Super Evolution and the Flood

Taz,Can we combine dog and wolverine? That is if they can interbreed (if the wolf doesn't eat the dog) and have fertile offspring?

Sorry, my bad. I thought wolverine mean't wolf. I looked it up. Hey, you learn something new every day!

Good point. The biblical definition of kind is anything that decends from the same ancestrial gene pool. This makes it hard to identify as depending on how much evolution you agree with changes the amount of kinds at the starting point.The definition is clear, but the identification isn't, requiring lots of research.

That was a definition from Blue Letter Bible that makes sense. Statements like "herb yielding seed after his kind" indicates clearly that the parent and the offspring are the same created kind. If we trace that all the way back, then ancestry has everything to do with the original created kind.

I'm not YEC, but find this interesting for the sake of argument. Interbreeding is not how to identify kinds, but is the definition of species. So it would be inaccurate to use that as criteria. A kind has more to do with ancestry, if they share the same ancestral gene pool.Instead of trying to find the minimum number of kinds, a better approach might be to figure out the maximum occupancy of the ark based on its dimensions. Bearing in mind a pair of all unclean animals and seven of all clean. From there you can whittle your list down to figure out how much evolution YEC's would have to believe.

I don't think DNA proves ancestry. Man can be created independently of chimps, using much of the same base materials. You can't determine where something came from just by looking at the end product, you have to trace it to its source. That's like buying two meat products at the grocery store and concluding that they came from the same farm because they have the same manufacturer label on it.

I don't know anything about DNA testing, but it seems it would have to be very accurate. I mean, if they have a margin of error of 5%, then they could conclude the chimp to be your dad. I think interbreeding is the best way to determine kinds. It is about the same as what we call species today that are the original kinds. This is my OEC view.My point is that from a YEC or evolution perspective the kinds are harder to determine sense they are different today than what they were originally.So, go ahead and proceed Taz... I don't have any better suggestion than what I presented earlier about using Arc capacity to determine kinds.

I believe it was a local flood, and yes it is a huge boat even by today's standards.

Not in my view, which is an old earth creation, local flood view.Now from a YEC view, I don't know if superevolution is required. I have not measured the available space in the ark, how many species there are, or could fit, so that's why I've taken interest in your thread.Edited by graft2vine, : No reason given.

Here is a relevant article from AiG for the YEC perspective:http://www.answersingenesis.org/...cen_v19n2_animals_ark.aspIn summary:1. Noah did not bring any sea creatures, plants or insects on the Ark.2. A "kind" today would be classified by scientists in most cases at the genus level and could be as high as family.- horse, zebra, donkey are the same kind.
- dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackels are same kind
- all cattle is of the same kind including bison and water buffalos.
- tigers and lions can interbreed and are therefore the same kind.3. Total of 8,000 genera, so an estimate of 16,000 individuals were on board.4. Dinosaurs were on board, so another 12 to 24 dinosaur genera were included.5. Total volume of ark was 43,500 cubic meters. 16,000 animals were kept in an average size cage of 4,800 cubic inches, so all the animals occuped was a total of 1,200 cubic meters, leaving room for food, water, etc.

So, is the general concensus here that the ability to maintain all these cages is more of a limitation than ark capacity? Does that mean the ark is unreasonably large? Or is it... we can't fill every single void with cages, food or water, there are other things that take up space. You need walking space, you need living space for the people... Can anyone think what else takes up space that they would need? If nothing else, we could give the animals a little more space in their cages, that would certainly be a humane thing to do.The goal here is to determine the maximum number of animals, while keeping it reasonable within the various limitations.Each kind would share a cage with its pair. So we need 8,000 cages rather than 16,000. (There were a small number of clean animals, which also could share space within kind).There were 8 people on the ark. Each one if they worked just 12 hours a day 10 minutes per cage, could maintain 72 cages per day. That is 576 per day between all hands. It would take 13.8 days... basically two weeks to give attention to every cage. If the animals were in hybernation, they would need little food, water, and leave little waste. Given hybernation, would two weeks be reasonable?Is hybernation reasonable? Considering the limited space, nothing to do, it seems hybernation to some extent would come natural. Hybernation would make a big difference, so I think it is one of the first things we need to decide on.

"Creeping thing" can refer just to reptiles, so it is not necessary from a biblical standpoint that insects were on the ark. They could survive on floating debris, but that is a separate issue. The focus here is what can fit on the ark that would have to be maintained in a cage. Sure there would be some insects on the ark, and they could be anywhere, but I agree that it would be unreasonable to be maintaining insects in little itty bitty cages.

Well, there is a big difference between cleaning a pig pen and cleaning a litter box. Some cages would certainly take longer than others. We need to average it out somewhere... I am open to suggestions.

I think you are confusing YEC with ID. The ID movement will actually distance themselves from the Bible in order to get creation in the classroom. YEC's are just defending their view of the Bible and see evolution as a threat to it. You can't believe the Bible without accepting the supernatural elements.I don't believe there is any conflict between science and the supernatural. Science only deals with the natural... the supernatural is not within its scope.

But I don't think I see them distancing themselves from the supernatural. A point could be made here: While the cause of the Flood is supernatural and cannot be studied, the effect of the flood is natural, could be seen and studied. That is what YECers want in the classroom, the natural effect, but science won't accept the natural effect because it does not have a natural cause.