|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does The Flood Add up? | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I'd also question the idea that the association between the division and Peleg is made on the basis that Peleg was patriarch at the time. Since we are given no other name for Peleg or any reference to a change of name, it seems more likely to me that the event supposedly happened around the time that Peleg was born, and that is why Peleg was named after it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The reference to Peleg is not intended to give a date - it is to explain why he was named "Peleg". Thus the whole argument is built on sand. As I pointed out earlier, it is most likely that the author meant that Peleg was born around the time of the "division" and thus named after it.
Thus your source is taking an extremely speculative and dubious reading to justify futher speculative and dubious readings. In short he's decided what he wants the Bible to say and is trying to force it to fit his ideas. Do you really endorse that ?u
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Of course it makes sense. The Bible doesn't say what he wants it to, so he looks for excuses to strain and torture the text, so he can say that it does mean what he wants.
quote: If you relied on the Bible, you could come up with an estimate quite easily. And people did. So what is your point ?
quote:Try reading it in context: Daniel 12:4
But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time;
It refers to the Book of Danile itself which will only be revealed in the end times.
quote: Firstly it refers only to concealing whole books, not to some guy coming along and deciding to twist the text of the books we do have. Secondly it tells us that the end times were at the time of the Maccabean Revolt - more than 2,000 years ago (as, indeed, the author of Daniel believed).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You are incorrect. Genesis 10:25
Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided...
(emphasis mine) The Bible IS explaining how Peleg got his name. It does not in anyway imply that Peleg was a "calendar patriarch" and - more importantly - it doesn't in any way imply that the division happened while he was the patriarch. (i.e. if they used the system at all there's nothing here to suggest that this is an example). As I stated earlier the simplest explanatoin is that the "division" happened about the tiem of Peleg's birth which would explain why he was named after it.
quote:Apart from claiming that Genesis 10:25 says somethign that it doesn't say. Remember that Genesis 10:25 is the whole basis of his idea - but it doesn't support it. His while idea of "calendar patriarchs" is his invention. It isn't in the Bible. quote: I've checked the page an his "strong evidence" is based on misrepresenting Genesis 10:25. That's it. Nothing else. If there's more on some other page I'm not going to search the whole thing looking for it. If there is some more, and you want to discusss it provide a link to the correct page.e
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
So how did a mere two individuals manage produce offspring that "microevolved" into several distinct species ? Even explaining the genetic diversity found in a single species today is a problem for YECs. And why exactly should this amount of evolutionary change be considered "microevolution" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It should be a problem for you especially. It isn't so long ago that you were insisting that genetic diversity was decreasing. The comparison with dogs doesn't work without begging the question - dogs weren't bred from a single pair. Never mind that the difference between dog breeds is maintained by artificial selection - in the wild it wouldn't work like that at all.
The assumption that kinds were "engineered" to have this level of diversity also fails on the same grounds. Worse for you, the failure to find solid evidence of discrete kinds through biological investigation also counts against you and for evolution. So it appears that the only reason for calling this "microevolution" is the assumption that there are preprogrammed mutations that would produce the diversity we see. It's a nice illustration of the fact that the creationist division between "micro-" and "macro-" is an ad hoc one distinguishing the evolution they are prepared to accept from that they absolutely reject.
quote: Of course this isn't really true. You're really ignoring the issue of timescales and here again the actual evidence supports the mainstream scientific view. What we'd expect to see in the rpesent day is pretty much the same. And as I mentioned above the fact that biological classification points to a single phylogenetic tree rather than the multiple trees of your "kinds" is a major piece of evidence against your view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
If genetic diversity is decreasing it should be far lower than it was at the supposed time of the flood. According to you many "kinds" - which represent multiple species - were reduced to just two individuals. That is not a great deal of diversity to start with - it's less than is observed today. So not only do you have a problem, your own arguments make it much worse.
quote: Which is in itself a problem. Why are they going to migrate far enough to become isolated ? And it's not enough without mutation.
quote: By which you mean that it is all right with you that all you have is ad hoc assumptions - and that the evidence is against you. There is no mention of this "kind" idea in the ark story - and it does refer to modern species (the dove and the raven).
quote: Then your idea can't work. The theoretical limit on the genetic diversity of two individuals (4 alleles per locus) is still too low.
quote: It contradicts the way evolutionists think - because evolutionists think "implausible ad hoc assumptions are bad". I couldn't even call your view consistent except in the formal sense that it isn't logically contradictory. Essentially you are arbitrarily assuming that evolution works even better than mainstream science allows when it agrees with your views and not at all when it contradicts them. There is definitely a strong tension there - and it is all ad hoc assumptions. As for the final part. 1) Timescales. The timescales derived by science are far longer than you allow and do not show the rate of change that you require. The evidence supports the scientific timescales. The observed rates of change are consistent with the mainstream scientific view, and not evidence against it. Rather the evidence of timescales and of slower rates of change than your view requires is evidence against your view. 2) The evidence shows one single, massive tree of common descent. Your idea postulates that each "kind" has it's own tree. This evidence, then, supports the view that change beyond your assumed "kinds" has occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Genetic diversity is decreasing in all living species ? Any evidence of that?
quote: You're not making much sense. Reproductive isolation in itself can't reduce genetic diversity in any sense.
quote: But there will still be plenty of 'B' alleles in the remaining population so genetic diversity hasn't decreased overall.
quote:There is too much genetic diversity around to be reasonably explained assuing the Ark story. Assuming that genetic diversity has DECREASED since the Flood makes that problem worse. Why can't you see that ? quote: Yes, it only covers people relatively near to the Middle East. That's interesting. But that's about the only interesting part of it. But your picture of isolation doesn't work. Relatively few human populations have been completely isolated for any length of time.
quote:But that's not true. We can go with the evidence from biology instead of the opinions of creationists. There's no good reason from biology to consider your "original kinds" and they aren't even implied - in the sense you mean - by the Bible. quote: That really doesn't make much sense as it stands. Perhaps you could explain what you mean in more detail.
quote: To use just one example (and there's cerainly more) there are many transitional fossils. If discrete kinds exist then we shouldn't find fossils which happen to neatly fill the "gaps" between "kinds". So there's certainly decent evidence for common descent. So where's the "as good" evidence for creationist "kinds" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Obviously you don't know the history in any detail. IF you cared about the truth you would actually look into it rather than hurling out ill-founded insults.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
If you've read quite a lot then you know that the order in the fossil record was only generally accepted as the product of evolution after Darwin published and that evolution had a strong basis in other evidence. But it was a problem for your beliefs long before that. So you ought to know that your post was shallow and inaccurate as well as just plain insulting.
And disagreeing with YEC beliefs is not discarding God's own revelation. Not unless you wish to claim that YECs are God. COme to that, I care about the truth and that is why I DON'T accept your views as representing a revelation from God.r
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024