To Its Credit Does YEC And A Global Flood Promote Evolution?

[random person]

How could from a single pair of birds spring forth:

Flightless birds such as emus, ostriches, chickens & turkeys, penguins, etc.

Birds of flight such as parrots & cockatoos, eagles & vultures, geese & flamingos, ravens & finches, etc.

How could from a single pair of snakes spring forth:

Venomous snakes such as cobras, sea snakes, vipers, rattlesnakes, pit vipers, etc.

Giant constrictors such as anacondas, boas, pythons, etc.

Tiny snakes such as blindsnakes the size of earthworms, etc.

How could from a single pair of cats spring forth:

Great cats such as leopards, cheetahs, lions, tigers, jaquars, etc.

Domestic cats such as tabbys, persian, siamese, longhair, shorthair, burmese, etc.

 

[random person]

Scientific Problems with a Universal Flood​

There are a number of practical problems that conflict with the idea of a global flood.

First, a universal flood would have changed the topography of the land. For example, in the event of a worldwide flood, the Hidekkel, or Tigris, and Euphrates rivers of Genesis 2:14 would have disappeared under layers of flood-laid sedimentary rock. Instead, the Euphrates is mentioned again in Genesis 15:18, and the Hidekkel is alluded to in Daniel 10:4. This suggests that the rivers’ integrity was maintained.

Second, it would require an inordinate amount of water to flood the entire Earth. One popular explanation for this problem is that prior to the flood, the world was watered by mist from a global canopy of water vapor which then condensed, causing the first rains to flood the Earth (Genesis 2:5-6). However, this explanation is incongruent with archaeological evidence that concludes ancient Mesopotamia — the land of the Tigris and Euphrates — was “an extremely arid environment that necessitated the use of irrigation for successful agriculture.” Furthermore, the pressure necessary for the condensation of such a large quantity of water would have been fatal for all living creatures. In fact, a closer look at the Septuagint version of the Old Testament shows that the word for fountain was used in place of the word for mist. Some modern translations have used similar words like stream and spring. In either case, the water is said to have risen from the Earth, which makes it more likely that these terms were referring to irrigation canals. A similar terminology is used in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11), where “fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” But when we look closely at the original Hebrew text and consider the use of the words fountains and deep in other passages, it is more likely that the fountains of the deep were also irrigation canals.

Another supposition is that all animals and humans are derived from the survivors on Noah’s Ark. There are several problems with this idea. First of all, there is no way that the 2 million known species of animals could have fit onto the ark — not to mention the estimated 10 to 100 million species yet to be discovered. The dimensions of the Ark were 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits (Genesis 6:15). At 18 inches per cubit, the Ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. This was indeed a large ship by the standards of the time, but not nearly large enough to carry such a vast and varied cargo. Getting all of the animals to fit on the ark, along with the necessary food would not have been feasible. Some have argued that not all species were included, but only representatives of each type. Not only would this still represent an improbably great number of creatures, it would also require that the evolution of related species be drastically accelerated after the flood, in order to account for current diversity of species.

Finally, the migration of animals across mountains and oceans is quite difficult to explain. To make matters worse, there are no traces of animal ancestors along the proposed courses of migration. These are just a few of the many scientific problems with interpreting Genesis 6-9 as a truly universal flood. Efforts to find physical evidence of a global flood have failed. Even some of the most capable Christian researchers, including John Woodward, George Frederick Wright, William Buckland and Joseph Prestwich, all failed in their searches. Young states, “It is clear now that the evidence they were searching for simply does not exist.”

http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

 

[Papias]

Yes, a global flood is shown to be incorrect upon simple reflection. The best summary of the many logical impossibilities is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html I could rattle off a long list like you did, but that's more work than simply referring to this handy reference.

The time when the geologists realized that the rocks were completely clear in refuting a global flood is easy to see in the story of the Rev. Adam Sedgewick - the last real flood geologist. Today, no one claiming to support the idea of a global flood as actual history can claim to be a reasonable geologist, while Rev. Sedgewick was the last who could do so, because he lived at the time that the geological evidence against a global flood became insurmountable.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

How could from a single pair of birds spring forth:

Flightless birds such as emus, ostriches, chickens & turkeys, penguins, etc.

Birds of flight such as parrots & cockatoos, eagles & vultures, geese & flamingos, ravens & finches, etc.

How could from a single pair of snakes spring forth:

Venomous snakes such as cobras, sea snakes, vipers, rattlesnakes, pit vipers, etc.

Giant constrictors such as anacondas, boas, pythons, etc.

Tiny snakes such as blindsnakes the size of earthworms, etc.

How could from a single pair of cats spring forth:

Great cats such as leopards, cheetahs, lions, tigers, jaquars, etc.

Domestic cats such as tabbys, persian, siamese, longhair, shorthair, burmese, etc.

I wondering if you got a problem with this verse :

Revelation 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

Are you ok with the idea God is still involved in His creation for His pleasure? If God wants to be involved in His creation does He have to report to us and get our approval?

I personal see a lot of evidence of the world wide flood but I don't believe in any man's flood models since I believe God was directly involve in that judgement just like He will in Revelations. If someone else built their own ark it would have sunk. Noah's ark (represent Christ) was protected by God's Word.

I don't have much faith in Talkorigins site. Note that Talkorigins act as if God wasn't involved when the scripture made it plain He was.

 

[random person]

I wondering if you got a problem with this verse :

Revelation 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

Are you ok with the idea God is still involved in His creation for His pleasure? If God wants to be involved in His creation does He have to report to us and get our approval?

I personal see a lot of evidence of the world wide flood but I don't believe in any man's flood models since I believe God was directly involve in that judgement just like He will in Revelations. If someone else built their own ark it would have sunk. Noah's ark (represent Christ) was protected by God's Word.

I don't have much faith in Talkorigins site. Note that Talkorigins act as if God wasn't involved when the scripture made it plain He was.

Why do you reject evolution?

If one single pair of birds representing one species, if one single pair of snakes representing one species, if one single pair of cats representing one species, etc, etc, were preserved on the ark and that respected single pair of animals produced all of today's living species and extinct species, there obviously had to be be evolution over a matter of hundreds of years or thousands of years at best?

I.G. if the single pair of species of snake onboard the ark was nonvenomous, in a matter of hundreds of years it had to evolve enlarged fangs, venom glands, and venom or vice versa evolved into nonvenomous. If that single pair of species of birds were flightless, it had to evolve flight or vice versa evolved into flightless. If that single pair of cats was a domesticated species it would have evolved into an much larger apex predator or vice versa evolve from apex predator to small domesticated animals.

Then why do you reject evolulation?

 

[Smidlee]

Why do you reject evolution?

If one single pair of birds representing one species, if one single pair of snakes representing one species, if one single pair of cats representing one species, etc, etc, were preserved on the ark and that respected single pair of animals produced all of today's living species and extinct species, there obviously had to be be evolution over a matter of hundreds of years or thousands of years at best?

I.G. if the single pair of species of snake onboard the ark was nonvenomous, in a matter of hundreds of years it had to evolve enlarged fangs, venom glands, and venom or vice versa evolved into nonvenomous. If that single pair of species of birds were flightless, it had to evolve flight or vice versa evolved into flightless. If that single pair of cats was a domesticated species it would have evolved into an much larger apex predator or vice versa evolve from apex predator to small domesticated animals.

Then why do you reject evolulation?

Because I think it's complete nonsense even as a science. Man's evolution in my view is nothing more than modern day idolatry as man trying to explain himself away by his own intellect... his own creation. It's self-refuting since if man evolved then evolution would included everything about man including his belief in evolution. Since evolution explains away absolutely everything including the thoughts of man then it ends up explaining absolutely nothing.

Evolution as universal common descent , naturalism, and no taxonomic limit to variation.

 

[random person]

Because I think it's complete nonsense even as a science. Man's evolution in my view is nothing more than modern day idolatry as man trying to explain himself away by his own intellect... his own creation. It's self-refuting since if man evolved then evolution would included everything about man including his belief in evolution. Since evolution explains away absolutely everything including the thoughts of man then it ends up explaining absolutely nothing.

Evolution as universal common descent , naturalism, and no taxonomic limit to variation.

You are still not addressing my questions:

If only one single pair of snakes were saved on the ark, how does one explain today's species diversity if not through evolution, such as adaptations as hollow fangs, venom glands, and the toxins itself?

This goes every animal group in the whole earth today including extinct animals.

 

[random person]

And it goes further than that,

The class elapidae (cobras and its relatives) have fixed fangs and possess neurotoxic venom.

The class viperidae (vipers including rattlesnakes) have hinged fangs (fangs attached to moveable bones) and for the most part possess hemotoxic venom.

 

[Smidlee]

You are still not addressing my questions:

If only one single pair of snakes were saved on the ark, how does one explain today's species diversity if not through evolution, such as adaptations as hollow fangs, venom glands, and the toxins itself?

This goes every animal group in the whole earth today including extinct animals.

And why do you assume God is not still involved in His creation? I don't hold the assumption that every single creature today had to come directly from the Ark. While I still think it's possible all did come from the Ark yet don't assume it.
I have no doubt that God knew what he was doing when He gave Noah the instructions of how big to build the Ark and He could have plan it so all known animals today could have came from the Ark.

Also note that creationist believe in evolution as variation. I think Jones does a good job of explaining "variation in a single kind" (evolution) through a creationist viewpoint.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14

I certain don't believe evolutionist can explain how all those novelties that requires large amount of genetic code and engineering just happened.

 

[random person]

Smidlee,

Do you think it is possible the "earth" according to the ancient Hebrew who wrote the flood account, varies from the "earth" according to modern man today?

Do you think it possible these two concepts are radically different?