Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[PsychoSarah]

Then, assuming the hypothesis is correct, this would simply be evidence that those types of placental mammals did not migrate with marsupials, (similar to distinctly marsupial migration via Antarctica in evolution models) or that ecological conditions of the crossing did not favor placentals as they do in present day Australasian ecological systems.

All I see is desperation in scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something that debunks the flood model. Evolutionists are always grasping at straws.

-_- if you understood physiology as much as I did, you would understand many of the reasons why your explanation is bunk. Nothing about a rabbit is going to prevent it from migrating to the same place a kangaroo can go. If you are going to claim some physical difference drove the difference in territory, you should be able to back it up by showing that placental mammals have a different physiology in such a way that they could not or would not migrate with marsupials.

Do not just make a baseless claim.

 

[lifepsyop]

-_- if you understood physiology as much as I did, you would understand many of the reasons why your explanation is bunk. Nothing about a rabbit is going to prevent it from migrating to the same place a kangaroo can go. If you are going to claim some physical difference drove the difference in territory, you should be able to back it up by showing that placental mammals have a different physiology in such a way that they could not or would not migrate with marsupials.

Do not just make a baseless claim.

I won't repeat the last couple of pages of the thread. You can go back and read it yourself and then try adding to the discussion.

I've never claimed any mammals would be physically prevented from migrating somewhere, only that marsupials may have increased pressure to.

For example, I cited an example from the literature where the displacement of certain marsupial populations was blamed by the presence of caviomorph rodents.

 

[dad]

-_- you must be joking, you really think the supposedly omnipotent being couldn't will holes into existence to plant the trees in?

I suppose He could eat an ice cream cone by dropping a straw from a space ship, having an angel fly the straw with a bit of ice cream a drop or two at a time if He wanted also. But Occam says planted is planted is planted. Jesus talked about a sower sowing seeds, not a friendly giant running around zapping holes. Why try to reinvent the obvious?

 

[Queller]

Genesis 2 does not describe creation. Genesis one does. The trees grew in a day; day three.

Which therefore contradicts dad's claim. Thank you.

Genesis 2 builds on Genesis one and introduces Adam and Eve. It begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

Despite claims by some, the Sabbath was instituted in Genesis 2 not after the Exodus.

Let's look at Genesis 2:8. "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." Man was formed on day 6. Unless you think that Adam was in limbo for a time, it makes sense that he was out into the garden, Eden, when he was created. That was on day 6. If he was put into the garden on day six, then how could the trees have grown up naturally?

If they didn't grow naturally, why would they have rings?

It wasn't. The creation happed as described in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 adds some detail, but changes none of the relevant facts.

Unless you consider the order of creation a relevant fact.

 

[Queller]

If you want to claim we should or do have evidence for the forces and laws in the past (ridiculous claim) here is a test for the lurkers you need to do for us.

Show us how you know the strong nuclear force was the same?

Good luck with that.

Easy as pie.

If the strong force was weaker than it is, the chemical elements needed for life would not be stable, and we would not be here. If it were stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been burned to helium in the Big Bang. As a result, there would be no long-lived stars like the sun, and no water. There would probably be no complicated chemistry in the universe, and we would not be here.

Source

Now explain how you know the strong nuclear force was different.

Jesus said the flood came and TOOK them all away.

Took what away?

It wasn't just rain as usual. It fell as torrential rain at first, because nothing else could lift an ocean vessel sized ark off the ground. Nothing else could cover all the mountains and be even higher than the highest one!

OK, so it was rain at first. What did it become later?

How high would a window of heaven pouring out water have to be to have the water fall as heavy rain on the earth?

five feet? Five hundred miles? 5 light years? If physics was all different, who knows?

Of course it was rain, as I described it. In Noah's land anyhow!

You have described rain exactly how we know it today.

Who knows if it may have been heavier elsewhere?

To disbelieve the word is to spit on it, not to believe it.

Do you believe there is a mountain high enough to see the whole earth?

 

[dad]

Which therefore contradicts dad's claim. Thank you.

?? Fast growing trees in creation week do not contradict me.

If they didn't grow naturally, why would they have rings?

Nature being different does not mean no rings it just means they do not represent time as they would growing in this nature.

 

[dad]

Easy as pie.

If the strong force was weaker than it is, the chemical elements needed for life would not be stable, and we would not be here. If it were stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been burned to helium in the Big Bang. As a result, there would be no long-lived stars like the sun, and no water. There would probably be no complicated chemistry in the universe, and we would not be here.

Source

Gong!


You are thinking circularly. You mean if all else were the same, then the strong nuclear force could not change. You need to prove it was the same on it's own merit, not by assuming a same state past where you simply invoke other things you believe were the same!

What you are saying is that HERE IN this state we could not make the strong nuclear force weaker or stronger without consequences. That is not the issue at all.

Now explain how you know the strong nuclear force was different.

Hey, did I say it was even here?? How would I know what other force or forces were also here that may have changed the balance of things? How would we know when the strong nuclear force started, and what else may have been here also or in it's place? I am not the one pretending to know that nonsense.

Took what away?

In the flood the water took the people all away.

OK, so it was rain at first. What did it become later?

""First of all you must understand this, that scoffers (outspoken skeptics, mockers) will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.' [this is the doctrine of uniformitarianism] They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word (logos) of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world (kosmos) that then existed was deluged ("cataclysmed" = inundated) with water and perished."

The Flood of Noah

five feet? Five hundred miles? 5 light years? If physics was all different, who knows?

Depth of water doesn't change.

You have described rain exactly how we know it today.

No. More like giant facets opening in the upper atmosphere or somewhere up there, and POURING out water to catastrophically flood the planet.

Do you believe there is a mountain high enough to see the whole earth?

Yes. But who says it is on earth?

 

[Queller]

?? Fast growing trees in creation week do not contradict me.

You said they took weeks.

In the former state trees could grow rings and all in weeks.

KWCrazy said it happened in a day. That contradicts your claim.

Nature being different does not mean no rings it just means they do not represent time as they would growing in this nature.

Do you even know what a tree ring is?

tree ring
A layer of wood cells produced by a tree or shrub in one year, usually consisting of thin-walled cells formed early in the growing season (called earlywood) and thicker-walled cells produced later in the growing season (called latewood). The beginning of earlywood formation and the end of the latewood formation form one annual ring, which usually extends around the entire circumference of the tree.

Now you are claiming that in your different state past, all four seasons happened what, every day?

 

[dad]

You said they took weeks.

I was allowing for some trees that might take longer than others. I also pointed out the tree that grew in Noah's day in a week or so, as well as the garden planted where trees grew in creation week.

KWCrazy said it happened in a day. That contradicts your claim.

Maybe, I'd have to see the context. What the garden Jesus planted grew in one day?

Do you even know what a tree ring is?

Yes. Do you know how to ask adult questions?

Now you are claiming that in your different state past, all four seasons happened what, every day?

The rings would not have represented seasons. The rings would have to represent parts of the day or week if a tree grew in weeks.

 

[KWCrazy]

If they didn't grow naturally, why would they have rings?

Why wouldn't they?
Or did they?
Without having hewn the tree immediately, we wouldn't know if they had rings or not. However, since everything was created in its mature state, I see no reason why they would not have rings. God's authority is limitless. As easy an an author can write, "A tree stood in the field." God could say "Let there be a tree."

Presumably Adam had DNA, which would indicate a DNA history; and yet he was not born from human flesh. Considering that God could replicate this world perfectly with a simple command, it's beyond our ability to comprehend but not impossible for an omnipotent God.

Unless you consider the order of creation a relevant fact.

Genesis 2 neither concerns nor contradicts the order of creation. It's the story of the creation of man, who God created from the dust of the earth and placed in the garden of Eden. Since man was created of day six, Eden had to have been created no later than day 6.

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you even know what a tree ring is?

Do you recognize that there is a difference between natural growth and a supernatural creation? Trees are not created by supernatural today. They do, however, exist, which indicates that they had some point of origin.
Everything in Genesis 1, even the light from states light years away, was created in its mature state relative to the earth. The light from the stars could be seen instantly, not because of the physics involved, but because that was as God intended.

 

[dad]

Do you recognize that there is a difference between natural growth and a supernatural creation? Trees are not created by supernatural today. They do, however, exist, which indicates that they had some point of origin.
Everything in Genesis 1, even the light from states light years away, was created in its mature state relative to the earth. The light from the stars could be seen instantly, not because of the physics involved, but because that was as God intended.

You're guessing. Maybe watch the declaratives.

 

[dad]

Why wouldn't they?
Or did they?
Without having hewn the tree immediately, we wouldn't know if they had rings or not.

Actually all we would need is rings from a tree grown in that state. If the flood was about 4500 years ago the former nature existed then. Methusalah has more rings than there are years to the flood so the tree has to be grown or started in the former state. It has rings.

However, since everything was created in its mature state, I see no reason why they would not have rings.

Speculation. We do not know that Adam was old in any way except appearance. God had the earth produce plants apparently...like a garden or some such.

Ge 1:12 -And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


We know God planted the garden in creation week. The trees were grown up for Adam, so they had to grow fast. Since they still grew fast in Noah's day, we cannot invoke a special miracle, but can look to the former nature itself. Man was specially formed. That was a direct event by the hand of God Himself. Adam was not dying when he was made. He had access to eternal life. So in what way was he created old?

God's authority is limitless. As easy an an author can write, "A tree stood in the field." God could say "Let there be a tree."

Except that they came from the ground as cited. Not some big hole that God dug and stuck giant trees in.

Presumably Adam had DNA,

Not like ours necessarily. The information in the /\'DNA' could have worked and been passed down differently even had somewhat of a different than helix shape for all we know.

which would indicate a DNA history;

No. One would not find human history in the genetic make up of Adam. Adam was the first man.

Genesis 2 neither concerns nor contradicts the order of creation. It's the story of the creation of man, who God created from the dust of the earth and placed in the garden of Eden. Since man was created of day six, Eden had to have been created no later than day 6.

Right. Since plants were made on day four, I assume that would be the day.

 

[KWCrazy]

We do not know that Adam was old in any way except appearance.

We know that he was a man, not a boy, and that he could walk and speak. That means he was mature. I did not say old.

Ge 1:12 -And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:13 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Adam was not dying when he was made. He had access to eternal life. So in what way was he created old?

Again, not old but mature. He had access to eternal life but he chose instead to know the difference between good and evil; in the process gaining not only knowledge of sin but the responsibility that comes with knowing.

One would not find human history in the genetic make up of Adam. Adam was the first man.

Being the first man, he would have both X and Y chromosomes, indicating he came from a man and a woman, though he obviously did not.

Since plants were made on day four, I assume that would be the day.

I see no reason to disagree.

 

[dad]

We know that he was a man, not a boy, and that he could walk and speak. That means he was mature. I did not say old.

OK. Obviously he was a man.

Gen 1:13 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Right, and...your point?

Again, not old but mature.

He was created new one day how mature was that? In what way was he mature?

"
: having or showing the mental and emotional qualities of an adult
: having a fully grown or developed body : grown to full size
: having reached a final or desired state
"

Websters

Adam was not 'developed' he was created. It presumably was not 'grown to size' either.

He had access to eternal life but he chose instead to know the difference between good and evil; in the process gaining not only knowledge of sin but the responsibility that comes with knowing.

Right, so he had eternal life or was created to be eternal. I would think he got old after the fall.

Being the first man, he would have both X and Y chromosomes, indicating he came from a man and a woman, though he obviously did not.

No! How can we be sure that genetics was the same? I doubt there was anything in Adam that indicated he came from a woman because he did not.

I see no reason to disagree.

OK so plants we can say were made the same day the garden was planted most likely.

 

[lasthero]

However, since everything was created in its mature state, I see no reason why they would not have rings

Trees grow rings because of the environment they're in. They react to the different seasons. If you were to grow a tree in a stable enviromnent, it wouldn't get rings like that. Trees don't NEED to have rings, in the same way that people don't NEED to have a bellybutton or scars.

So if God were to make a tree with rings, he would basically be making a tree that looked like it went through seasons that it didn't actually go through. Why would he do that?

 

[SkyWriting]

It can? Care to provide evidence for that claim?

Search for fast....or ultra fast, or super fast evolution.

PLOS Genetics: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs ...
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen...
Feb 9, 2012 - (2012) Correction: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife Pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum .
PLOS Genetics: Correction: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of ...
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/annotation/...aa54...
Correction: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife Pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Nigel F. Delaney,; Susan ...
Ultrafast evolution and loss of CRISPRs following a host ...
National Center for Biotechnology Information...
National Center for Biotechnology Information
by NF Delaney - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 41 - ‎Related articles PLoS Genet. 2012 Feb;8(2):e1002511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002511. Epub 2012 Feb 9. Ultrafast evolution and loss of CRISPRs following a host shift in a ...
Ultrafast Evolution of Imidazole after Electronic Excitation ...
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp3078198
American Chemical Society
by R Montero - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 8 - ‎Related articles Oct 22, 2012 - The ultrafast dynamics of the imidazole chromophore has been tracked after electronic excitation in the 250–217 nm energy region, by time ...
Scientists map ultrafast evolution of chemical bonds - Desy
News Search - Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY...
Apr 2, 2015 - Now an international collaboration has been able to map the evolution of the chemical bonds in these kinds of ultrafast processes on the level ...
Ultrafast evolution of photonic eigenstates in : k: -space ...
Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information › Journal home › Archive › LetterNature
by RJP Engelen - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 41 - ‎Related articles Apr 1, 2007 - Ultrafast evolution of photonic eigenstates in k-space. Rob J. P. Engelen, Yoshimasa Sugimoto, Henkjan Gersen, Naoki Ikeda, Kiyoshi ...
Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a ... - VIVO
vivo.nkn.uidaho.edu/vivo/display/W000300725500030
Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife Pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum | Research and expertise at the ...
Advances in Mycoplasma Research and Treatment: 2012 ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1481606921
2012 - ‎Medical
(2011 SEP 20) Harvard University, Cambridge: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRlSPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife

In which verse did God pick the animals that Noah took on the Ark?

As with above,
Seek ye not and find not.



NIV
15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

KJV
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

 

[SkyWriting]

Trees grow rings because of the environment they're in. They react to the different seasons. If you were to grow a tree in a stable enviromnent, it wouldn't get rings like that. Trees don't NEED to have rings, in the same way that people don't NEED to have a bellybutton or scars.

So if God were to make a tree with rings, he would basically be making a tree that looked like it went through seasons that it didn't actually go through. Why would he do that?

If you happen to snap a spear of asparagus, you'd find it 600% weaker
compared to a tree branch of the same size.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you recognize that there is a difference between natural growth and a supernatural creation? Trees are not created by supernatural today. They do, however, exist, which indicates that they had some point of origin.
Everything in Genesis 1, even the light from states light years away, was created in its mature state relative to the earth. The light from the stars could be seen instantly, not because of the physics involved, but because that was as God intended.

We don't know that any natural laws were changed.
Perhaps "time" exists as part of God's thoughts.
When Jesus healed people...it seems time was part
of the "fix" though no persons seem to have experienced
the "time" elements.

 

[SteveB28]

Do you recognize that there is a difference between natural growth and a supernatural creation? Trees are not created by supernatural today. They do, however, exist, which indicates that they had some point of origin.
Everything in Genesis 1, even the light from states light years away, was created in its mature state relative to the earth. The light from the stars could be seen instantly, not because of the physics involved, but because that was as God intended.

just sit quietly for a moment and think about that emboldened section. If you are a person of average intelligence, it should eventually dawn upon you that something doesn't make sense.

How could the light from stars, billions of kilometres away, be instantly available to be seen here, if those stars had only just been created? Remember, that starlight is not like an instant snapshot or photographic slide that your God could display on a screen. Light is a constant stream of waves/particles. They must have originated from somewhere. And we know that that 'somewhere' is extremely far away, from where that stream takes thousands of years to reach us.

Sorry, but your claim just doesn't add up.