Talk:Plants could have survived the Flood (Talk.Origins)

Post comment,
or browse more talk.

Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

The repeated resorting to the option of post-flood adaptation - particularly when no evidence of such adaptation is presented - is effectively agreeing that existing plants could not have survived the flood.

Oh, and the first passage described as a 'strawman argument' is not. Roy 20:08, 13 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Regarding the plants, you are correct (at least as a generalisation). But then nobody is claiming that existing plants (as opposed to the plants that were around prior to the flood) survived the flood, are they? Philip J. Rayment 01:20, 14 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Actually, yes. I have personally been assured by a Mormon visitor that there are species of trees that are capable of surviving total immersion in salt water for a full year. But I was referring to existing species (or kinds) of plants, not the actual plants themselves. Roy 13:42, 17 Dec 2004 (GMT)

But what the article is saying is that the existing species have adapted from the kinds that survived the flood, so it is not valid to look at existing species to see if they are capable of surviving the flood. Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 17 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I know; you'd have to look at the plants that were around at the time, if they were different to those existing now. But the claim cited concerns whether existing species could have survived the flood, not whether their ancestral species could have. (I may have misinterpreted your intent earlier as to whether you were talking about species or specimens - if so I apologise). Roy 13:29, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)