@DeepThought
I'm not asking you believe any of this, I'm simply asking you to think about it. It doesn't matter if we believe the ability to reason evolved or was given by God, because we can both agree this ability exists. So In either case (God given or evolution) the ability to reason exists for a (presumably good) reason. And if you're wondering why I'm saying this it's because I'm asking you to think about it regardless of what you might or not might believe.
@DeepThought
As to how the event may have been precipitated, it likely would have began as tectonic plates under pressure breaking loose and beginning to separate (releasing fountains of underground water). I doubt that collapse of an ice canopy happening at the same time was a coincidence. A combination of fluctuations in the earth's EM field and shock waves traveling through the atmosphere might have been enough to disrupt the delicate ballance of forces (EM field and gravity) holding the canopy in place. There's usually an order to causality, so I doubt the various factors were not connected and just happened (by coincidence) independently of one another.
22 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidYou can reduce the amount of water needed to cover everything to 10m and it's still an unfeasably large amount of water. The next problem is that these events need to have happened since humans appeared on the scene. The first difficulty is that you need mountain ranges to have risen far too quickly. Then you need a mass extinction event linked to flooding. You need continents to race rather than drift. Species to radiate and repopulate a dead planet in next to no time. You need too many things to happen far too quickly. It really doesn't matter whether the events happened in the last 10Kyrs or the last 200Kyrs it's not realistic. All the details are wrong.An ice canopy is nowhere near enough
I didn't say an ice canopy can account for all of it, and there are other contributing factors.
[quote]2) underground cisterns of water.
3) the possibility that percentage of water covering the earth today is not the same as it was then.
4) land mass and ocean floor relatively smooth before movement of tectonic ...[text shortened]... today must have been squeezed into Noah's little ark.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it...
As an aside, I couldn't find anything about variations in air pressure over geological timescales, oxygen levels were different in different eras, so if the amount of oxygen in the air is higher than now smaller lungs would have sufficed.
@deepthought saidFirst of all, I wasn't disputing how long this would all take. I'm mostly interested in the mechanics of what might have happened and why. We could argue for years over timelines without any meeting of the minds, so I prefer to focus on the possible mechanics of a catastrophic event... including the extinction event proposed by evolutionists.
You can reduce the amount of water needed to cover everything to 10m and it's still an unfeasably large amount of water. The next problem is that these events need to have happened since humans appeared on the scene. The first difficulty is that you need mountain ranges to have risen far too quickly. Then you need a mass extinction event linked to flooding. You need ...[text shortened]... nt eras, so if the amount of oxygen in the air is higher than now smaller lungs would have sufficed.
And secondly I was talking about atmospheric pressure:
"the pressure exerted by the weight of the atmosphere, which at sea level has a mean value of 101,325 pascals (roughly 14.6959 pounds per square inch)"
This is significant because of studies showing the health benefits of spending time in a barometric chamber (hyperbaric medicine). It could also account for the size of plants and animals seen in fossil records, such as enormous dragonflys with 15 inch wing spans. I've seen nothing to suggest oxygen content was higher, but even if it was that alone wouldn't explain how pterodactyls were able to fly.
And by the way, if you add more water to present day earth to cover all but the tallest tippy tops of mountains, then yes...
that's WAY too much water. 😛
😐
23 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidFor oxygen content variation see the section on "third atmosphere". I assume the Wikipedia author isn't making it up.
First of all, I wasn't disputing how long this would all take. I'm mostly interested in the mechanics of what might have happened and why. We could argue for years over timelines without any meeting of the minds, so I prefer to focus on the possible mechanics of a catastrophic event... including the extinction event proposed by evolutionists.
And secondly I was talking ...[text shortened]... r all but the tallest tippy tops of mountains, then yes...
that's WAY too much water. 😛
😐
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Third_atmosphere
23 Feb 19
2 edits
@deepthought saidOkay, I'll concede there may have been more oxygen.
For oxygen content variation see the section on "third atmosphere". I assume the Wikipedia author isn't making it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Third_atmosphere
But this still doesn't explain how pterodactyls (or gigantic insects) were able to fly. I'm assuming you understand why I'm saying this, and not wondering why air density would be a factor. My point about barometric pressure also goes to what most believe were moderate to tropical conditions existing prior to a catastrophic event. I suspect living conditions (conditions amenable to life) existing now are probably a bit more harsh than they were then.
24 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidLift?
But this still doesn't explain how pterodactyls (or gigantic insects) were able to fly.
24 Feb 19
2 edits
@kazetnagorra saidYes, or pushing against molecules of air the way bumblebees do it. They tread air in much the same way someone in a swimming pool would tread water. Their relatively small size compared to molecules of air make it possible for them overcome gravity and 'fly' through the air. Greater density of air means more molecules of air to push against, which in turn would allow a much larger (heavier) insect to achieve flight.
Lift?
I ran across an article a few years ago where someone familiar with aerodynamics looked at the structure of pterodactyls and took into account probably weight... they obviously didn't fly like bumblebees, but more like birds. Anywho, he couldn't figure out how a pterodactyl could fly in our (present day) atmosphere, because according to his calculations it couldn't be done. But it could be done if air density was greater than it is now.
Right now I'm trying to imagine a gigantic hummingbird flying under present day conditions.
24 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidPterodactyls had a wingspan of around 1m, bald eagles have a wingspan of around 2m.
Yes, or pushing against molecules of air the way bumblebees do it. They tread air in much the same way someone in a swimming pool would tread water. Their relatively small size compared to molecules of air make it possible for them overcome gravity and 'fly' through the air. Greater density of air means more molecules of air to push against, which in turn would allow a muc ...[text shortened]... now.
Right now I'm trying to imagine a gigantic hummingbird flying under present day conditions.
24 Feb 19
@lemon-lime said
Yes, or pushing against molecules of air the way bumblebees do it. They tread air in much the same way someone in a swimming pool would tread water. Their relatively small size compared to molecules of air make it possible for them overcome gravity and 'fly' through the air. Greater density of air means more molecules of air to push against, which in turn would allow a muc ...[text shortened]... now.
Right now I'm trying to imagine a gigantic hummingbird flying under present day conditions.
looked at the structure of pterodactyls and took into account probably weight
I meant to say probable weight, not probably weight... they probably did have weight, but that's not what I meant.
I hate spotting mistakes after it's too late to edit.
24 Feb 19
1 edit
@kazetnagorra saidThat's interesting, I didn't know that. Which of the two have larger bodies?
Pterodactyls had a wingspan of around 1m, bald eagles have a wingspan of around 2m.
25 Feb 19
1 edit
There are relevant questions we can ask ourselves, such as...
Are there environmental conditions limiting an ability to fly?
What environmental conditions can enhance an ability to fly?
(these are two related questions)
This can lead to other questions, such as:
Under current conditions would a bat the size of a baby elephant be able to fly?
What (if any) size/weight limitations exist in todays environment prohibiting flight?
(again, two related questions)
26 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidThis might be make the list of worst analogies I've ever heard. Am I a ghost? Are you saying that the "missing link" fossil record was framed by a crooked prosecutor?
@wildgrass
Going back to what I said about PE (punctuated equilibrium)
Imagine you are being charged with murder. You were never there at the scene of the crime and there is no evidence of you being there, but the investigators strongly believe you were. So one of them makes the case you weren't there long enough to leave physical evidence. No finger prints, no hairs ...[text shortened]... who strongy believe that evidence used to exist... because after all, there is no other explanation.
26 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidOr, maybe the dog ate it. Maybe that's what happened to the evidence.
This might be make the list of worst analogies I've ever heard. Am I a ghost? Are you saying that the "missing link" fossil record was framed by a crooked prosecutor?
who knows?