Super Evolution and the Flood

"Creeping thing" can refer just to reptiles, so it is not necessary from a biblical standpoint that insects were on the ark. They could survive on floating debris, but that is a separate issue. The focus here is what can fit on the ark that would have to be maintained in a cage. Sure there would be some insects on the ark, and they could be anywhere, but I agree that it would be unreasonable to be maintaining insects in little itty bitty cages.

quote:

---

Each one if they worked just 12 hours a day 10 minutes per cage,

---

You've obviously never done any farm work. 10 minutes a day per cage for two animals is ridiculously underestimating the necessary time. You can spend hours cleaning a cage, feeding animals, moving them in and out of cages and curing sickness for two horses and smaller mammals. As for hibernation, you need to give evidence for hibernation in animals that show no such behavior now.

And magic koalas floated on mats of eucalyptus trees and eventually ended up in Australia, while all the marine dinosaur types perished.Fascinating. What was the purpose of the ark again? To give Noah & family a token job?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Well, there is a big difference between cleaning a pig pen and cleaning a litter box. Some cages would certainly take longer than others. We need to average it out somewhere... I am open to suggestions.

Why assume in a story with God as an active agent (He closed the door for example) that we need some sort of natural evidence of animal behaviour?

Well, the whole point of the young earth creationist movement is that the whole thing is suppose to be "scientifically sound" with no supernatural elements so it could be accepted in the science classroom. By citing "godditit", you're effectively undermining the YEC's purpose.

---

Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.

Not really. You obviously haven't accounted for the time for moving the animals from one pen to another. You can't just take two ferrets out and leave them outside and expect them not to move around. Even trying to get one of them into a cage without having the other escape is a feat for some smaller faster species. Moving two horses out of a cage can take hours and that's not even counting the time for cleaning, replacing their bedding, etc.

So when faced with a fundamental lack of evidence, your argument is Goddidit?Kind of weak don't you think?

The story is explicit that God did it and so must be judged on those grounds. To act like arguing God did it is due a lack of evidence strikes me as silly.The Bible doesn't state God caused the Flood, etc,... by naturally occuring means, and in fact explicitly states God Himself closed the door. So the story contains God as an active agent, not as an indirect agent.

I am not a YECer so I don't really care if it undermines YECism or not. It puzzles me how someone could view no supernatural element involved for the story when the story explicitly says God closed the door of the Ark, not Noah.

I agree. The whole thing's supposed to be magic, so attempting scientific explanations is pointless, as magic can always be brought in to solve the problems. But, if you think this through, the same thing can be said for anything involving mysterious intelligent designers, as we can never know what level of magic they've done or are doing.So, that should help you to understand why "I.D." as well as YEC creationism doesn't make it as science.We can always make up magic explanations for anything, including super-evolution after a 4,300 year old flood. Bringing magic in used to be very popular, but it never helped our ancestors' understanding of the universe.

I think you are confusing YEC with ID. The ID movement will actually distance themselves from the Bible in order to get creation in the classroom. YEC's are just defending their view of the Bible and see evolution as a threat to it. You can't believe the Bible without accepting the supernatural elements.I don't believe there is any conflict between science and the supernatural. Science only deals with the natural... the supernatural is not within its scope.

Actually, some YECs here have tried to pass the flood off as scientific and therefore should be taught in the classroom. The link to that article you linked to proves this.

But I don't think I see them distancing themselves from the supernatural. A point could be made here: While the cause of the Flood is supernatural and cannot be studied, the effect of the flood is natural, could be seen and studied. That is what YECers want in the classroom, the natural effect, but science won't accept the natural effect because it does not have a natural cause.

What are you talking about? Some YECs have made a career coming up with bullshit theories like the hydroplate theory to try to explain the flood in a purely naturalistic way.