Religion, or rather, before the liberal religious object, certain types of religion. The promise of heaven and the threat of hell are powerful for some people who've been indoctrinated with literalist interpretations of the Bible in childhood.
I guess I knew this. What probably makes it most shocking is that I used to believe it!
Be careful with all the biologists around here! It's called an omnivore, and you're one!
That's not what I meant. An omnivore is not a partial carnivore because there is no such thing as a partial carnivore. You can't partially ONLY eat meat, and when I originally posted about carnivores, I was referring to obligate carnivores.
(I know you're playing, but I will continue to reply)
That's no problem. Where do you think all the water for the rain came from? The food was dehydrated and the excess moisture of course went into the atmosphere.
That still doesn't answer our issue of space in the ark.
Of course not. They were all herbivores. Carnivores only evolved after the flood, and you can tell how evolved a kind is based on that. The more evolved kinds are fully carnivore, lessor evolved kinds are omnivores and the least evolved kinds are still herbivores.
What evidence is there for this claim? Let's compare it to evidence AGAINST this claim.
That's easy. There weren't "thousands and thousands of animals" on the ark. There were only a few representative "kinds". You know, like "chordate kind", etc. The ark only had to be the size of a houseboat - and since it was substantially larger, there was plenty of food. Of course, explaining the hypermacroevolution over the few intervening centuries is a bit problematic. I once calculated that, based on Morris' ~8000 kinds, that we're looking at something over 1300 speciation events per year since the Flud to reach the minimum biodiversity we see today. 8000 may even be a bit high, but that just means hypermacroevolution took place more rapidly. And the YECs claim evilutionists don't have enough time for their theory...
Well, you replied to yourself for me. I must say, you're very convincing. How could I have been so obviously wrong?
Edited by SR71, : these quote tags are killing me
Edited by SR71, : this is getting irritating. fixed.
That a deer can swim 600 feet across the Arthur Kill is not surprising. That a Platapus or a Koala or a Kangaroo could swim many thousands of miles to Australia is a different matter altogether.
quote:Isn't that basically what I said?
You also said,
quote:The point is, if it is possible, it can happen. You, or every scientist in the world just may have not thought of a way yet.
Given the topic, it is not unreasonable to think that you are trying to say that because deer swam 600 feet across the Arthur Kill, that many animals swam across vast open sea to their final locations after the flood.
Considering everyone else's responses to you, I think that's what we all thought you meant.
quote:Anyone think that after a flood, that many things would be floating around. Why Here in my lake, we have floating islands, that shift, and sometimes break free, and float the distance of the lake. These islands have a life of there own, and if one was big enough, could probably support the life of a deer for a year, no doubt.
Yes, possibly, on lovely, calm lake waters. However, the 40 days and nights of torrential rains all over the whole earth would have beat such delicate islands to death. Also, the waves would finish off anything left.
quote:Again, my point is anything is possible.
It's what is probable that must be considered, not only what is "possible".
and that is what riverrat is betting all his money on. In essence, he hopes that his god exists somewhere within the gaps of human knowledge on the matter.
Of course it is a God thing, how else could it have happened?
That is the difference between then and now. Back then you had to go to a temple to experience God, or God would show up during special occasions. After Jesus came, the Temple is now us. God dwells within us.
2 very distinct different ways of this world existing with God. So to me, anything that had happened in the OT is hard for us to imagine, and all of those stories were God stories.
I don't need to know if they happened or not to believe in God. If God exists, then there is a possibility that these stories did indeed happen.
Whenever I discuss these stories in this forum, thats all I am doing is discussing them, I am not taking a position in the discussion. My only position is that I believe in God by faith, and a little more. The bible helped me find God, or helped God find me, so I won't count it out completely, even though I have a hard time imagining these types of things happening, i.e. floods, towers of fire, etc. Because in my life, I have yet to witness a supernatural event, that could not be explained away by some other line of reasoning. Like Jesus said, "your faith healed you." There have been huge changes in my life, both pyhsical and mental, and maybe all of them can be explained away individually, but when you add them all together, the odds of them all happening become like the number .99999999999 to infinity, eventually it becomes 1.
quote:There have been huge changes in my life, both pyhsical and mental, and maybe all of them can be explained away individually, but when you add them all together, the odds of them all happening become like the number .99999999999 to infinity, eventually it becomes 1.
The odds of that particular sperm and that particular egg coming together and forming you or me or anybody else on the planet are also incredible.
The odds that this has happened billion upon billions of times are truly staggering.
But the odds of something happening, rather than any specific thing, are very, very good.
The point, of course, is social. Fundamentalist parents have a lot of cognitive dissonance with the science their kids learn. The idea is to get Genesis--or at least Genesis-compatible ideas--admitted into school science classes.
A contributing factor is Science Envy. Fundamentalists see the respect science enjoys and crave that legitimacy for their views. They know that in the age of cloning and space travel their approach looks ignorant and backward. They seek to paper this over by imitating the conventions of science without adopting any its methods or substance. Every time Carl Baugh awards himself a new PhD we see one of the more obvious manifestations of Science Envy.
Welcome to EvC.
Thanks for the welcome, Archer. I think you've got it about right there, so far as it goes, although the whole story is maybe a bit more complicated. What I find astonishing, though, is that there are actually people with genuine science qualifications who are fervent young-earthers. There are young earth geologists and (my favourite oxymoron) young earth paleontologists.:laugh:
I think that these people must be so good at deluding themselves that we're almost talking about mental illness here. It's getting a bit like the flat earth society, which still exists, as you probably know. It's one thing having no education and no real understanding of the evidence. But being a working geologist, say for an oil company, and still managing to believe that this planet is less than 10,000 years old just means living in a constant state of self-deception. It really shows the grip that religion can have on people in a way which is, to me, quite spectacular.
That still doesn't answer our issue of space in the ark.
But the food was hyper-macro dehydrated. A whole barn full of hay bales was reduced to the size of a sugar cube.
Remember we got 40 days of rain out of the moisture in the food that was to go on board. That is a lot of food.
What evidence is there for this claim?
I'd say that the claim was self-evident and fully supported by the evidence. All of the kinds that were on the Ark still exist today. Since no more than seven of any kind (excluding the human kind) were taken onboard and in many cases only two of a kind, and every kind listed still exists today, it is obvious that there were no carnivores on the Ark.
Today we see herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. Unless you are going to invoke magic, something I have not done, the omnivores and carnivores must have evolved from the herbivores.
There is yet more evidence of the Flood.
Before the Flood it was so common that it could be used to build a vessel as large as the Ark, yet today, it exists no where. There is not one single Gopherwood tree left.
Because they were felled to build the Ark and the saplings that were left did not survive the Flood.
If the Flood never happened, if the Ark was not built, where are the Gopherwood Forests I ask you?
That does not address though the overwhelming evidence of the missing Gopherwood Forests
Y'all down there in Texas know how to respect the word of a genuine preacher, so listen to old Adam Clark.
Several guesses as to the nature of gopher wood have been made, the most common of which is the cypress. Adam Clarke, a Methodist theologian famous for his commentary on the Bible, cited the Greek word for cypress, kuparisson, and the resemblance of this word's base, kupar, to the Hebrew word gophar
Plenty of cypress trees around today.
(Of topic: P.S. Thanks for the welcome that you put in my experimental thread the other day, jar. I didn't thank you there because it would bump up a useless thread in the "all topics" list!)