Talk:Life and the global flood

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Does this page represent the merging of The Great Flood and the food web and Post flood animal survival, @DiamondDisc1? Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bongolian Yes.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Days of the flood[edit]

If the inconsistencies are intentional they should be more overtly so.

Perhaps there could be a brief overview of the likely consequences of 'the great flood' (recollections of a number of which in different geographical areas 'in our great-grandparents' days' are likely to have been fused together by various tribes meeting up and playing 'we and our ancestors have had a harder time than you and yours so we deserve a better deal' which was turned into the global flood). Anna Livia (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion with pro-flood fellow[edit]

Not to seem like a completely helpless, uninformed little dweeb, but guys, can you help me out? I linked this page to a guy who believes the flood happened, to which he replied:

"1.he said many plants would die out and algae would most likely die. A. Some plants could survive on floating vegetation mats and algae would have a slim chance but still could 2. He said soil salination would be a problem A. Remeber if the fresh water from under the earth came it could be more than the salt watee draatically bringing down the salination B. "Leaching may reduce salinity levels in the absence of artificial drains when there is sufficient natural drainage, i.e. the pondedwater drains without raising thewater table. Leaching should preferably be done when the soilmoisture content is low and the groundwater table is deep." Yeah the cracks where the water came from is sufficent natural drainage. He obviously didn't do his research ;) 4.yeah it would destroy many seeds but there would still be seeds. 5 he quotes " They are the most diverse group of animals on the planet and include approximately 2,200 species of praying mantis, 5,000 dragonfly, 20,000 grasshopper, 82,000 true bug, 120,000 fly, 110,000 bee, wasp, ant and sawfly, 170,000 butterfly and moth, and 360,000 beetle species described to date. The number of extant species is estimated at between six and ten million, with over a million species already described." But creationists believe in kind so he willfully ignored us so he could make a strawman. Insects are small and since it's 2 of every kind they could fit 6. Changes in salinity would have killed many of the fish.[5] Most marine life cannot survive in water of reduced salinity, and likewise most freshwater creatures cannot tolerate increased salinity. This is a simple fact due to the nature of their evolved osmotic membranes, which tend to allow water itself to move in only one direction - into the animal in salt water, and out of it in fresh water. True many species of fish would die. But as we said over the generation through natural selection creatures get more specialized. That means many fish kinds may have been able to stay in both(just like many can today). He is assuming animals were the same today as back then 7. His links to the speed of the water never led to where is claimed so we don't know where he got that speed from 8. Yeah most coral reefs would have been destroyed but there os evidence that they can grow back fast under the right conditions.(not to mention since the bible never said noah's flood was 4500 years ago so were had time for them to grow back) 9. *Pressure fluctuation[edit]

The flood would have caused a fluctuation in the water pressure that would kill many animal species either from decompression or excess pressure.* [10]

True but many ocean creatures could still survive 10. "Every plant would have died during the 376-day flood.[12] There is no way the animals could have remained alive long enough for the plants to grow back." Grass can grow within days so he lied here(not to mention they could eat dead plants) while the grass was growing back 11."This is completely impossible, since medium size corpses can fully decay under optimal conditions in 50 days,[17] while corpses underwater will decay about twice as slowly,[18] so the vast majority of the corpses would have been completely decomposed by the termination of the Ark's voyage. The picture on the right shows what happens to a chicken's corpse after just a few weeks. In any event, the carnivores would have been unable to get at any corpses because they would have been buried under sediment." A. Not all would be buried under sediment B. Many carnivores in hard time have been observed eating plants C. Again "In tropical waters such as the Arabian sea, it’s a different story. Even a weighted body will normally float to the surface after three or four days, exposing it to sea birds and buffeting from the waves. Putrefaction and scavenging creatures will dismember the corpse in a week or two and the bones will sink to the seabed. There they may be slowly buried by marine silt or broken down further over months or years, depending on the acidity of the water." so all those salted dead bodies would last months so he lied. 12."There is no need to spell out the problems of land animals swimming vast oceans or traveling across deserts and mountain ranges, finding appropriate food (and avoiding being eaten) and establishing viable populations." How hypocritical! Evolutionist propose solutions to these problems themselves to explain many distributions. 13.genetic diversity isn't a problem. With many available new niches natural selection would make quicky work forming rapid speciation as we see in many places. 14."A lot of animals have very specific habitat needs. Pandas, for instance only eat bamboo, which is part of a very delicate ecosystem. The flood would have killed all the bamboo, so even if they survived the journey, they would still have starved. Many other species on the ark would also become extinct because their food supply would be damaged, their habitat destroyed, or simply of the stress of coming into a place they are not used to. This can happen to wild animals brought into captivity, so if even that can stress animals to that degree, imagine what would happen if their habitats had been so drastically altered, or, as is much more likely, completely obliterated. All in all, the flood is bullshit." A.Yeah we know many creatures would become extinct that's the piont B. That is assuming pandas and many of those specialized creatures were speciatized before the ark 15. He went over food availablitly already and is just trying to stretch the list 16.again he went over the first part here already and yeah the soil would be disrupted but it would still be there. 17."Flood requires adding some 3.3 times the Earth's existing supply of water to what was originally there to begin with, it follows that the salinity of the Flood would be significantly reduced" OH!! So he ignored this when he was trying to make points earlier but used it now when he thinks it might benefit him. "From lots of salt to practically no salt within 40 days: For creatures that are adapted to a saline environment, this is a recipe for extinction. Once the plankton and phytoplankton are gone, all creatures which feed on them starve to death, followed by all creatures which eat plankton-feeders, followed by…

End result: The oceans become just as dead as the land." Again he admitted that ocean currents would be at the bottom of the sea before. These currents would circulate the heavier salt water solving the salinity problem. So again he ignores and includes parts only when he likes it. 18. Again he went over this point before but he repeats many points so his list can look longer. So he is proven to be a liar and deceptive ;)" =====

There is a bit of a language barrier, because English is my second language, and I don't know all the right terminologies, and sometimes I find it a bit difficult to structure sentences that does justice to my actual thought processes, so... A little help? ^^' — Unsigned, by: Ninclow / talk / contribs