Thursday, March 9, 2017

How Plants Survived the Flood

How Plants Survived the Flood

Many biblical stories are commonly known throughout the world, even to those who are not Christians. One of the most known stories is Noah’s Ark, where a 600 year old man takes two of every animal onto a giant boat, and the whole world floods for an extended amount of time. Anyone with a basic background in general biology knows that this is not possible due to genetic diversity issues, habitat limitations, and just a general lack of space and resources.  The author of the article “How Did Plants Survive and Disperse after the Flood?” tries to give scientific reason behind the flood through the nature of plants.
The article starts off with basic facts about different types of seed dispersal in plants. By keeping it simple the author is able to speak to any reader because it is easy to understand, but since she does not go too far into depth it shows that she may not have a deep understanding of plant biology. The author then gives a convincing example about date palm seeds that were dug up during an excavation of Herod the Great’s palace. The date seeds were believed to be from between 155 BC to AD 64. These seeds were planted and eventually sprouted trees that survived to pollination. By giving this example the author is trying to say that if seeds can survive in a jar for thousands of years, then they should be able to survive a flood as well. The author continues to talk about seed dispersal by animals including fish, and through floating debris and vegetation. The article is wrapped up by saying these along with the hardy nature and reproductive ability of plants is what gave them the ability to survive the flood.
Although the author never went too in depth with the information she provided, all of her facts were accurate and scientifically backed. For those who are very religious and believe that the flood happened, this article could be very convincing proof. For those who know more about the limitations in biology, this article is just another creationist story drawing upon real scientific facts to prove a point.

http://www.edupic.net/Images/Plants/aquatic_plants12.JPG


Posted by Hannah Jordan (Group 2, week 5)

11 comments:

  1. A lot of fake news seems to be from this creationist standpoint and I think that these viewpoint gets a lot of backing due to the religious affiliation. I think that you're completely right in the sense that because the author doesn't go in to too much depth about the subject it shows her lack of knowledge. Although it may make the article easier to read, it should jump out to scientists that this article is completely fake. Thanks for your post!

    Posted by: Kate Masterson (Group C)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although all of the author's facts were scientifically backed, she still did not provide enough details to make this article convincing to an educated scientist. Also, her comment about seeds surviving in a jar being similar to surviving the conditions of a flood is a stretch.

    Posted by Sierra Tyrol

    ReplyDelete
  3. From a scientific standpoint, it really does seem like it's a stretch to compare a plant surviving in a jar to surviving flood conditions. To me, there seems to be other factors that could play a role. From a religious standpoint, however, I think the author was trying to show others that science can back up the stories told in the Bible and that it is true.
    Posted by Ana Carolina Nepomuceno

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely agree that from a religious standpoint the author was trying to explain how plants could have survived the flood through science. I think she does a good job of providing plenty of evidence but it is still not enough to convince someone with a scientific background.
      Posted by Hannah Jordan

      Delete
  4. The topic of Noah's Arc and the start of life forms on earth in general is always very controversial. I'm glad to have read your blog. I myself always saw it from a very biological standpoint: It does not make sense. As Ana has mentioned in her comment, an article like this can help support religious standpoints because it does not go further into depth. The further we dig, the more we begin to realize as scientists that this is not very accurate or reasonable. Everyone has their own reasons for their own beliefs. It seems that this article is not unfactual information but rather limited information leading people to possibly favor ideas that are not entirely scientific and based more so on beliefs.

    Posted by Anna Potorski

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love these kinds of articles. When it comes to defending outdated ideology, the limits of creativity are definitely pushed. Have you seen the articles people write about the bombardier beetle? It's similar in that, like most of this creationist propaganda, it's another deductive fallacy. I've got to give it to them, the dedication to hawking absolute trash reasoning is impressive. For example, groups like Creation Ministries International appear to have a decent budget as the production quality of their videos is surprisingly decent.

    Posted by Owen Mulledy; Group C

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Anna that this article is considered fake news not because of the lack of factual information, but the limited information and the way that the available information is presented that lead people to favor ideas that may not be entirely scientific. A bit of a ridiculous example, but it reminds me of a scene from Monty Python where a group of people deduct that since witches and wood both burn, witches must be made of wood. And since wood and ducks float, they must be the same weight. So if a woman weighed the same as a duck, she must be made of wood and therefore be a witch. Again, a bit of a stretch but that's what this article reminded me of. The situation is much less ridiculous, but the idea of using limited information to lead people to ideas not entirely accurate or scientific seems similar.

    Posted by Haley Huang, Group A

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I love the reference to Monty Python, there are definitely some parallels between the two. I think it shows how factual information can be manipulated to work in someone's favor.
      Posted by Hannah Jordan

      Delete