New Creationist theory on how life sp...

New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1 Aug 25, 2013
From this article:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Post-Diluvian_Di...
Volcanoes
The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking.
And a video explaining it:

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#2 Aug 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
From this article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Post-Diluvian_Di...
<quoted text>
And a video explaining it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4mjmGbfyPPUXX
Love the video. When you put reality behind the some of these bizarre ideas of fundamentalists, they fall apart quickly. They are funny ideas though.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3 Aug 25, 2013
I wonder how long that particular paragraph will be on the Conservapedia site. They must have some people who watch "the enemy" and he or she will probably react to the video by making that delightful little gem disappear.

Let's hope not. It could be a source of laughter for years to come.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#4 Aug 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I wonder how long that particular paragraph will be on the Conservapedia site. They must have some people who watch "the enemy" and he or she will probably react to the video by making that delightful little gem disappear.
Let's hope not. It could be a source of laughter for years to come.
I hope they keep it on the site too. It is comedy gold and I look forward to seeing it referenced in future debates.

I don't advocate animal cruelty, but just the idea that some fundamentalist may be considering experiments in animal ballistics to support this insane idea volcanic transport makes me laugh.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5 Aug 25, 2013
Sub I have to admit that made me laugh. Crazy people exist on both sides of the fence but that doesn't mean they are all crazy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Aug 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Sub I have to admit that made me laugh. Crazy people exist on both sides of the fence but that doesn't mean they are all crazy.
And yet this idea is "respected" enough to be in Conservapedia.

If an evolutionist had claimed this without some sort of evidence I am sure that every creationist out there would have called him a liar and said this was a strawman argument.

And I don't think you can find any claim as crazy as this coming from the evolution side. You will note that no one has tried to defend this.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#7 Aug 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet this idea is "respected" enough to be in Conservapedia.
If an evolutionist had claimed this without some sort of evidence I am sure that every creationist out there would have called him a liar and said this was a strawman argument.
And I don't think you can find any claim as crazy as this coming from the evolution side. You will note that no one has tried to defend this.
Yes and no. Science claims many weird things as well. For example;

Scientists claim to have figured out the evolution of monogamy.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/29/scienti...

Now in humans monogamy probably came about through morals, money, ridicule, fear of dying old alone, status etc etc. If all the above were not a factor then most humans would probably run around breeding like dogs and cats when ever and where ever they could. But then again many still do.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#8 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and no. Science claims many weird things as well. For example;
Scientists claim to have figured out the evolution of monogamy.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/29/scienti...
Now in humans monogamy probably came about through morals, money, ridicule, fear of dying old alone, status etc etc. If all the above were not a factor then most humans would probably run around breeding like dogs and cats when ever and where ever they could. But then again many still do.
First of all, monogamy is not a standard practice. It's prevalent HERE in the US, but there are plenty of other places where alternatives are practiced.

Second, your list of reasons for monogamy reads like a list of things a ethnocentric egotist could claim to support anything they believe in.

There is _NOTHING_ inherently moral about monogamy. Some of the richest people in the world practice polygamy. Ridicule can not happen if it's not already normative behavior. Fear of dying alone is ridiculous, as most cultures worldwide have been close knit communities up until the industrial revolution, and "status" is a meaningless claim given that people of both high and low status get married.

Lastly your claim that monogamy keeps people from breeding is just nuts. Look at the friggin Duggars. Monogamous couple with 16 kids.

Once again you are talking out your ass.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#9 Aug 28, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, monogamy is not a standard practice. It's prevalent HERE in the US, but there are plenty of other places where alternatives are practiced.
Second, your list of reasons for monogamy reads like a list of things a ethnocentric egotist could claim to support anything they believe in.
There is _NOTHING_ inherently moral about monogamy. Some of the richest people in the world practice polygamy. Ridicule can not happen if it's not already normative behavior. Fear of dying alone is ridiculous, as most cultures worldwide have been close knit communities up until the industrial revolution, and "status" is a meaningless claim given that people of both high and low status get married.
Lastly your claim that monogamy keeps people from breeding is just nuts. Look at the friggin Duggars. Monogamous couple with 16 kids.
Once again you are talking out your ass.
Yes some of the richest do practice polygamy,,, I believe I said money.

The Duggers have 16 kids between them. That is great. Odds are if they were both out sleeping with others they would have 16 more. Covered that in breeding like cats and dogs. Thus they don't just go around breeding everything, they keep it between them.

Close knit community. Do the people in your community come over and eat dinner with you, watch movies with you, sleep with you, have sex with you, spend days upon days with you (if so many others will want to move there) Again the fear of being alone. I have heard several people that are older but not happy in their marriage say they stay in it because they don't want to start over and for the fear of not finding anyone else at their age so they would rather stick where they are than to be alone.

And no I am not talking out of my @ss, I am talking to an @ss, You!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#10 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes some of the richest do practice polygamy,,, I believe I said money.
The Duggers have 16 kids between them. That is great. Odds are if they were both out sleeping with others they would have 16 more.
There's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about where babies come from.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#11 Aug 28, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about where babies come from.
Really?!?! I can show you many unmarried men and women that sleep around and have 5-8 kids each with none of them having the same two parents. John Doe has 6 kids with 6 different women. Jane Doe has 7 kids with 7 different Men. Back to the analogy of breeding like cats and dogs.

Now you are talking out of your @ss!

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#12 Aug 28, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about where babies come from.
And to be blunt. Babies come from f'ing, whether married or single but many of the single that sleep around have more than the married that stay only with each other. Again back to breeding like cats and dogs.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#13 Aug 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?!?! I can show you many unmarried men and women that sleep around and have 5-8 kids each with none of them having the same two parents. John Doe has 6 kids with 6 different women. Jane Doe has 7 kids with 7 different Men. Back to the analogy of breeding like cats and dogs.
Now you are talking out of your @ss!
Your claim was that Mrs. Duggar (who has something like 16 kids) would have twice as many kids if she was sleeping around...

Start doing the math on how long it takes for her to pump out a kid.

We'll all wait... How long do you think you're gonna need on this one? Two weeks?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#14 Aug 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?!?! I can show you many unmarried men and women that sleep around and have 5-8 kids each with none of them having the same two parents.
The average American male sleeps with approx 6 women.
The average American male does not have 5-8 children.

I don't care if you can show me 1 guy who has 10 children. He is the exception, not the rule.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#15 Aug 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And to be blunt. Babies come from f'ing, whether married or single but many of the single that sleep around have more than the married that stay only with each other. Again back to breeding like cats and dogs.
The facts contradict your claim.

The majority of Americans have the majority of their children with something they are in a long term relationship with.

Your exceptions are exactly that.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#16 Aug 29, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim was that Mrs. Duggar (who has something like 16 kids) would have twice as many kids if she was sleeping around...
Start doing the math on how long it takes for her to pump out a kid.
We'll all wait... How long do you think you're gonna need on this one? Two weeks?
Wrong!!!! My claim was if they both were sleeping with others they could have had 16 more. It al could fall up on the male. It only takes him a movie and 25 minutes to make child. In the 9 moths the women carries a child he could knock up another woman every day if he wanted to. So if he bred freely and daily, in the nine months for his wife to have a child he could have 100's more ready to be born.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#17 Aug 29, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts contradict your claim.
The majority of Americans have the majority of their children with something they are in a long term relationship with.
Your exceptions are exactly that.
Exactly like I said. They have kids in marriages instead of breeding like cats and dogs all over the neighborhood and having kids everywhere. Thanks for making my point.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#18 Aug 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong!!!! My claim was if they both were sleeping with others they could have had 16 more. It al could fall up on the male.
Re-read what you are saying and realize why the word "both" is useless.

This is like me saying: "If both Dwayne Johnson and Clint Eastwood made ten movies, the world would have ten more movies featuring Dwayne Johnson."

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#19 Aug 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly like I said. They have kids in marriages instead of breeding like cats and dogs all over the neighborhood and having kids everywhere. Thanks for making my point.
I don't think you understand what your post it.

Like more Creationists, your thinking is profoundly muddled.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#20 Aug 29, 2013
This gave me a few giggles:

http://dontpkethebear.com/uncategorized/if-hi...

The Church's meltdown even sounds just like our buddy Replay.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Dogen 78,725
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 163,037
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Eagle 12 - 32,457
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 7 hr Eagle 12 - 1,411
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 hr Regolith Based Li... 222,225
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Sat Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web