|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
The timing of the biblical flood can be roughly ascertained by reading the bible(have you read it, I have many times). You can put it roughly 4000 to 6000 years ago.--theodoric
You are assuming the Ussher genealogic dating is correct. The bible says nothing about the actual age of the earth. The genealogies are not meant to calculate time spans. You are interpreting the bible in a completely wrong way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Why does there have to be a genetic bottleneck to begin with? When you shrink a population down to 2 to 14 individuals it produces a genetic bottleneck.
My idea of 200,000 years ago actually corresponds radiometrically to what you would call the start of the archean eon. Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Heading way off topic now but since you ask:
There are at least two different stories of some flood in the Bibles. If either of the stories were true and factual, then all living animals with the possible exception of some fish, sea mammals, maybe birds, and all living plants would be descendents of the stock on board the ark; a population of at worst two pair of a critter (male + female) and at best seven pair. That is one amazing genetic bottleneck. If either of the stories were true, whether it happened 4300 years ago or 200,000 years ago, every species should show that genetic bottleneck, all pointing to one specific and uniform event. Well, that genetic bottleneck is not there, but we can see many other genetic bottlenecks that are unique to a species but not unique across species. The missing bottleneck signature means that there was no Biblical flood as described in any of the Bible stories, not 4300 years ago, not 200,00 years ago. They are but myth.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
You are interpreting the bible in a completely wrong way. And the magic key was given to you? By YHWH himself? No wonder you won't tell anyone about this wonderful revelation. To think every other biblical scholar in the world is wrong but you are right. Is this ICANT in disguise?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
coyote writes: It seems that you are ignoring the opinions of biblical scholars, in addition to science in general. I am ignoring biblical scholars; I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts.
coyote writes: It would be good for you then to specify the date you see for the flood, and the evidence supporting that date. I don't have a specific date. I have hunches, but I see no reason to date the earth any older than what the evidence actually shows. Other than radiometric dating, I see no evidence that demands an earth that is older than 1 million years.
coyote writes: This would seem to be a critical point which would need to be resolved in order to address the topic of "Which animals would populate the earth." That would only be a critical point if the evolution of the ancient past occurred by the exactly the same mechanisms that we see today in the lab. I have reason to believe other mechanisms that were much faster were in play.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Did God tell you that the genealogies were the way to determine how old the earth was? If he didn't, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Why should I believe that reading the genealogies as a continuous, father to son list of lineages is the correct way? You do know that when genealogies became long and unwieldy, they would be shortened but still maintained crucial information such as who the ultimate ancestor of a tribe was?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts. Well please present these "scientifically determined facts".
Other than radiometric dating, I see no evidence that demands an earth that is older than 1 million years.
More "scientifically determined facts"? What you think has no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on what you believe.
I have reason to believe other mechanisms that were much faster were in play.
Again more "scientifically determined facts"? Time to start presenting the science or else people are just going to think you are a crank.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts. Other than radiometric dating, I see no evidence that demands an earth that is older than 1 million years. quote: Nomad, The ChanglingRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
jar writes: if either of the stories were true and factual, then all living animals with the possible exception of some fish, sea mammals, maybe birds, and all living plants would be descendents of the stock on board the ark; a population of at worst two pair of a critter (male + female) and at best seven pair. That is one amazing genetic bottleneck. Genetic bottlenecks are a relatively modern phenomena. Most of the original genetic information that God originally created all life with has been lost. When you have that much genetic information that is lost, it is impossible to speciate from a original pair of a species. There isn't enough dna to work with. It is called a genetic bottleneck. You assume that todays quality of DNA in most species is the same as that which existed in the genomes of the animals that came off the ark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Your facts are uncoordinated.--subbie
Nice opinion. Got anything else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
You do know that when genealogies became long and unwieldy, they would be shortened but still maintained crucial information such as who the ultimate ancestor of a tribe was?
So you agree that the bible is myth. So why do you call yourself a christian if the bible is myth?I did not know this can you please provide your evidence? And because it may have happened in some tribes what is your evidence that the bible also reflects this? Did God tell you that the genealogies were the way to determine how old the earth was?
First of all there is no god. Second, why are you correct and all other biblical scholars wrong? You have presented nothing but word salad. No argument at all as to how you know the correct answer and everyone else is wrong. Maybe you are just a crank.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Ok enough already. This is a science forum please start providing some sort of evidence instead of just assertions and crap thrown against the wall. If you want to preach could you please move it over to one of the flood topics on the faith side of the forum.
I was really hoping you would have some sort of argument with some sort of pseudo-evidence. Instead we get this.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Genetic bottlenecks are a relatively modern phenomena. Most of the original genetic information that God originally created all life with has been lost. Evidence please. Also, are you saying that genomes used to be 10 times larger?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Bullshit.
Genetic bottlenecks are a fact and an artifact of the event and the time it happened. Sorry again but we do have genetic information going back even before Adam was created and no sign that anything was lost. In fact we know a lot about the genetics of that period as pointed out in Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found and in fact some very recent additional information was just found as described in Message 66.
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
theodoric writes: Well please present these "scientifically determined facts". Since you guys are the ones charging me with ignoring science, the onus is on you to present facts (not theories) that my views are in contradiction with.
theodoric writes: What you think has no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on what you believe. Nice little nasty unsubstantiated charge you made there. Care to back it up?
theodoric writes: Again more "scientifically determined facts"? I didn't say they were scientifically determined facts. Learn to read, you old fart.
theodoric writes: Time to start presenting the science or else people are just going to think you are a crank. What you mean is for mean is for me to start presenting ideas that are accepted by a consensus of science. I cannot present science and neither can you since neither us is in a laboratory and analyzed the data and presented our conclusion in a report. This is a fucking discussion blog your raving idiot.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024