|
Author
|
Topic: The Post-Noah's Flood Period is Explained by Evolution
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
Message 46 of 66 (467324)
05-20-2008 9:43 PM
|
|
|
Replay of topic's message 1
Jenifer writes: Please see Message 2 for a clarfication of the topic of discussion. --Admin Now, I admit to being a rank amateur when it comes to this debate, but I've been aware of it my whole life. Whenever you see this in the news, it's always been an either/or debate, as if God's Creation couldn't evolve. Why have people made this assumption? My ideas run this way, and you can agree or disagree. I'd like to hear both sides of the argument, frankly. First know that I take the Bible quite literally, unless the passage states specifically that it is speaking in metaphor. So I believe that God created the world by His will alone. God, therefore, wrote the rules that nature abides by. Those rules include evolution! If nature, which has no will of its own, can change itself, it can only do so because God allowed it to do so. The changes have been documented. They have occurred, so it is obvious that God allows evolution to occur. Now, with the flood, God knew that Noah could only do so much. He couldn't possibly build a boat big enough to house dinosaur species along with the cattle, cats and critters. He had to be selective, but still give the individuals, both animal and human, enough genetic diversity to repopulate the Earth and end up with healthy populations. He chose the smaller of the two types of pachyderms, leaving the mammoth to become extinct. He chose the smaller birds, leaving the dinosaurs to become extinct. He chose the smaller insect species, leaving giant dragonflies and mosquitoes to die out (which I am thankful for). But to ensure that these representatives of their species would be enough to repopulate the Earth, mutation would have had to occur almost immediately! We see this mechanism at work even today when a population becomes isolated. The Florida Panther, a type of cougar, became isolated by human encroachment and hunting. Then people started noticing that it was changing. It developed a cowlick along it's back and a kink in its tail. The mimic octopus of Indonesia has mutated to give it extraordinary survival capabilities. So, that's my theory. God wrote the world using the language of science. Any takers? Admin, in message 2, writes: Hi Jenifer, I'm going to promote your thread, but I'm going to try to focus discussion so that I can release this as a science thread instead of a religious one, and so that the topic isn't too broad. So I'm going to change the title from "Why should Creation and Evolution be mutually exclusive?" to "The Post-Noah's Flood Period is Explained by Evolution", and I'm going to ask discussion to focus on just this topic. To everyone: The pre-Noah's flood period is off-limits, and geological issues are off-limits. Anyone who would like to discuss these topics should find other threads or propose new ones. Might the participants review the early part of this topic, and try debating the topic theme(s) as presented in message 1? Adminnemooseus
|
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: 08-17-2006
|
Re: Rahvin.........
Except that those alleged 500 stories share little other then water. A typical creationist fraud tactic is to argue that flood stories from across the planet are the same story. Too bad they forget that the source of the water, the extent of damage, who survived, what survived, how they managed to survive and the cause of the flood all vastly differ except for a mere handful of stories.
|
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 48 of 66 (467354)
05-21-2008 7:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Jenifer
05-10-2008 6:12 PM
|
|
God, therefore, wrote the rules that nature abides by. Those rules include evolution! If nature, which has no will of its own, can change itself, it can only do so because God allowed it to do so If there is a rule or law of evolution then it should be able to proven. We have the technology to map the genes of organisms. We should be able to track changes in every living thing back to an original ancestor. This seems an obvious exercise for biology. And will solve this controversy once and for all. Edited by LucyTheApe, : Markup
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Jenifer, posted 05-10-2008 6:12 PM | | Jenifer has not replied |
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
We should be able to track changes in every living thing back to an original ancestor. This seems an obvious exercise for biology. And will solve this controversy once and for all. This is lovely in theory but since the vast majority of species which have existed on earth are now extinct in most cases their DNA is irrecoverable. Therefore there is a growing wealth of genetic/genomic information on modern organism but a dearth of information on putative ancestral species. Modern technologies are helping to overcome this to some extent, as in the recent research on dinosuar proteins ( Organ et al, 2008). Protein sequencing is still an indirect way to study genetics but considerably more direct than looking at gross morphological traits. Even this however is limited and there are always going to be a majority of historical genetic sequences which we simply cannot directly sequence. This is why the reconstruction of ancestral genomes is performed by looking at similarities in conserved regions of extant genetic material. The patterns of conservation across all phyla certainly suggest common ancestry, but we are never going to be able to sequence the common ancestor of, for instance, all multicellular life (going on the large assumption that multicellularity arose only once). TTFN, WK
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-21-2008 7:46 AM | | LucyTheApe has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-21-2008 8:31 PM | | Wounded King has replied |
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5788 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
Re: Replay of topic's message 1
Yes, thank you! My first post was on how dinosaurs could possibly fit into the ark and what the scriptures had said about what went on the ark.
He couldn't possibly build a boat big enough to house dinosaur species along with the cattle, cats and critters. He had to be selective She also stated:
First know that I take the Bible quite literally, unless the passage states specifically that it is speaking in metaphor. So I found the scriptures pertaining to that statement. It was directly in conjunction with Jennifer's statement. Suddenly we were discussing what proof there was on whether or not a global flood actually happened.
|
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member
|
Placing organisms on a tree of life based on morphology seems to me to be quite arbitrary and unscientific. We have blue-green algae that are supposed to be about 3.5 billion years old, alive. We put the their genetic structure on the bottom. We have man, we put their (or some more advanced) genetic structure on top. We work out what differences in structures relates to which characteristics in organisms between species, families, kingdoms, classes and phyla. We fill in the table and find out which traits were picked up by which organisms. We should be able to tell where all animals and plants , extant, extinct and unknown originated genetically, geographically and temporally. Edited by LucyTheApe, : grammar
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
quote:
Placing organisms on a tree of life based on morphology seems to
me to be quite arbitrary and unscientific.
And you would prefer to do it based on what?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-21-2008 8:31 PM | | LucyTheApe has not replied |
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
Placing organisms on a tree of life based on morphology seems to
me to be quite arbitrary and unscientific. I don't know that it is unscientific but it is certainly arbitrary, arguably though any basis for a phylogenetic analysis is arbitrary to some extent because we can choose so many different ways to perform them. The power of phylogenetics has come from the fact that using these different approaches we get such congruence between the different methods. I would agree that morphology alone is a poor basis for a phylogeny, but when people first started constructing such things they didn't have anything else to work with.
We have blue-green algae that are supposed to be about
3.5 billion years old, alive. We put the their genetic structure on
the bottom. We have man, we put their (or some more advanced)
genetic structure on top. That isn't actually how such a tree would be structured, all of the extant organisms would be at the 'top', what would be lower down would be the point at which that lineage diverged. The modern algae are just as 'evolved' as modern man, you might argue that since they have much shorter generations they could be considered 'more' evolved. The genetic structure of man may be more complex and larger, but I don't know that it would be accurate to consider it more 'advanced'. We assume that the genetics of the modern algae are similar to their fossil ancestors because they have morphological similarities, but this is arguably only an assumption, certainly through looking at conserved genetic sequences throughout the algae we could make some reliable estimates of the genetic composition of their latest common ancestor but we would be hard put to then link that genetic structure to any particular blue-green algae in the fossil record. Other than that all you seem to be doing is describing what is currently being done in the field of molecular phylogenetics and developmental biology.
We should be able to tell where all animals and plants , extant, extinct and unknown originated genetically, geographically and temporally. What makes you think we should be able to do this? Certainly having that information would be ideal, but what makes you think it is achievable, or even possible given the limited sampling of all genomes 'extant, extinct and unknown' that we have? TTFN, WK
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-21-2008 8:31 PM | | LucyTheApe has not replied |
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5788 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
As Promised for the entomologist!
According to the Bible, those animals that had the breath of life, or "nephesh" were brought into the ark. Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life. ~KJV The word "nephesh" refers to those animals with soul: or "responsive personality." Thus you would have all mammals that lived on land, reptiles, and birds in the ark. Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died. ~KJV Amphibians, insects, worms and bacteria did not need the Ark. They do not have the nervous system which is complex enough to mark the organism as having the trainability which "nephesh" implies. According to Genesis 7:22, only the animals with the breath of life died. These other organisms were most likely preserved outside the Ark through the flood. Nephesh - Wikipedia http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm So, Bluejay, the bugs survived the flood! GO BUGS! By the way, my daughter is a SCAD student and their mascot is Art the Bee! PEACE!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 05-22-2008 4:13 AM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: As Promised for the entomologist!
from Nephesh - Wikipedia The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated "living soul" but more properly understood as "living creature," is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal. If one uses living creature, your statement "Amphibians, insects, worms and bacteria did not need the Ark." except for bacteria, would not apply.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: 08-17-2006
|
Re: As Promised for the entomologist!
How exactly did amphibians, insects, worms and bacteria survive the flood? I can see many forms of bacteria surviving, but not all. But as for the other three, especially land worms, they're screwed.
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5788 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
Re: As Promised for the entomologist!
I can only speculate on how worms and amphibians survived. I was giving the scripture references that explain what animals were brought on board the ark, and what animals perished in the flood.
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5788 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
Re: As Promised for the entomologist!
Ah, bluescat, now we get into the sticky debate of what animals have a soul....eh...lets not...LOL! Lets play the blues instead. I play guitar bass and flute. I love to jam. PEACE!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by bluescat48, posted 05-24-2008 12:44 AM | | bluescat48 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 8:53 AM | | Dont Be a Flea has not replied |
|
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: 08-17-2006
|
Re: As Promised for the entomologist!
So it doesn't bother you that scripture leaves out huge gaps and doesn't explain how things actually went about?
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: As Promised for the entomologist!
Ah, bluescat, now we get into the sticky debate of what animals have a soul....eh...lets not...LOL! Lets play the blues instead. I play guitar bass and flute. I love to jam. Fine but what does playing the blues have to do with whether certain organisms could survive such a flood or whether said organisms have a soul.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
™ Version 4.2