

That is just willy-nilly. If you don't know the mechanism, neither you know of anything on which you can base a probabilistic approach!

It just shows only ONE thing. That nature did not work through as it was proposed in the 'default' mechanism: TOTAL RANDOM CHANCE.

So the argument is realy destroying itself. To assume total random chance is not how the mechanism can be conceived.

The flaw in the argument is not the "sand on the beach line up probability" but the flaw was in the assumption of mr Bob E made about a total random chance mechanism!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
"all you're going to get is a mess."

This is a statement - not a proof!

It's a fact.