Genetic problems with genesis, the great flood, etc

so its stubborn to agree with repeatable evidence, but not stubborn to just say "well the rules of nature must have changed at some point, because its impossible for me to be wrong". fine. have it your way. if the rules did change, what reason were they changed for? at what point did go just decide that inbreeding should all of a sudden become hazardous. you can argue isolated cases of tolearble inbreeding all day long, but we're talking about millions of species here that cannot tolerage inbreeding. Many species reproduce asexually, some even just divide, and no sexual exchange of gametes takes place. Method of reproduction can vary on what works best given the environmental situation of the animal, some fish even change sex to allow diversification. if the flood story were true, the only species here today would be the lizards in the middle of the desert, and those that reproduce asexually.at this point in the arguement, we must make certain assumtions, based on probable evidence. these assumptions are as follows:1. Inbreeding is hazardous to most species. we arrive on this assumption based on repeated evidence in the fossil record and in modern experiments. to say that inbreeding is not hazardous to most species is ignorant.2. The above statement is true now, and has always been true. we assume this because we have no evidence or even inkling of a reason that it would be differnt in any other situation. it makes no mention of the "rules changing" in the bible, and is consistent with the fossil record.so back to my point, take two random animals from the ark story, we'll say elephants. It's impossible to generate a sustainable population, comparable to that of today, from 2 initial animals. this is based on current evidence, and the above assumptions. until provable evidence is provided that would allow 2 animals to produce a large population is provided, we must assume it to be true. "because god said so" doesnt cut it in this type of arguement. thats like being convicted of murder in court and expecting the judge to let you off because you told him "well god told me to do it." he'd say.... "prove it." and since you couldnt, unless you had a cool signed letter from god saying "hi, i'd really like you to kill john doe. if you dont i'll be really pissed. best regards, god"

If you had bothered to be courteous enough to even bother reading my posts, you would have noted that I already gave the reason.Go back and read it, edit your post, and then I'll finish reading your post and consider responding.

you keep claiming there is no evidence that the rules of physics and the laws of nature have not changed, yet find one account in the history of man where a proven physical law just flip flopped. thats like saying at one point the world REALLY was flat, then since we belived it to be round, it magically turned into a sphere. the evidence i'm talking about is everysingle experiment ever performed in the history of mankind. each experiment has been conducted in the same set of rules. Given my LACK of evidence as you claim, whats your evidence that the rules DID change, except your word. at this point in the arguement, your point can be no better than the ramblings of a manaic, because its based solely on you saying so.

all you have stated is that the biblical text "implies" that maybe there was a change in what god thought was right vs. wrong. This is a moral issue, which has nothing to do with genitics unless you can make ANY BIBLICAL reference to where sexuality is indicative of genetics and vice versa. an implication thats not even concrete in the bible has nothing to do with reproduction of animals. does god's moral code doesnt even apply to animals? as they are considered below man, and man has authority over them, why would there be a reason to change genetic issues concerning incest with animals? and if its so wrong, then why are there examples of it being a sucessful reproduciton tactic today? There is no implication that incestuous behavior of animals is any of god's concern when in relation to man.This message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 02:55 PM

Sure we do; there's significant evidence from astronomy that the physical laws we observe here in the present day operate in areas very distant from here; because they are so distant in space, our observations constitute a record of the past.The idea that the uniformity of natural law is somehow "unproven" is ludicrously wrong. Moreover, it's the obvious conclusion from a model of an expanding universe.It's both predicted by model and confirmed by observation. The assertion of the uniformity of natural law is proven.

I laid the rationale for the change, and you didn't even read it, did you?Why talk with you further? My take on what the Bible states is there was a change. I also think the Bible speaks of changes in human biology/genetics in limiting lifespans. You say the biblical account is not evidence, but it is evidence. It is just evidence you choose to disbeleive not because you have evidence to disbeleive but out of incredulity.

There's also significant evidence that what we observe did not exist in the form we observe it until we observed it, thus making your point totally moot.This message has been edited by randman, 11-12-2005 02:59 PM

Please take this as a helpful hint.When you are replying to a message, look for the REPLY button to the bottom right of the message to which you are responding.I have noticed that you are sometime replying to yourself, but what you write looks as if the reply was intended for somebody else (randman for example). This happens when you push the "REPLY" button from a message other than the one to which you are replying.When you get it right, then while composing your reply you should see the text of the message to which you are responding. This text will be a little below the edit window. That makes it easier to cut and paste if you want to quote some text.If you wish to respond to this message, please use the appropriate link below. Don't respond in this current thread.

---

Hi, beLIEve. Randman has a notion that "the past is not static". He likes to invoke a "fip-flop" in the space-time continuum (or whatever) to hand-wave away any evidence that he doesn't like. He claims it's based on physics, but I haven't seen him defend his views in the physics forum yet. Just to let you know, it doesn't pay to get too caught up in his imaginings. Suffice it to say, he doesn't have any evidence that there was a "change". He just wishes there was.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

i think you've got a big problem when it comes to deciding something is "evidence". look at it like a pile of grenades.say you find a book thats says "grednades will not blow up if you pull the pin out and shove them down your pants". lots of other people read this book, say its all good, and true, and form a religion over it. so one day you come up to a pile of grenades, and figure, hey why not, that book said its all good. so you throw a couple live grenades in your pants. so you wake up in the hospital a week later with no legs and or genitals.say instead, you sat around and blew up 1000 grenades, about 950 of which blew up, the other 50 were duds. you come up to a pile of grenades and say "hey, the last time i saw something like this, it blew up all crazy 95% of the time, maybe i wont throw those grenades in my pants.what would you consider better evidence? and look where it got you.evidence is a strong word. becareful how you use it. what something IS and what you BELIEVE something is can be very different. believing a grenade will not blow up because you read it somewhere doesnt get you very far. especailly if you dont have any legs or genitals.This message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 03:26 PMThis message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 03:28 PM

No, there's really not. I realize you interpret quantum mechanics as a scientific loophole for magic, but that's only because you don't understand it.Nice try, though. Funny.

Yes. This is noticeable from just looking at the O.T and N.T. What it could also mean is that religion changes, as it is a cultural-invention which renders it in the light that it must evolve or die out. So someone makes a new dogma, for people to follow.In this case, it was acceptable for Abraham to marry his half-sister. Nowadays it would be frowned upon, hence the religions would probably advise against it. But because homosexuality is now not frowned upon, the religions will probably move to accept it in order to survive.One thing that seems ludicrous, is that God seems to okay these changes, no matter how contrary to his set of rules. He seems to okay it if it's okay for our survival. Hmmm, sounds like people wanting to survive to me, and the magic meme thereof. Evidence of what? Stupidity?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-12-2005 08:20 PM

By that logic, if you observe me today, I didn't exist in that form untill you observed me.What a ridiculously arrogant thought; that something can't exist in a state, untill you look at it.I think his point is extremely far from "moot" if he speaks fourth dimensionally, in that looking into space is to look back in time, farther out.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-12-2005 08:31 PM

ROFLOL. Try Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. and note the correlations between the various dating methods. That's based on the length of a day from astronomy and from daily coral growth layers and radiometric dating agreeing not only on the age of the earth but on the consistency of basic physical properties.Now to say that this is not evidence you need to refute the whole thread. Go ahead: see if you can do it, take the link and demonstrate your knowledge. Or consider yourself refuted, both in your comment above and in your concept of a changed universe. But where does it specifically state that things behaved significantly differently and at what times in the past?Or is this just your interpretation that leads you to your conclusion?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not until "you" observe it, but until "one" observes it, meaning until it is observed. Hope that makes it clear, and considering one of the advocates that QM demonstrates this idea is a giant in the field of physics, I tend to think the ridiculously arrogant thought is to hand-waive away what he claims the science shows.