Super Evolution and the Flood

Since when did you stop doing that? You mean you'll never preach again?

Hi, graft2vine (and other readers): This is what I believe, too. I was told by a marine biology professor that there is actually plenty of evidence to support the existence of a local flood (he didn't provide this evidence, though). But, it still says "creeping thing." The fact that it's qualified here in Leviticus indicates that a qualifier is necessary to distinguish which specific kind of creeping thing. Otherwise, you're referring to all of them. In Genesis 6 (quoted below), "creeping thing" is not qualified as "creeping things that creep" (therefore, not restricted to reptiles by this line of reasoning):

quote:

---

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

---

I need autumnman or somebody who can tell me what the word translated as "creeping thing" is and if it's the same word used in Leviticus 11. Grasshopppers have functional wings: they fly in every sense that the birds and bats fly. About ninety percent (my own, non-scientific guess) of insects can fly: grasshoppers, beetles, ants and termites (alates, or reproductive castes), stink bugs, aphids, mantises, cockroaches, stoneflies, caddisflies, moths, true flies, twisted-winged parasites, fairyflies, wasps, bees, mayflies, butterflies... Here is the last verse of the quote I provided in my last post:

quote:

---

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (emphasis added)

---

This is untrue: grasshoppers "creep" with all six legs, as do locusts and beetles (the other "clean" insects listed in Leviticus). I’m not sure what a "bald locust" is, but I would guess it "creeps" with all six legs, because I can't think of a single insect that creeps on only four.Also note that you quoted verse 21. I'll add 22 to that:

quote:

---

21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

---

Note that beetles don't "leap upon the earth" (at least, none that I'm aware of), yet they are included under the category of "flying creeping things that creep on four feet and leep upon the earth."Note also that, if these things are edible (i.e. "clean"), shouldn't there have been seven of each on the Ark? I would agree with you: insects can be extremely hard to rear, and most probably wouldn't have lived long enough to complete the voyage of the Ark (as adults, at least). But, the problem for YECists persists that insects would have to have survived the Flood somehow, and in much bigger numbers and diversity than anything else. The "mats of vegetation" hypothesis is bad, because it suggests that things could have survived without the Ark, which means the Ark was essentially superfluous.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Hi Bluejay, Genesis 6:20 remes
1) creeping things, moving things, creeping organisma) creeping thingsb) gliding things (of sea animals)c) moving things (of all animals)Levi. 11:21, 41, 43, 44 sherets
1) teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmersa) of insects, animals, small reptiles, quadrupedsThey are different wordsGod Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Bluejay, I've heard that the region of Mesopotamia is notorious for flooding. Noah's flood, even at a local level would be the flood of all floods. I agree. Insects are a creeping thing, so if we are not talking about insects but other creeping things (such as reptiles) the qualifier is needed. In Leviticus, we are talking specifically about various types of locust. Well it has a slightly different qualifier: "of the earth". You can't say that the 90% of insects that fly are of the earth. All things that fly are always described as of the air, or heavens. I'll give you the 10%.

quote:

---

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (emphasis added)

---

In verse 23, it is already clear what is being talked about from the previous verses, so it is not required that the author repeat himself with the same amount of detail. OK, but can we say that grasshoppers have four legs who's primary purpose is creeping, while the other two legs are designed for leaping with creeping as a secondary use. I think this is what the author is trying to convey, and is useful as a description specific to various locusts as opposed to other six legged insects."beetle" I have no idea why this was translated as beetle. I looked this one up, and it actually refers to yet another type of locust. So, no four legged beetle. No, I don't see elephants or dinosaurs surviving on mats of vegetation - insects maybe.

Yes. it was a partial quote...a partial quote that contained something so patently stupid that I felt a need to respond...seeing as how it was indeed the first time in my entire life that can ever recall reading something so ridiculous. Besides, the partial quote could stand on its own merits. The remaining portion of the quote did not in any way change the meaning of the portion I posted. And here you are repeating the exact same thing. So what's you point?Admittedly, you go on to further state that there was also the possibility thatbut that in no way changes the meaning of the first part. So I guess we're still stuck with Mr and Mrs aardvark carrying along their little green ant farm, aren't we? I mean, that's what they would needed to have done, according to you at least.Look, your book talks about the flood, the ark, and the animals included on board. You say that since it does not mention anything about Noah collecting enough food, that the only logical conclusions are that either the animals brought their own or that god provided it. Well I call "Bull Shit". You see...your problem lies in the fact that your book also makes no mention of these options either. Do you understand? You're saying that since "A" isn't mentioned, that therefore "B" or "C" are the only possibilities. But "B" and "C" are not mentioned either, so it's obvious that you're just making this shit up as you go along.Why should we accept that your two options are the only possibilities? Why can't we conclude that Noah did go gather the food? Or that the Ark itself was edible and that the animals slowly consumed their own ship as floated around during their cruise? Or that the animals ate a really big meal before getting on board and therefore weren't all that hungry? Or that Noah scooped up dead carcasses and floating vegetation as they bobbed up and down? (Actually, that last option seems the most likely...don't you agree?)But then, we could continue this line of argument ad infinitum, could we not? Like why would god need to supply them food at all? Why could he not simply make them go into some sort of state of suspended animation? But then, why do that when he could simply strike down everything except for Noah, his family, and the animals he wanted to save...why use a flood? But then, why not ....blah, blah, blah.Edited by FliesOnly, : To fix a couple of the more obvious typos

In the Tigris/Euphrates valley, there is a huge layer of mud that shows evidence of a series of floods between 4000 and 2000 bce. If I remember correctly, at least one of the layers was particularly thick. Of course, this is no global flood, but it certainly would be reason for myth making.

In this thread we are looking at the standard YEC position to see how much superevolution is required first by looking at what constitutes a kind (inconclusive). A better way I thought was to instead look at ark capacity. I posted a link to an AiG article (AiG being a leader of the YEC movement) which discusses all these things and goes into talk about cages and maintaining them etc. It quickly became apparent that Noah's ability to maintain all these animals is a bigger obstical than ark capacity.Another side issue is if insects have to be on the ark, but that becomes irrelevant also if Noah can't maintain everything even without insects.

Because there is a vocal group of people that want this idea taught in a science class as factual. In order to do that, we need to understand how it is possible that all these animals got to, got on, and got off the ark...and then how they managed to evolve and spread throughout the World in such a short period of time.And this is in addition to all the other logical and logistical problems presented by the concept of a global flood and the Ark.Edited by FliesOnly, : to add some "missing" stuff.

Hi grape2vine, I only got involved in this thread because Bluejay ask about someone drawing the ark with auto cad. I had never thought about it but I use Chief Architect so I spent a few minutes drawing one. and I came up with a fairly large area to store things.
Message 120I came up with 5 acres with 10' ceilings. So much more storage space could be designed in.Now as far as AIG and where they got cages from, food supplies, or water storage I have no idea. Noah was told to build an ark. He was not told to gather up animals, supply them food and water.This was not a scientific experiment. This was God preserving man and animals for a period of 1 year.As I stated in a previous message if a person can believe in Genesis 1:1 they will have no problem with the ark story. If they can't believe Genesis 1:1 they will never believe the ark story or any miracles.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi FilesOnly,This is one Pastor that has no desire to see miracles taught in the classroom.Even those that are called science.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Great...it's refreshing to see this sort of thing. I agree. But then, we already avoid this in science (that's why we call it science), so it's not really an issue.

Hi ICANT,I appreciate your efforts with the ark design. I have always thought of the ark as having cages, and never considered otherwise. You bring up a valid point. What benefit would the cages serve? Where are the animals going to go anyway? Plus whe have already shown here that cages would be a maintenance nightmare.If God can tame the lions in the den with Daniel, He can certainly tame them in the ark so they don't pick on the lambs. A no caged ark... I like the idea!There would still be some maintenance of some sort to think about. It could be reduced by the food being stored in one area, water in another, the animals can just go there instead of being waited on while cooped up in a cage. The ark story is a miracle in itself even with a local flood, I believe that and believe it is supported in Genesis. People have a tendency to try to make something big into something even bigger.

But I think this thread addresses the YEC contention that the story of the ark is scientifically possible and doesn't require miracles. In other words, their contention is that the earth is young and you can teach that in science class, the flood happened and you can teach that in science class, and Noah saved all the animals on the ark and you can teach that in science class.Any YEC scenario that invokes miracles isn't really of interest because it is obviously unscientific and so is no threat to science education.--Percy

Hi Percy, I saw nothing in the opening point about the classroom. In order for there to be a flood there has to be miracles. Does anybody think otherwise? I can't imagine anyone believing the flood as scientific but rejecting the Bible because it has miracles.So, if we are to look at superevolution after the flood (which is what this thread is about), we already have to assume miracles and a flood. If YEC's see how much evolution they have to believe, they just might abandon this idea that the earth is young.

Hi Percy, Percy you know and I know that the ark story can not, is not, and will never be a scientificly feasible fact. It makes no difference how much YEC'ers try to make it one. Although I think that would be easier than creating the universe some 10k years ago.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."