Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 33 of 991 (576113)
08-22-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dirk
08-22-2010 10:59 AM


Think like one of them
"Hooah, can I borrow that creo-cap of yours? Thanks."
slides said cap on
"You're forgetting the supergenome that was contained in all of the pairs of original animals! They would have been supertanked and able to control their body temerpature perfectly and eat any kind of fish they wanted so they could have easily swum from the Middle East to Antarctica! This fits perfectly with the evidence of superpenguins in Australia!"
shakes cap off. Pours self a vodka to ease the pain
Ugh. Never doin' that again. And holy fuck, yes I was surprised to see my bullshit turned out real.
addendum: oh crap, apparently they could survive in warmer climates, too!
Edited by Nij, : Coding error.
Edited by Nij, : Wow. That's one mighty fine coincidence there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dirk, posted 08-22-2010 10:59 AM Dirk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 9:08 PM Nij has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 34 of 991 (576117)
08-22-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Nij
08-22-2010 8:59 PM


Re: Think like one of them
"Peru and Australia were part of the same landmass shortly after the flood, which is why we find SuperPingu there!
And all of the gibberish in the rest of article about "evolving in New Zealand and Antarctica" and then "travelling north" is obviously evolutionist lies and propaganda, hijacking an article about evidence that clearly proves The Fludde true, filling it with their nonsense about stuff that they can't show to be true."/sarc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 8:59 PM Nij has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 08-22-2010 9:12 PM Nij has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 50 of 991 (578911)
09-03-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by mignat
09-02-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Ark contents
Hi mignat. I would like to clear up a few things in your post. Some of these may be more or less off-topic, and probably shouldn't be discussed further, but some may be relevant and of course should be continued in the discussion should you choose.
I hope you read this with the same respect and calmness I'm feeling as I type.
Of course. We only get annoyed when people say stupid things or when they disrespect others for no real reason. Often there's no true malice in the comments either; as one poster includes in their signature and as I believe one thread discusses, ridicule and dickishness is a valid tactic when reasonable debate fails. I don't think you'll have that problem though
If the account is assumed correct, we're talking about a God that lives in a plane above all laws of physics (some big band theorists talk of the pre-bang being above those laws). The bible refers to the One who 'inhabits eternity'. Not lives FOR eternity. Inhabits (lives IN) it. I know. We who live in finiteness and inside time can't grasp life outside it. No earthbound creator is limited to living within his creation. Why should an unlimited-powered God?
Add into that the feeding of thousands with one boy's lunch, miracles of dead coming back to life. That means it's possible that all those animals to be still alive at the end of the flood.
Two things here:
  • The question is regarding what happens after the Ark has landed. However they survived onboard is not discussed, but we assume for the purpose of argument that they did. There are several other threads in the 'Geology and TGF' forum if you want to talk about the journey itself.
  • Whether the survival was miraculous or not, there exists no evidence for it. That is the second part of the deal; you not only need to explain how something happened, but also explain the evidence left behind. Again, much of this is covered in other threads, but specifically for this one: where are the remains of animals travelling from Mount Ararat? Others will likely move onto discussing evidences like this.
    Size? How many species? The account says two of every kind. We don't know what the words kind meant in Noah's culture ...
    And this is a problem for creationism.
    Today, there exist definite groupings of animals (and plants and bacteria and other stuff, but anyway); groupings like families, orders, genera, etc. These groupings are determined by large amounts of physical evidence including genetics and the fossil record. From these are derived clear chains of relation between each animal and its ancestors (however long they existed, they did exist).
    To this end, "kind" has been a panic-word for creationists. As you began describing yourself: does the word refer to the species? In that case, there was certainly not enough room on the Ark. Does it refer to the genus? In that case, where did the other species come from? There are contradictions no matter which way you choose, and hence no creationist has ever tried to define the word.
    I point out that these modern groupings are not "a different way of understanding". They (or the equivalent) are used globally by every country's biological scientists. There is no other term, because everybody uses that term.
    Thus, the word either has a meaning which clearly contradicts the facts and hence cannot refer to any such grouping, and then has no relation to reality, or it is not a word with any intelligible meaning and hence indicates a lot of further problems for creationism (which are very off-topic, so moving on).
    Noah lived at about the time of Egypt's height, in our assumption. Those Egyptians had a technology we know nothing about. We don't know how they built the pyramids. We can't build them with our technology. Don't assume Noah's resources were limited to what we know about.
    No, they didn't.
    We know relatively much about their tools; we know relatively much about their methods; we know relatively much about how the pyramids were built. As for replicating the feat, the only thing stopping it is cost: labour, stone, transport, etc.
    Our modern technology is actually sufficient to build a pyramid, and I think one better than the originals. Stonecutting tools, surveying equipment, heavy lifting machinery, transport vehicles, skilled and trained labourers... we have everything.
    Hence we can assume that at best, Noah had technology limited to at most equal with our own, and at worst, only the equivalent of the contemporary Egyptians. These give rise to further problems for creationism in trying to validate the Ark myth (which are off-topic, and some of are which discussed in the aforementioned forum).
    If, like me at one time, you're bothered about the number of species we have and how they all fitted in, look up the reports of rapid speciation. Two mice might have been able to give rise to many, many submice in the last XXX years. Think of yourself being told to take an elephant somewhere on the back of a pickup. How could you even fit an elephant on one? Easy: use initiative. The order didn't specify size, so take a baby one.
    That is not rapid speciation. It is rapid reproduction; the terms mean completely different things.
    Again, we are not dealing with the Ark journey itself; however, the concept of using baby animals is not a new one, and runs into enormous problems for what would happen afterwards such as not knowing how to care for itself or many of the little tricks all animals pick up from their parents. Which would be on-topic if you care to discuss it, though.
    If God could make the universe and all life in it , I doubt he'd have trouble dealing with a boatload of animals.
    very well then. If your explanation is "Goddidit" then what evidence supports this action happening?
    As to some of your questions, I might ask you why Henry Ford named his son Edsil. Would your inability to answer it prove Ford to have been a myth? Of course not.
    I'm not aware of the question you refer to, but your point seems to not work the way you want it to. If you care to explain it for me? PM would suffice so as to not clutter the thread.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by mignat, posted 09-02-2010 7:09 PM mignat has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024