Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 298 (328398)
07-03-2006 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by johnfolton
07-02-2006 11:51 AM


Re: What's the density of grains ?
Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You might make more sense replying to someone to whom your argument might pertain. You see, I haven't said squat about hay and its density. But, since you've shot this reply at me, I will stick out an answer as best I can.
I really think this all goes down to what the animals ate on the ark. If you are a traveller on a ship and you want to bring hay to the place where you will land, then bringing along just the seeds is fine. However, if you need the hay on your voyage to feed some animals, then it's not going to work to have it all in the form of seeds. I mean, unless Noah was planting and harvesting the stuff in a LARGE garden (field) somewhere on the deck of the ship.
And even if he did transport it all as just grains, then we still have to tackle the problem of what the animals ate whilst they were on the boat for so long. Even if Noah was going stingy on the food (once/3 days, maybe), that is still a LOT of food to be dishing out to all those animals. Where did he store it? Also, how can he feed thos animals? The moment he would've finished finally giving food to the last of the animals, the first ones he fed would've died from starvation--it having been so long (from the time it takes to feed an entire planet's worth of animals) since that first animal ate.
The topic is: Does the flood add up?
The answer is: NO!
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 07-02-2006 11:51 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-03-2006 3:52 AM Jon has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 298 (328406)
07-03-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by DrJones*
07-02-2006 2:59 AM


rapid micro-evolution
2. These original kinds very quickly "micro-evoloved" into the differnet species. I have seen no answer as to what caused this fast "micro-evolution".
Rapid geographic and reproductive isolation of migrating offspring. I don't know why this is problematic. You can breed in very dramatic changes in some animals -- dogs -- in a very few generations. All it takes is reproductive isolation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by DrJones*, posted 07-02-2006 2:59 AM DrJones* has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 213 of 298 (328407)
07-03-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by MUTTY6969
06-30-2006 3:52 AM


all these good questions?
Some very good questions in this thread . but why haven’t the yec’s come out to answer.
I only see faith dipping her toe in on one vague response but avoiding all the other good questions.
Plenty of biblical literists on this forum and the ones like iano and faith who post the most choose to ignore the 10 or 15 good questions that one would think are quit easy to answer.
I've hardly even looked in on this thread. What good questions that haven't been answered a hundred times over already? A lot of silly stuff on this last page or so.
Never mind, I'm reading the thing now, so if I find these "good questions" and answer them that should take care of it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by MUTTY6969, posted 06-30-2006 3:52 AM MUTTY6969 has not replied

MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 6272 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 214 of 298 (328408)
07-03-2006 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Jon
07-03-2006 3:01 AM


Re: What's the density of grains ?
Amazing, I just got done asking why fundies won’t answer the good questions and the obvious mental handicap they must posses and look what gets posted.
What does a pile of seeds have to do with IMPOSIBLE super evolution?
Either they evolved at this absurd rate . or their was approximately 1.5 million species on board . I don’t care if the boat was 100 football fields long and wide, it’s just bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Jon, posted 07-03-2006 3:01 AM Jon has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 298 (328409)
07-03-2006 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teggy
08-08-2005 6:18 AM


The OP basically takes scientific dates as truth, and YECs challenge those dates so what really is there for us to answer here?
Hinduism is one of the pagan religions that arose among Noah's descendants. Native Americans are a group of Noah's descendants that migrated across the landbridge way less than 10,000 years ago.
Yes, there is really no problem with the idea that human populations grew very quickly. A little basic math can show how many in a short time, and when groups get isolated they develop their own unique characteristics in not-so-many generations -- 20 generations is quite a few for that purpose. Nothing too mysterious about any of this really.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teggy, posted 08-08-2005 6:18 AM Teggy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 5:31 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 216 of 298 (328410)
07-03-2006 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
08-08-2005 10:48 PM


I have a few common sense questions of my own to add.
1: How did the two koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia after the flood, and why were they not noticed in the middle east?
An absence of mention does not prove they didn't exist and weren't noticed. However, why is this such a problem? It is possible they (micro)evolved from an earlier parent type that was on the ark, after locating themselves in a particular geographic environment that then split from the original unified land mass and became Australia. Or maybe both were on the ark and migrated to that portion of the land mass. It's all a guess.
2: How did the pair of echidnas survive when there was only one pair of termites for them to eat, and how did the termites survive if they were eaten?
There is no reason to assume that insects were taken on the ark the way the animals were.
3: Koalas are very fussy eaters. How much eucalyptus leaves did they have to store on the ark, and where did they find the refrigerator to keep those leaves fresh?
I would suppose it likely that koalas did not exist at the time of the ark but (micro)evolved from a parent type that was on the ark, becoming reproductively isolated at some point, and specialized as noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 08-08-2005 10:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 8:04 AM Faith has replied
 Message 245 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 10:53 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 298 (328412)
07-03-2006 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by boolean
03-21-2006 12:15 AM


This is a very important point, because when this story was first written, they would have had no idea Aborigines existed. But what difference does it make if they knew about them or not if the flood was real? Should their knowledge of the world around them have affected the stories in any way? No, it should not have, because we are told the author was writing about facts. Yet, despite the fact that the author had no idea there were Aborigines when he wrote his story, God didn't seem to either.
Why is this a problem? From the Bible believing point of view, ALL human beings living today are descendants of Noah and his sons. that includes the Aborigines. We assume that the time spans attributed to various human groups that predate Noah are simply erroneous exaggerations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by boolean, posted 03-21-2006 12:15 AM boolean has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 218 of 298 (328413)
07-03-2006 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by anglagard
03-21-2006 2:03 AM


Somewhere I read about 30 years ago that Noah's Ark, provided it accomodated 2 of each species of the non-aquatic biosphere and provisioned the food for such life for 40 days, would according to the biblical measurements, scaled up to present reality, have to be at least 60 miles long. Anyone else familiar with this seemingly reasonable combination of current observational (number of observed species) and mathematical (engineering-wise 60 mile wooden boat) disproof of the Noah's Ark legend?
This is no doubt simply the usual straw man misrepresentation based on today's count of species. Certainly there are who-knows-how-many more species living today than were taken on the ark, "species" being variations on the original that naturally (micro)evolved in many many directions after the flood from the original pair of each kind saved on the ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 03-21-2006 2:03 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 5:35 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 219 of 298 (328415)
07-03-2006 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
04-29-2006 5:13 AM


Re: Egyptian Pyramids?
Although creationists will obviously attempt to shift the dates of such massive undertakings it would be difficult to explain how this matches the Genesis account of the flood. If the pyramids are older than the flood, where is the water damage? If younger, where are the massive amouts of labor needed for construction? After all, it would take more than a few women quite some time to pop out all those Egyptians.
It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 04-29-2006 5:13 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 10:37 AM Faith has replied
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 07-03-2006 5:13 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 298 (328416)
07-03-2006 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-05-2006 8:28 AM


I'm sure this is the result of extensive historical evidence! Did a fat guy get kicked off the ark and form buddhism? Where do the races of man come from? what biblical story can you squeeze and distort to explain native americans? Speaking of native americans, how can you give any weight to a "global flood" when the people who told this story for thousands of years didn't know about the americas? Do you think they knew what it meant to flood the planet when they didn't know about the size or the shape of the earth? Would they have thought "two of everything" reasonable if they spent five minutes in the rain forest? This story makes sense to people living 5,000 years ago, today in the year 2006 with all of the science and technology we have it's just silly.
What's silly is this imposition of today's knowledge on the past.
The Flood story didn't require any particular knowledge about the extent of the earth by the people of the time. It was God who told Noah it would cover the whole earth. Revelation. Not human imagination or experience.
The Americas did not exist before the Flood. The continents split some time after the flood. Then the Americas were apparently populated by migration across the Bering strait landbridge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-05-2006 8:28 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 5:02 AM Faith has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 221 of 298 (328418)
07-03-2006 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:52 AM


quote:
The continents split some time after the flood.
Let me get this straight - the earth is about 4,500 years old and we had time for a flood and then some time after the continents split?
Honestly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:06 AM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 222 of 298 (328419)
07-03-2006 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Damouse
05-31-2006 1:00 AM


Re: A small point
If the ark story is true, then humanity stems from noah's family, correct? How do you explain ethnic groups? Why do people from africa have higher melanin then others? why do orientals look like they do? Why do northern europeans look like they do?
If you really assume that the ark story is true, none of this should pose a problem for you. How long do you think it would take to form an ethnic group or any genetically sharply defined group? Hardly any time at all. A few generations of geographic and reproductive isolation will do it just fine. Both natural selection and migration of people into regions where their genetic capacities could handle the environment can explain all of this. Give it all a mere few hundred years and you'll have genetically and ethnically very distinct groups.
Lets not even talk about the genetic catastrophies that would have happened with so much in-breeding. If it were true.
By creationist assumptions there was far greater genetic richness the farther back you go. Many repeated splittings and migrations, all processes of selection and migration and reproductive isolation and so on, reduce this richness a great deal over many incidents of same, and that is what makes in-breeding a problem. NOW if you separated out say a dozen people at random to live in isolation you would breed in a horrible number of diseases in a few generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Damouse, posted 05-31-2006 1:00 AM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by MangyTiger, posted 07-03-2006 11:08 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 298 (328420)
07-03-2006 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by CK
07-03-2006 5:02 AM


Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 5:02 AM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 224 of 298 (328422)
07-03-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Randy
05-31-2006 9:54 AM


Re: A small point
Now consider that in YEC mythology Noah is only 9 generations from Adam and Eve, His wife is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve and his Sons and Sons wives are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. All of these people can supposedly trace their ancestors back about 1,600 years to Adam and Eve and no one else. So how does any genetic diversity arise from the further inbreeding of people who are already totally inbred. I have heard YECs claim that the genetic diversity of the human species comes from the wives of Noah's sons but like virtually everything else about YEC and the global flood story, this makes no sense at all. It certainly does not "add up".
Assume great genetic potential in the originals of all living things, that is gradually reduced over the generations, and especially reduced by population splits and reproductive isolation of many groups that migrate off into their own geographic locations. We assume great genetic potential still existed in Noah and his family -- they were still living hundreds of years in those days, demonstrating great health and vigor still strong in the human race. So that the beginning of all human beings from that point, from those few people, was not a problem. It becomes a problem hundreds of years later though, and is very much a problem now, as diseases have multiplied greatly since then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Randy, posted 05-31-2006 9:54 AM Randy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 298 (328423)
07-03-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Damouse
05-31-2006 8:09 PM


Re: A small point
His three sons are quite genetically luck to be all completly different, and their children not being balanced by their wives, or inbreeding with their relatives from another brother. This still leaves out eastern asians, the blond-haired blue-eyed northern europeans, and the very dark-skinned africans (egyptians don't really look like central or southern africans. Even so, you would still have to argue that minorities like the american indians or the aboriginals native to austrailia must have evolved from the first three groups.
You don't have to assume great differences among the sons of Noah and their wives, though there could have been, since genetic diversity in any couple would have been much greater in those days, leading to much more variety in offspring. We assume far greater genetic potential so that all those varieties would have been expressed simply in the processes of migration and reproductive/genetic isolation of the different groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Damouse, posted 05-31-2006 8:09 PM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 10:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 252 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024