Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
106 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 103 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,028 Year: 2,776/23,288 Month: 967/1,809 Week: 86/313 Day: 3/39 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?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 9 of 991 (575824)
08-21-2010 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
08-21-2010 6:30 AM


Re: Infestation
And in the case of humans, Noah's small clan would have had to play host to plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria, scarlet fever, etc. And all types of genetic defects, too.

Though not all diseases that afflict humans are human specific. For example, armadillos can get leprosy.

But yes, it must have been hell afloat.

Life on the Ark ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 08-21-2010 6:30 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 991 (575916)
08-21-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by rw23
08-21-2010 11:53 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
Ha! Just realised that seven females matches what the bible says about animals on the ark!

Cheetahs aren't kosher, so there would only have been two of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by rw23, posted 08-21-2010 11:53 AM rw23 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 991 (575964)
08-22-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


1> The Genesis record did not cite the landing site high on Mt Ararat. It cited it in the mountains of Ararat, which includes the foothills which would be more suitable for exiting the hoofed animals etc from the ark.

The text says that "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat", and that "in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

Which can only mean that the Ark grounded on the mountains of Ararat while they were still submerged. The draft of the Ark can't have been more than 30 cubits (that being its height) so it can't have grounded more than 30 cubits below the highest point of the mountains.

It certainly couldn't have run aground on the foothills while the tops of the mountains were still underwater.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 08-28-2010 10:38 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 991 (654964)
03-06-2012 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by glowby
03-06-2012 2:23 AM


Re: The poor platypuses
Weren't you listening to foreveryoung? Obviously what happened is that after the flood platypuses evolved very very rapidly from ... er ... ducks?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by glowby, posted 03-06-2012 2:23 AM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by glowby, posted 03-06-2012 1:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 120 of 991 (705025)
08-22-2013 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by mindspawn
08-22-2013 8:36 AM


Hi, I believe the best I can do is a speculative answer due to the fact that I haven't yet had a chance to dig up Mt Ararat yet for fossils.

Well, there are people and Bronze Age artifacts buried under the pyroclastic flows, is that any help to you?

But I don't quite see the relevance of the fossils on Mount Ararat, can you explain how this would help?

Maybe Noah released them in a logical order, allowing the predators to eat carcasses from the receding sea.

It's remarkable how little people know about the dietary needs of animals. (This is not particularly a crack at you, it seems to be generally true.) They seem to think that whatever is unfit for human consumption must be good enough for animals. Have you ever read any of Gerald Durrell's excellent books? Tradesmen kept turning up at his zoo with what they considered bountiful offers of spoiled meat and mildewed fruit, and got quite indignant when he pointed out that this would kill all his animals, they'd all die of dysentery. Very very few carnivorous species would be able to survive a diet of meat that had had over a year to go bad. So you might want to rethink that.

Amphibians would have battled to regain their dominance in the dry silted up deserts, those able to adapt to salt water (crocodiles) ...

Crocodiles may be amphibious, but they are not amphibians.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by mindspawn, posted 08-22-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 2:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 991 (705087)
08-22-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ringo
08-22-2013 1:57 PM


That's what bothers me about the idea of dinosaurs on the ark. Why go to all the trouble of saving them if they're just going to become extinct right away anyway. It seems that the ark was as big a failure at animal preservation as it was at sin eradication.

Oh, it worked great at sin eradication. That's why nowadays no-one commits presnupation or hentery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 08-22-2013 1:57 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2013 7:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 126 of 991 (705097)
08-22-2013 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by NoNukes
08-22-2013 7:55 PM


I don't know what those things are ...

Exactly.

God 2, Sin 0.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2013 7:55 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 991 (705136)
08-23-2013 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by mindspawn
08-23-2013 7:31 AM


You guys are so serious

Is that intended as a criticism?

If we're not going to take it seriously, then we have a humor thread. Otherwise, isn't the whole point of this site to discuss these questions seriously? If you yourself don't think it should be taken seriously, then let's hear your frivolous take on the Word Of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 7:31 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 351 of 991 (705956)
09-04-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 10:16 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
So you are admitting to widespread flooding? My goal has been achieved. Can you disprove it covered the Permian highlands? Up until now I have been regularly told that the flood has been disproven. Can you disprove it now that I've pinpointed a time when there was widepsread flooding?

Well, yes. The evidence for transgressions involves finding the high water mark (as in the construction of the Hallam curve) and so finding out how far the transgressions transgressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:16 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:31 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 377 of 991 (706012)
09-05-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:03 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
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?

Well, yes. We know how far inland the water got, that's how transgressions are measured. I told you. If you're going to cite a paper by Anthony Hallam, of all people, then it behooves you not to completely ignore his methods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:03 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 399 of 991 (706076)
09-05-2013 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 12:02 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains.

My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved. If so I would like to see the evidence.

And we've referred you to the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 12:02 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 422 of 991 (706138)
09-06-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 6:17 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I haven't seem anything vaguely convincing yet. I have been shown a graph which reflects a regression not a transgression at the PT boundary. My earlier posts already refuted that.

Well, no. The first-order curve at the PT boundary is particularly low. That still stands. What may have happened at the PT boundary is a second-order fluctuation. Certainly you have provided no evidence for a flood at the PT boundary that covered the whole of the land, and you can't, because geologists know that that didn't happen.

And if you're going to cite Anthony Hallam as an authority, then you should go the whole hog. According to Hallam, the landmasses were never completely inundated, and we can find the high stand. Instead, you're picking and choosing --- Hallam says that there was a transgression at the PT boundary, yay! His methods tell us exactly how far the transgression transgressed, let's ignore that 'cos it's no use to creationists. This is doublethink. Either Hallam's methods are right, or they are wrong. If they're right, then there was no time at which the whole Earth was flooded. If they're wrong, then we have no reason to believe that there was a transgression associated with the PT boundary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:17 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 6:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 425 of 991 (706150)
09-06-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 6:25 AM


Transgression
Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence.

Yes, but again you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Based on sedimentary evidence, and on their methods of interpreting the data, geologists say that there were transgressions in the past. The same geologists, based on exactly the same evidence and using the same methods, say that there was no universal flood.

If their methods are no good, then we don't even have a reason to believe in the transgressions. But if their methods are good, then we should think that there was never a worldwide flood.

Let me present an analogy. Suppose you wanted to argue for the existence of purple unicorns. Now suppose I was to take my Bible oath that I'd seen a green unicorn. How could you take my testimony as evidence? You'd have to say at the same time that I was smart enough to know a unicorn when I see one, and also that I'm such an unreliable observer that I can't tell the difference between green and purple.

You're putting yourself in a similar situation. You are in effect saying that we should believe geologists when they say that there was a transgression (after all, they're the experts) but we should ignore them when they say it didn't flood the whole Earth (because they're idiots and atheists).

Well, I think you should choose what you're going to do with your cake. If geologists are idiots, then we have no evidence for a transgression. If they're smart, then we know that Noah's Flood didn't happen.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:25 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 491 of 991 (706356)
09-09-2013 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 6:43 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
Fair enough, but all the evidence points to a possible bottleneck.

You should think about that sentence for a while.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 6:43 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 492 of 991 (706357)
09-09-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 7:21 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
Can you prove from the DNA of mitochrondial Eve, that she had any predecessors? Evolutionists would claim she had predecessors under evolutionist assumptions, but does the DNA show this?

Yes, and yes. For reasons that you yourself know --- why are you even bothering to ask these questions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 7:21 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by mindspawn, posted 09-11-2013 7:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020