Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[OldWiseGuy]

And your evidence for this is...?

I do not personally know which one has more genetic diversity. Dogs appear to vary more in appearance, but genetics may tell another story.

I thought the change in appearance was evidence of genetic evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought the change in appearance was evidence of genetic evolution.

Yes, but there is more to it than that. Genetics plays a huge role. Ask sfs, he knows far more about this than I do.

 

[MerlinJ]

I thought the change in appearance was evidence of genetic evolution.

Their appearance, depending on the breed, is quite different from wolves, but they're very similar genetically, and they can still reproduce.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did a little web searching and it seems to difficult to find a paper that directly compares the diversity of both genomes. I did find this paper that indicated that even though dogs have more variety in appearance they are still less genetically diverse than humans:

Doggie Diversity | ASU - Ask A Biologist

When comparing human and dog DNA one must be sure that the method of measurement is the same. There are different ways to measure genetic diversity and if you use two different papers there may be two different methods of measuring diversity used. In the link that I supplied it mentions the fact that dogs came from a genetic bottleneck. They have not had time to diversify yet. The observed differences are due to artificial selection. A method that works much faster than natural selection but has the drawback of severely limiting variation in offspring.

 

[dad]

You sound like someone for whom the phrase 'sex education' conjures nothing more than shame and dirtiness.

Right...and? This is news? The killing of babies and forbidden acts should be called dirty. Evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right...and? This is news? The killing of babies and forbidden acts should be called dirty. Evil.

It is a good thing then that sex ed never advocates the killing of babies. And what "forbidden acts"? Unless you follow all of the Old Testament laws you can't pick and choose which O.T. laws are forbidden.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a good thing then that sex ed never advocates the killing of babies.

Why would they?

It's not called "killing babies" ... scientists took care of that.

It's called "removing unwanted tissue."

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Right...and? This is news? The killing of babies and forbidden acts should be called dirty. Evil.

You didn't have any sex education did you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would they?

It's not called "killing babies" ... scientists took care of that.

It's called "removing unwanted tissue."

Nope. And weren't you warned about abusing your thalidomide argument?

ETA: I missed the "unwanted tissue" remark. That is wrong. Let's call a spade a spade. An abortion is hardly killing babies. It is not even clear that it is thought to be in the Bible and there are verses that indicate that it is not the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. And weren't you warned about abusing your thalidomide argument?

No.

Was I supposed to have been?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

Was I supposed to have been?

You should have been.

 

[MerlinJ]

Welp, looks like we've horribly derailed another thread. Good work, all.

 

[dad]

You don't seem to understand "what science cannot cover".

Yes I do. So there.

In fact that statement makes no sense. And no, you did not point out that I was talking through my hat. The genetics that you do not understand and refuse to learn show that there was no flood.

False. The genetics that you cannot cite do no such thing. Just post the crux of your fable and maybe we can see where you went astray.

If you refuse to learn and understand genetics you cannot make a valid negative comment against those sciences.

Post something and see who learns what. I dare you. Anytime. Bring it.

But there is no valid evidence that supports these claims.

There is no science that has support for any other counter claim. Go figure.

Again, your claim, you need to supply verifiable evidence that supports you. In this case the Bible is not enough.

Unless you post science that shows Noah had our genes and that it worked the same way then you are barking in the dark.

Trying to use the Bible to justify the Bible is circular reasoning. You need independent tests of it.

The world does not revolve around some rejectee's opinion of how the proven word of God should be revered. No one cares about your opinion of God or His word. Get over yourself.

Wrong. Science has perhaps the most reliable evidence in the world.

Post it then. Don't spam some google link and think that you have done something. Post the few sentences that are relative and that you think help you.

Science uses a special form of evidence that is undeniable.

Only in the little box that it covers. That doesn't say much, and says squat about the life processes and laws in Noah's day. Yet you make grandiose claims about it. How cheap.

It works off of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence can be check and retested and the evidence will not change when viewed by different people.

Cut the sermons and evo pep talk and rally attempts, and cut to the chase. Present this evidence that life processes in Noah's day were the very same. You be pinned down man.

I am not the passer of fables here dad. Genetics is not "made up" since the effects of it can be tested and predicted.

Try to honestly address what is being discussed. No one questions genetics as it now exists. You claimed it was the same for Noah.

And it is only a mistaken misinterpretation of the Bible to call it "God's word".

Jesus did. He is right you are wrong. No use resisting the obvious truth.

In fact that claim could be said to be blasphemous and a breaking of the Second Commandment.

Not to anyone who has a clue what the bible is all about and what Jesus said point blank. Hows them apples?

 

[AV1611VET]

You should have been.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Can't say as I blame you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but: moderators ≠ censors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Welp, looks like we've horribly derailed another thread. Good work, all.

I somehow don't think Susan Sto Helit is going to complain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Can't say as I blame you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but: moderators ≠ censors.

That is not true. They quite often act as censors here. You can hardly even mention certain faiths, the thought of a colander seems to drive them mad. or are certain subjects allowed. It is a Christian site so I can't complain too much about their censoring. It is not totally unreasonable. Sometimes I only wish that they were a bit more balanced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I do. So there.


False. The genetics that you cannot cite do no such thing. Just post the crux of your fable and maybe we can see where you went astray.
Post something and see who learns what. I dare you. Anytime. Bring it.

No, when someone is being incredibly illogical and unreasonable all that it takes to defeat him is to point out this flaw of theirs. When you learn what evidence is I will not mind bringing evidence for you to discuss.

There is no science that has support for any other counter claim. Go figure.

What are you trying to say here? Of course there is scientific evidence against what you claim.

Unless you post science that shows Noah had our genes and that it worked the same way then you are barking in the dark.

Wrong again dad. I can't post science that shows what the Easter Bunny's genes are either so why did you bring up another character that never existed? You need to narrow the scope of your posts, it is possible to show that there was no worldwide flood with just one simple photograph.

The world does not revolve around some rejectee's opinion of how the proven word of God should be revered. No one cares about your opinion of God or His word. Get over yourself.

Now dad you should not be so hard on yourself. I never called you a rejectee. I know that I was never rejected by God and for you to claim that I was would probably be against the new flaming rule so I can only assume that you are talking about yourself.

Post it then. Don't spam some google link and think that you have done something. Post the few sentences that are relative and that you think help you.

To what end? I doubt if you would understand them if I did. But if you pick out a topic that you want to cover in more detail I will be happy to try to help you.

Only in the little box that it covers. That doesn't say much, and says squat about the life processes and laws in Noah's day. Yet you make grandiose claims about it. How cheap.

No, I don't. I make simple honest claims. And once again we know that Noah is merely a morality tale at best. Genesis should be looked at as a guide, not as actual history.

Cut the sermons and evo pep talk and rally attempts, and cut to the chase. Present this evidence that life processes in Noah's day were the very same. You be pinned down man.

Again, this is similar to asking for evidence in the Easter Bunny's day. If you can ask your questions properly then I will be more likely to be able to answer them. And in actuality the burden of proof is upon you. Your claims of processes somehow being different in those days are not supported by either the Bible or by science. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof when you find it unbearable.

Try to honestly address what is being discussed. No one questions genetics as it now exists. You claimed it was the same for Noah.

Again, since Noah never existed I did not.

Jesus did. He is right you are wrong. No use resisting the obvious truth.

Actually he didn't. He at no point says "The Bible is the word of God". He may have spoken of it, if his words were even recorded accurately, but he did not say that your book was the word of God.

Not to anyone who has a clue what the bible is all about and what Jesus said point blank. Hows them apples?

Rather laughable if you want my honest opinion. It is rather sad that you cannot support your claims with even the Bible, much less than with science.

 

[dad]

No, when someone is being incredibly illogical and unreasonable all that it takes to defeat him is to point out this flaw of theirs. When you learn what evidence is I will not mind bringing evidence for you to discuss.

So you feel you can spout claims about the genome of Noah and get away with it. I see.

What are you trying to say here? Of course there is scientific evidence against what you claim.

Hiding it? Like I believe you.

Wrong again dad. I can't post science that shows what the Easter Bunny's genes are either so why did you bring up another character that never existed?

So you admit failure to be able to comment on Noah's day and the genetics. Lurkers, behold.

You need to narrow the scope of your posts, it is possible to show that there was no worldwide flood with just one simple photograph.

Another foolish claim.

Now dad you should not be so hard on yourself. I never called you a rejectee. I know that I was never rejected by God and for you to claim that I was would probably be against the new flaming rule so I can only assume that you are talking about yourself.

I am talking in general about people who rejected the word of God. If you want to distance yourself from that crowd feel free to do so!

To what end? I doubt if you would understand them if I did. But if you pick out a topic that you want to cover in more detail I will be happy to try to help you.

To whatever end it takes to support the silly claims you spout off, such as about Noah's genetics.

No, I don't. I make simple honest claims. And once again we know that Noah is merely a morality tale at best. Genesis should be looked at as a guide, not as actual history.

Your opinion is not really needed. You also are in no position to know.

Again, since Noah never existed I did not.

You mentioned that genetics would have been a certain way, no?

Actually he didn't. He at no point says "The Bible is the word of God".

Yes, He does make it clear.


Mt 4:4 -But He answered and said, "It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "




"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Jesus' answer to temptation was, "It is written ... it is written ... and again, it is written!" Fortunate are the Lord's followers when they are able to meet every crucial test of life with a like response. This places the highest stamp of approval upon the Bible. It is simply unthinkable that the Christ of God would have relied upon a merely human and fallible book in his encounter with the Prince of Evil. Jesus' use of the Scriptures in this situation plainly marks them as the words OF GOD! Indeed, in this very verse, this principle is dogmatically asserted, "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."



Matthew - Chapter 4 - Coffman's Commentary of the New Testament on StudyLight.org

He may have spoken of it, if his words were even recorded accurately, but he did not say that your book was the word of God.

Yes. Scripture came down from before His time on earth. He affirmed it totally.


You be well and truly busted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you feel you can spout claims about the genome of Noah and get away with it. I see.

What "spouting"? Stating obvious truths? Yes.

Hiding it? Like I believe you.

Why wouldn't you believe me? I have a far better record of honesty than almost all of the creationists here.

So you admit failure to be able to comment on Noah's day and the genetics. Lurkers, behold.

One more time, how would you show the genetics of "The Easter Bunny's day" it is a nonsensical claim on your part. You need to learn how to ask proper questions.

Another foolish claim.

dad admits defeat again.

I am talking in general about people who rejected the word of God. If you want to distance yourself from that crowd feel free to do so!

Hmm, I know of no one that has "rejected" the word of God. How would one do that?

To whatever end it takes to support the silly claims you spout off, such as about Noah's genetics.

I made no silly claims. You seem to be conflating your responses with my claims.

Your opinion is not really needed. You also are in no position to know.

My opinion is far superior to yours. I am willing to learn, you are not. You have shown that repeatedly here.

You mentioned that genetics would have been a certain way, no?

Since all of the physical laws are unchanged for over millions of years, there is no reason why they would be different in the past than they are today. Again, you are the one making claims about a change you need to support those claims with evidence.

Yes, He does make it clear.

Then why didn't you support your claim? And not only that you need to show that the Bible is reliable. Otherwise you have only circular reasoning. I have never seen you deal with the hundreds of flaws in the Bible and I remember your utter failure in regards to the Tyre prophesy.

Mt 4:4 -But He answered and said, "It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "

And this supports your claim? I don't see it. Try again.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Jesus' answer to temptation was, "It is written ... it is written ... and again, it is written!" Fortunate are the Lord's followers when they are able to meet every crucial test of life with a like response. This places the highest stamp of approval upon the Bible. It is simply unthinkable that the Christ of God would have relied upon a merely human and fallible book in his encounter with the Prince of Evil. Jesus' use of the Scriptures in this situation plainly marks them as the words OF GOD! Indeed, in this very verse, this principle is dogmatically asserted, "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

But that is all he had at the best. The Old Testament especially has been shown to be filled with bad science, bad morals and self contradictions. You are merely putting your own spin on that. Again, you need to do better.

Matthew - Chapter 4 - Coffman's Commentary of the New Testament on StudyLight.org

Yes. Scripture came down from before His time on earth. He affirmed it totally.

No, at best the writers of the Bible did and to me it does not look that way at all.

You be well and truly busted.

Not even close dad. Try again.

 

[dad]

What "spouting"? Stating obvious truths? Yes.

You can't post support, and what may seem obvious inside your head is not the same outside.

Why wouldn't you believe me? I have a far better record of honesty than almost all of the creationists here.

Give your back a pat.

One more time, how would you show the genetics of "The Easter Bunny's day" it is a nonsensical claim on your part. You need to learn how to ask proper questions.

I did not claim that genetics applied to the bunny, while you suggest that they apply for Noah. Do you recant?

Hmm, I know of no one that has "rejected" the word of God. How would one do that?

Read their posts and see if they line up with the word.

I made no silly claims. You seem to be conflating your responses with my claims.

Back up the Noah connection then. Or simply apologize for making bogus claims in the name of science.

My opinion is far superior to yours.

You can be funny. Albeit accidentally.

Since all of the physical laws are unchanged for over millions of years, there is no reason why they would be different in the past than they are today.

Since you do not know a thing about laws in Noah's day, you are emitting empty words.

Again, you are the one making claims about a change you need to support those claims with evidence.

Part of my support is that science cannot say anything about it. Yay or nay. Might as well ask a donkey.

... failure in regards to the Tyre prophesy.

Tyre was kinked to Satan and the end time if I recall? try to find something you can talk sensibly about.

But that is all he had at the best. The Old Testament especially has been shown to be filled with bad science, bad morals and self contradictions.

In your opinion, which has no value in the big scheme of things against God.

Post flood populating is best explained with a different past.