|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi Maryanne, welcome to EvC.
I do not believe that the flood was a global one. The point of the flood was to destroy wicked humans, not to wipe out the earth's flora and fauna and ecologial systems. That's not what this sounds like to me:
quote: quote: Whadaya think?
I don't believe the language of the Bible is always literal, I believe the flood occurred only in the then-known world. But where does the literal-ness start and stop? If you can turn the flood into a non-global one, then why not just read the whole thing as not literally happening, like, as if it was a parable or something?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I believe there are so many possible scenarios that it is impossible to say outright which would have been most logical. I think that if someone thinks that animals are too complicated to have evolved, and thus godly magic was necessary, then all that stuff with the flood and animals on the ark is too complicated too and also needed to have godly magic. So, there's no reason to look for "logical" explanations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you asking me to prove how Noah released the animals? No, I'm saying the exact opposite: There's no reason to speculate how Noah could have done it when God was involved and he could have just employed his superpowers. How familiar are you with the story? Do you know how Noah got the animals onto the ark?
quote: The animals came to Noah all by themselves, there's no reason to think that God was not involved in "pushing" them there. And when we get to "releasing" the animals:
quote: Again, the animals just walked off the ark on their own one after another. Noah didn't have to "do" anything. And there's no reason to think that God was not involved in controlling them at this point either.
I just enjoy a good discussion and don't invoke magic. Why not invoke magic? Especially when the stories imply it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Like the psychologist said to he man wearing nothing but saran wrap:
"I can clearly see you're nuts."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Fair enough. I don't see that the releasing necessarily involved supernatural intervention, the wording isn't clear enough to be sure. But you could: that's why you question just how did Noah go about releasing all those animals without encountering all the problems we'd expect to happen.
But whether its God himself controlling the releasing, or Noah walking them off the ark in a controlled fashion, or even just a wild melee of animal slaughter we do not have enough information about the animals on the ark to say this or that would definitely have occurred. What we have enough information to say about, is that the entire event never actually happened.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Could you list any faults with that reasoning, You're just making up nonsense. "Oh, the carnivores could've just ate stranded fish". That's so simplistic its silly. "Canivores" are not a homogeneous group that can all live on the same diet. There's different categories within that group, piscivores are just one of them. Bears can't eat just fish, and I don't even think a coyote or a shrew or a weasel or a skunk would touch the stuff.
or any other possible problems with the logic of animals surviving their exit from the ship? Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole. Hell, even just regular animals need more than two individuals to build and sustain a worldwide population.
Based on radiometric dating techniques you would appear correct, especially since I place the flood at the P-T boundary. That is utterly ridiculous and you should stop saying that immediately. Even if radiometric dating was totally wrong, placing Noah's Flood at the P-T boundary would be completely laughable. Only the most naive and uneducated approach could lead you there. The ony reason you pick it is because its a well know global catastrophe. You're really grasping at straws to connect it to the Flood.
Could you list any further evidence why the event never happened? We know that the entire planet has never been covered in water since humans have existed. There would be evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in every species alive today. The evidence would be so overwhelming that it would be impossible to deny. The fact that you really have to dig to find anything that can even remotely be tied to the story proves that the events in the story never happened. And that doesn't even get into the fact that the story, itself, was just a rip-off of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I can't find enough meaningful conjecture to even begin to try to communicate with you about the topics you speak of.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds? What do you mean?
Which ones that we see today could not survive that event? I don't know what you mean by releasing them "off a boat" nor "into the wilds". That could be describing all kinds of situations. If you talking about something like the situation in Noah's Flood, I've already explained some of the problems and you have yet to address those.
Name one that would have battled to survive? Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
TO: Jar, Mr Jack, Tangle, Catholic Scientist, Ringo, Coyote I understand that you guys don't read the bible What? Fuck you, man. Don't be a dick.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole.
On what basis? On the basis that they live in huge groups and need those huge groups in order for the species to survive. Do you know anything at all about animals? Only a child could be offering the questioning you do. I just can't take you seriously. I mean, look at this:
You need to prove the following: 1) Seeds cannot survive 5 months in water WTF? When seeds are in water, they grow. Unless its salt water, then it can kill them if it's salty enough. Different seeds are going to have different salinity tolerances. Here, here's a little science project for you that you can do at home: Science Project: How Does Salt Affect Seed Germination? - Owlcation Its even geared down to your education level. ABE: I mean, seriously, if you actually cared to learn about this stuff, you could. Why do they creationist always take the route of prove me wrong or I'm right? This stuff you're questioning about could easily be learned if you actually tried to learn it. But no, my book says this and it can't be wrong. Oh? It is wrong? No, prove me wrong or I'm right Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Neither of us know which animals were regarded as clean and which were unclean And you accuse us of not reading the Bible! You might want to look at Leviticus 11.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well he didn't mean "all". Well, "some" did survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
In post 166 Catholic scientist said "we know that the entire planet has never been covered in water" Hey! That's not what I said. Have you really resorted to quote-mining!? In Message 166, I wrote:
quote: So, did you change what I wrote on purpose or are you really that obtuse? . The whole bit about a human settlement under some basalt is a ridiculous fantasy. If The Flood occured, there'd have been dead bodies everywhere. If it happened at the P-T boudary (regardless of any dating method or timeframe), there would be human remains in those layers. There would also be all of the modern animals found in those layers. But there ain't. There's only primitive creatures found during that time. And everyone knows that most of the surface of the planet was covered in water during the time of Pangea. And you're whole transgression argument is dumb.
Now I have proved vast flooding in various places around the world at the P-T boundary, can anyone back up their statements and provide ANY evidence that the water did not cover the highest peaks then? The fact that they're talking about a transgression means that they're talking about where the water meets the land. That means there has to be land that is not covered in water. That means its not a universal flood. If The Flood really happened as described in the Bible, then the evidence would be so overwhelming it would be undeniable. The only reason that you grasp at such straws and make up so much stuff, is because you cannot accept that the Bible got some stuff wrong, isn't it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, really, did you change my quote on purpose or was it really an accident?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
A transgression means sea levels rise. No, it doesn't. Look at the word: trans-... -gress. A "gress" is a step. progress is a step forward, digress is a step backwards. Transgress is a step across. As a geological phenomenon it is when waterline/sediments move across the surface. Here's an image:
See how the shoreline moves across to the right? Also, you could've just looked at wiki:
quote: Sure, there's flooding, but the water event is relative to the land. That means that if there was a transgression at the P-T boundary, then there also had to be land there that was not flooded. Ergo, your "mountains that weren't underwater" must surely have existed. So, it wasn't a global flood. QED. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a transgression.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024