where else can you find us?

The League of Reason still has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 31 posts ] 
Vegetation and Noah's Flood
Author Message
leroyPosts: 648Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Collecemall wrote:I've seen all sorts of discussions about the flood and different ways that it is disproved but I've not seen a good treatment discussing land vegetation and how it would factor in the discussion. Other than it would be near impossible for plants to live underwater for a year. I would be interested in seeing how flood proponents explain why we don't see more of a random distribution of plant species. There would after all be seeds floating vast distances and mingling of various fauna back and forth between continents etc. Since this isn't what we see I'm curious how they deal with this if at all. I've seen crazy shit about animals flying through the atmosphere via volcano eruptions but me thinks this would be even more difficult to explain away. Is anyone aware of where I might find a discussion like this? Or is this something one of you brainiacs would want to do a blog topic on perhaps?



well, how do you explain that fact? (assuming there was no flood)



I would say that we find cactus in dry climates because they are better adapted for dry climates, and pine trees in cold weathers because they are adapted for such weather.


this explanation is valid regardless if you believe in flood or not.


in a sense there is some mystery regarding the distribution of animals and plants, for example we find snakes, lizards, bugs, (and all sorts of land animals) in distant islands and no one knows how they got there, but that is a mystery regardless if yo believe in a flood or not.
Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”
Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:36 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1148Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

leroy wrote:

well, how do you explain that fact? (assuming there was no flood)



I would say that we find cactus in dry climates because they are better adapted for dry climates, and pine trees in cold weathers because they are adapted for such weather.


this explanation is valid regardless if you believe in flood or not.


in a sense there is some mystery regarding the distribution of animals and plants, for example we find snakes, lizards, bugs, (and all sorts of land animals) in distant islands and no one knows how they got there, but that is a mystery regardless if yo believe in a flood or not.


This only shows how ignorant you are about science. You don't know what you're rejecting. Your faith tells you to reject science without even knowing anything about it.

Let me rephrase that.

Why are you expecting anyone to take your arguments seriously if you're showing utter ignorance of the subject? To disprove science, you first have to know what science says on the given topic.

As many here have said before, you're argument is from ignorance.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:27 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 640Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

leroy wrote:I would say that we find cactus in dry climates because they are better adapted for dry climates, and pine trees in cold weathers because they are adapted for such weather.

Looks like leroy accepts evolution now?
Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:06 am
thenexttodiePosts: 479Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Visaki wrote:
I've always thought that the first time these apologists that try to use sciency fluff to back up their fairy tale are cornered and use magic of any sort as an excuse they forfeit their right to be taken seriously, because magic is a non answer and a dishonest escape clause for all their claims.

So I'd be careful and think hard before uttering the words "well God can do anything" or the like if you want to be taken seriously in this crowd.


Did I even mention God anywhere in this thread?
Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:31 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 479Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Collecemall wrote:I've seen all sorts of discussions about the flood and different ways that it is disproved but I've not seen a good treatment discussing land vegetation and how it would factor in the discussion. Other than it would be near impossible for plants to live underwater for a year.


BTW, plants can and do grow without soil. I'm sure you have heard of hydroponics before. And there are plants that grow underwater. Google seaweed.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:43 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 640Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

thenexttodie wrote:Did I even mention God anywhere in this thread?

My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather people in general, as a though how biblical literalists will often, when pressed, resort to claims of magic when defending their favorite fantasy novel and running out of sciensy sounding things to say. With the first invocation of magic you really do loose your right to try and use evidence (and I use that term very, very loosely) to defend your position because it opens a Pandoras Box of unfalsifiable excuses.

thenexttodie wrote:BTW, plants can and do grow without soil. I'm sure you have heard of hydroponics before. And there are plants that grow underwater. Google seaweed.

Not only do I know hydroponics, I do hydroponics (with chilis mainly). Almost all land vegetation will die if their rootsystem is flooded for a long period of time, saltwater will kill it even faster. Hydroponic growing takes a very specific set of circumstances to work and I have a hard time believing that a global flood provides those.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:02 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3104Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Visaki wrote:
leroy wrote:I would say that we find cactus in dry climates because they are better adapted for dry climates, and pine trees in cold weathers because they are adapted for such weather.

Looks like leroy accepts evolution now?


Dandan/leroy as always accepted evolution, he just refuses to call it that. His problem has always been with universal common descent and deep time. This is not only true for dandan/leroy, but true for all modern creationist.

Image


Speaking of cacti and deserts;

Wikipedia - Cactus wrote:
Image


Distribution of cacti; blue=Rhipsalis baccifera, green=all other cacti


Wikipedia - Deserts wrote:
Image


The world's largest non-polar deserts


Strange how those do not overlap 100% since we find cactus in dry climates.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:26 am
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 648Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Visaki wrote:
leroy wrote:I would say that we find cactus in dry climates because they are better adapted for dry climates, and pine trees in cold weathers because they are adapted for such weather.

Looks like leroy accepts evolution now?



I accept that organisms that are well adapted are more likely to survive and reproduce than those that aren't, everybody knew this since long before Darwin.
Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”
Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:13 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 193Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

leroy wrote:I would say that we find cactus in dry climates because they are better adapted for dry climates, and pine trees in cold weathers because they are adapted for such weather.
Visaki wrote:Looks like leroy accepts evolution now?

I accept that organisms that are well adapted are more likely to survive and reproduce than those that aren't, everybody knew this since long before Darwin.


Darwin was the first one to recognize the connection of the following factors, which became the first working mechanism that explains how organisms evolves.

1. Within a reproductive population, no two individuals are identical. (genetic variation)
2. The environment can only support a limited population - not all individuals survive long enough to reproduce at their full potential and environmental factors determine what traits are favorable and the individuals with those traits are more likely to survive the conditions that it finds itself in and thus more likely to reproduce. (differential reproduction)
3. Offspring tend to exhibit the same characteristics as their parents - traits are passed on from parent to offspring. (heredity)

End result: Traits that are favorable by the environment are more frequently passed on the the next generation, thus the frequency of occurrence of this trait within the population will increase each generation until it reaches 100%, unless the environmental conditions change.
(Natural selection)

No one knew this before Darwin, well Alfred R. Wallace discovered the same things more or less at the same time independently, but Darwin began hi and she research much earlier.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:56 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 479Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Visaki wrote:My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather people in general, as a though how biblical literalists will often, when pressed, resort to claims of magic when defending their favorite fantasy novel and running out of sciensy sounding things to say. With the first invocation of magic you really do loose your right to try and use evidence (and I use that term very, very loosely) to defend your position because it opens a Pandoras Box of unfalsifiable excuses.


Well, thank you.





Visaki wrote:Not only do I know hydroponics, I do hydroponics (with chilis mainly). Almost all land vegetation will die if their rootsystem is flooded for a long period of time, saltwater will kill it even faster. Hydroponic growing takes a very specific set of circumstances to work and I have a hard time believing that a global flood provides those.


I think you have much harder burden to bear in proving vegetation was a symptom of planet completely void of life. No?

Hydroponics isn't hard. My wife does it. And she does it all wrong and it still works.

Seeds can survive a flood. Tons of vegetation would survive too. People make islands out of floating vegetation. And there are volcanic islands full of green growing things.
Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:33 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 493Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Vegetation and Noah's Flood

Just going to put this here.

Also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/29/the-first-39-problems-with-the-noahs-ark-story/

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

It is far more likely that this flood story was handed down orally before the Bible works were collected, translated, re-translated, etc describing the Mesopotamian floods which at that time in human history Mesopotamia was considered "the world".

Anyone trying to shoehorn a global flood into history refuses the see the overwhelming evidence across multiple sciences to the contrary. A creationist must not only invoke several logical fallacies to make this all fit to reality, but they must also enter into the slippery slope of the Bible must be "all true or none of it is." In the same vein that New York exists, I can also know that Spiderman actually doesn't really exist as depicted in Marvel comics. Just because places and events exists in a book doesn't mean the entire book is based in truth or facts.

I dare anyone to play a game of "Telephone" for 16 centuries and come up with the same story you started with.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:33 am
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 31 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest