• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A global flood is simply untenable

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,115
12,987
78
✟432,750.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Popping out all over the place:
"Now new research, reported today in the journal Science, describes a run of salmon that colonized a river and a lake beach, and evolved partial reproductive isolation in fewer than 13 generations. Natural selection, it appears, can spur the emergence of new species far faster than expected."
From: High-Speed Speciation


You've taken years off my age! I'm a teenager again!
"Partial reproductive isolation" is not speciation. Might not even be a subspecies. But it can happen. Now imagine how it would be if every month, a new mammal appears. Yeah, pretty remarkable, right? And yet, no one thought to comment on it.

Which is why no adult really believes it happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Partial reproductive isolation" is not speciation. Might not even be a subspecies. But it can happen. Now imagine how it would be if every month, a new mammal appears. Yeah, pretty remarkable, right? And yet, no one thought to comment on it.

Which is why no adult really believes it happened.
If brought about by isolation, how would one know? Or, if accompanied by some event that made comunication difficult, it would also not be shared easily. Put those 2 things together, and you have animal dispersion after leaving the ark, and human dispersion and communication difficulties after Babel, followed by attempts to survive by killing off larger, more frightening species, and missing the addition of any new small species, all while moving into new areas, where new species would be commonplace, due to the above, earlier faunal dispersion, so the large bulk of speciation would go unnoticed.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,115
12,987
78
✟432,750.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If brought about by isolation, how would one know?
By seeing if the two populations can still interbreed at all.
Put those 2 things together, and you have animal dispersion after leaving the ark, and human dispersion and communication difficulties after Babel, followed by attempts to survive by killing off larger, more frightening species
Like the Koala bears who managed the trip from Asia Minor to Australia. And it seems to me a bit odd to take the "larger, more frightening species" on board the Ark to save them, only to kill them off once the flood ended.

due to the above, earlier faunal dispersion, so the large bulk of speciation would go unnoticed.
Most big mammals, for example, live where humans exist. So that won't work.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's questioned constantly. That's how new theories replace old ones. Someone finds a more accurate description of the phenomena.

Would you like some examples?
No for the most part I agree that science is about testing ideas and updating them with new evdience. I was mainly talking about the basic assumptions of the science method itself espeically when it comes to disciplines like archeology, geology and evolution. Assumptions like Materialism, Reductionism and Uniformatarianism.

One example might be how sediment layers are assumed to be the slow and gradual process of changing environments over time. Whereas sediment layers often found are laid down quick, are uniformly flat having little evidence of erosion between layers.

So a sediment layer at the bottom of a column with sea life is assumed to have been the earliest layer put down from an ancient ocean which dried up and this process is repeated. Whereas it may have a more recent history due to a flood.

As mentioned the large ripples found in the Scablands and in many deserts (not sand dunes) some up to 300 feet high and a mile apart seem to point to massive flooding. When a scientists finds a whale in the middle of the desert they immediately assume it was once an acient ocean. But then an isolated whale in the middle of the desert also makes sense if there was a giant flood.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,115
12,987
78
✟432,750.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No for the most part I agree that science is about testing ideas and updating them with new evdience. I was mainly talking about the basic assumptions of the science method itself espeically when it comes to disciplines like archeology, geology and evolution. Assumptions like Materialism, Reductionism and Uniformatarianism.
Uniformitarianism is merely the assumption that the rules by which the universe works have been the same since the beginning. So far, that's always turned out to be the case. Since evolution is directly observed to happen constantly, no such assumptions are necessary.
One example might be how sediment layers are assumed to be the slow and gradual process of changing environments over time.
No such assumption is part of geology. Sedimentation has observably different rates. And that's been known since Lyell.
As mentioned the large ripples found in the Scablands and in many deserts (not sand dunes) some up to 300 feet high and a mile apart seem to point to massive flooding.
The scablands were caused by massive flooding when an ice dam broke and released the waters of a huge lake. That's why they look so much different than geologic features caused by gradual erosion.

When a scientists finds a whale in the middle of the desert they immediately assume it was once an acient ocean.
Again, it comes down to evidence. In S. America, for example, we find that such areas are uplifted, and still rising. So it makes sense. In Pakistan, we find such fossils in sediments show millions of years of gradual deposition of marine organisms, the result of India moving north into Asia.

You either believe in God's word or you dont. I believe myself....
The issue is not who believes God's word, but whether or not you believe certain people who interpret His word.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,115
12,987
78
✟432,750.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Nature Communications
volume 13, Article number: 2401 (2022)

What sets aeolian dune height?


You Tube can be very informative. But lots of crackpots post videos on You Tube. Always check stuff like that.
"I saw it on You Tube; it has to be true!" Well, no, it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
By seeing if the two populations can still interbreed at all.
Then lions and tigers are the same species?
Like the Koala bears who managed the trip from Asia Minor to Australia. And it seems to me a bit odd to take the "larger, more frightening species" on board the Ark to save them, only to kill them off once the flood ended.
Men do things from desperation sometimes.
Most big mammals, for example, live where humans exist. So that won't work.
Now they do. Did they always? No, in either your view or mine. So it still works.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,755
5,564
European Union
✟227,291.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You either believe in God's word or you dont. I believe myself....

All things are possible to God.
The question is to what degree is the Bible (the library of mostly Jewish literature) God's word. In other words, how we see inspiration.

Is it automatic dictation from God and people were merely hands writing it down? Or were people the authors who wrote their ideas and used their vocabulary, while being inspired to see God behind all that? Are all books, chapters, sentences inspired in the same way or are there various levels of inspiration? Is the Mosaic Law basically dictated to Moses inspired in the same way as for example every proverb in the book of Proverbs or the story of Rut? Are literary devices and genres allowed, for example mythological dramas, poetry, songs, symbols, metaphors? When Bible says we have our deepest thoughts in our kidneys, is it true factually, literally? Or is it simply the ancient Jewish vocabulary and its the spiritual meaning that is inspired, not the surface words used? What about the textual preservation? Do we have the text in the same form it was first written down? Or was it compiled from various sources, authors? And again, does it differ book from book?

You do not have to personally answer these, it is being debated since the beginning and it will be debated. However, the situation is more complex than "you either believe it or you dont...", because the Bible is not a monolith and has many layers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,396
3,190
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If brought about by isolation, how would one know? Or, if accompanied by some event that made comunication difficult, it would also not be shared easily. Put those 2 things together, and you have animal dispersion after leaving the ark, and human dispersion and communication difficulties after Babel, followed by attempts to survive by killing off larger, more frightening species, and missing the addition of any new small species, all while moving into new areas, where new species would be commonplace, due to the above, earlier faunal dispersion, so the large bulk of speciation would go unnoticed.
Your example still isn't even remotely fast enough. The ark encounters space and rapid speciation idea really would require new species and even new genus, not in 13 generations, but in 1. Imagine a paleomastodon, giving birth to a whooly mammoth, giving birth to an African elephant. This is more of the speed that would be necessary.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,115
12,987
78
✟432,750.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Then lions and tigers are the same species?
Nearly so. Humans can put them in circumstances under which they can interbreed. Otherwise impossible. This is one of the major unsolvable problems for creationism. If God created each species separately, then there would be precise boundaries. But there aren't. Some creationists have tried to solve this (and the Ark problem) but supposing a limited, but amazingly rapid amount of evolution before modern times, when God somehow pulled the switch and went back to "no evolution."
Men do things from desperation sometimes.
Yep.
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your example still isn't even remotely fast enough. The ark encounters space and rapid speciation idea really would require new species and even new genus, not in 13 generations, but in 1.
Why 1?
Imagine a paleomastodon, giving birth to a whooly mammoth, giving birth to an African elephant. This is more of the speed that would be necessary.
Why do you think this is impossible, at least to a degree? And how do you know wooly mammoths and african elephants aren't of the same species, like Clydesdales and Shetlands, or Pygmies and Dinkas?
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nearly so. Humans can put them in circumstances under which they can interbreed. Otherwise impossible.
Why? If humans are just giving them the right romantic touches--soft lighting, classy jazz music, and a gourmet meal--what's to keep that from happening in the wild?

And, one thing that might cause them to mate is if there arent many other choices around. The biblical account of the animals on the ark could be read to say there were actually two couples of each "kind". Maybe a lion-like couple and a tiger-like couple. If these both had normal offspring, but were scattering over the earth fairly rapidly, some of the offspring of one would find the offspring of the other, perhaps. Then you would start getting spots and stripes and blacks and tans

This is one of the major unsolvable problems for creationism. If God created each species separately, then there would be precise boundaries.
Or something higher than species, something we have a hard time distinguishing without a lot of observation in the wild. The bible calls it "kinds".
But there aren't. Some creationists have tried to solve this (and the Ark problem) but supposing a limited, but amazingly rapid amount of evolution before modern times, when God somehow pulled the switch and went back to "no evolution."
No, that was the point of my previous post. It still happens, but requires some isolation and ecological forcing, perhaps, that isn't normal today. Though I wouldn't call it evolution, since it was likely designed into the creatures from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,396
3,190
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why 1?

Why do you think this is impossible, at least to a degree? And how do you know wooly mammoths and african elephants aren't of the same species, like Clydesdales and Shetlands, or Pygmies and Dinkas?
1 because of the sheer number of species in the world.

And hyper speciation really is just an ad hoc explanation that ignores ancient near east context of the global flood narrative.
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 because of the sheer number of species in the world.
We're going to ignore aquatic and arthropodic species, or bacteria, etc. since those probably weren't brought by twos to Noah. How many are left?

And despite @The Barbarian's claim, we do see new species popping out all the time:
From a quick search about mammals:
  • There are approximately 6,495 recognized species of mammals on the planet. There are always new ones being discovered, with over 1,000 recognized between 2005 and 2018.
And hyper speciation really is just an ad hoc explanation that ignores ancient near east context of the global flood narrative.
Which we'll continue to ignore as irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,396
3,190
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We're going to ignore aquatic and arthropodic species, or bacteria, etc. since those probably weren't brought by twos to Noah. How many are left?

And despite @The Barbarian's claim, we do see new species popping out all the time:
From a quick search about mammals:
  • There are approximately 6,495 recognized species of mammals on the planet. There are always new ones being discovered, with over 1,000 recognized between 2005 and 2018.

Which we'll continue to ignore as irrelevant.
Well obviously just because we continue to discover new species, doesnt mean that new species form every generation. Barbarians number also doesn't appear to include fossil species. But regardless, the sheer number of species would require birth of new species every generation due to how ma h there are.

And ancient near east context is not "irrelevant" to biblical studies. Unless people aren't interested in the context of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well obviously just because we continue to discover new species, doesnt mean that new species form every generation.
Nope, but discovering them now tells us we don't know when they formed. If it was a long time ago, it tells us our accounting system is inaccurate. If it was fairly recent, it tells us that speciation is rapid.


Barbarians number also doesn't appear to include fossil species.
Most fossil species that are no longer extant were killed off durIng the flood or shortly thereafter, so Barb's number may be a point of agreement.

But regardless, the sheer number of species would require birth of new species every generation due to how ma h there are.
Can you give us the calculations for that?
And ancient near east context is not "irrelevant" to biblical studies. Unless people aren't interested in the context of the Bible.
It's not relevant because neither Barb nor I are advocates of it. If you want to explain why it's relevant, have at it. Imo, since you are agreeing with Barb on the timeframe, to introduce another way to argue for the timeframe that negates biblical revelation as useful is superfluous and counterproductive.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,396
3,190
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nope, but discovering them now tells us we don't know when they formed. If it was a long time ago, it tells us our accounting system is inaccurate. If it was fairly recent, it tells us that speciation is rapid.



Most fossil species that are no longer extant were killed off durIng the flood or shortly thereafter, so Barb's number may be a point of agreement.


Can you give us the calculations for that?

It's not relevant because neither Barb nor I are advocates of it. If you want to explain why it's relevant, have at it. Imo, since you are agreeing with Barb on the timeframe, to introduce another way to argue for the timeframe that negates biblical revelation as useful is superfluous and counterproductive.
If we don't know when their speciation occurred, then we simply don't know. It sounds like you're trying to argue that speciation could occur after single generations on the bases that the timing of speciation is unknown for some.

This of course doesn't make any sense.


Some have done calculations in the topic, such as in the video above.

Barbarian is an advocate of ancient near east context. So I'm not sure what you mean here. But in short, Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology, it is not describing things akin to modern science. Example:
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If we don't know when their speciation occurred, then we simply don't know. It sounds like you're trying to argue that speciation could occur after single generations on the bases that the timing of speciation is unknown for some.
How would I know it ever occurred after a single generation, based your own statement? But I dont think so. Nor would it be necessary.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,396
3,190
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How would I know it ever occurred after a single generation, based your own statement? But I dont think so. Nor would it be necessary.
It sounded like you're challenging the understood reality that speciation events take many generations. That's just how I perceived your comments. Its fine if that's not what you meant to do.

There really are just lots and lots of challenges, scientifically with YECism. And everyone knows it. Oodles of challenges. A lot of things that logically don't appear to add up.

And, simultaneously, the context of the Bible also indicates that Genesis isn't about science, nor does it teach science, nor does it teach things such as the age of the earth. The context is ancient near eastern. Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology. And it's about temple construction. See Isaiah 66:1-2 for a better understanding of God's rest on the 7th day.

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭66:1‭-‬2‬
[1] Thus says the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; so what kind of house could you build for me, what sort of place for me to rest? [2] All these things my hand has made, so all these things are mine, says the Lord.

It's about God building His temple. Then when the temple is complete, that is the cosmos, God rests on the throne.

And that's what God does in every other temple in the old testament. God does that with the tabernacle. God does it with solomons temple. God does it with ezekiels temple etc. see Ezekiel chapter 43 for example. When the temple is constructed, God dwells among His people.

“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!
Hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place; O hear in heaven your dwelling place; hear and forgive.
1 King‬ ‭8:27‬ ‭

So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days.
1 Kings 8:65

And you shall not go outside the entrance of the tent of meeting for seven days, until the days of your ordination are completed, for it will take seven days to ordain you.
Leviticus 8:33

temple priest ordination in 7 days.

And in the eleventh year, in the month of Bul, which is the eighth month, the house was finished in all its parts, and according to all its specifications. He was seven years in building it.
1 Kings 6:38

The Temple constructed in 7 years.

And all the men of Israel assembled to King Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month.
1 Kings 8:2

‭‭
“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!
Hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place; O hear in heaven your dwelling place; hear and forgive.
1 King‬ ‭8:27‬ ‭

Inauguation feast on the 7th month.

So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days.
1 Kings 8:65

Temple inauguration feast on the 7th day.

temple dedicated to God on the 7th day of the 7th month, after 7 years, and what does God do?

And I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will not forsake my people Israel.”
1 Kings 6:13

As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple. While the man was standing beside me, I heard one speaking to me out of the temple, and he said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel forever. And the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoring and by the dead bodies of their kings at their high places,
Ezekiel 43:4‭-‬7 ESV


And God of course dwells in the temple where God rests and rules.

Until I find a place for the Lord, A dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob.” Let’s go into His dwelling place; Let’s worship at His footstool. Arise, Lord, to Your resting place, You and the ark of Your strength. ¶For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it as His dwelling place. “This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell [sit enthroned NIV], for I have desired it.
Psalms 132:5‭, ‬7‭-‬8‭, ‬13‭-‬14

Genesis is not about the age of the earth or earth sciences. It's about a 7-day temple inauguration where on the 7th day, God takes up the throne to rule. It doesn't have anything to do with science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0