Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

Queller · Apr 27, 2015

dad said:
They did grow naturally, just not in our nature. Here it takes more time.

Well that didn't address what I said at all. Care to try again?

Tree rings represent tree growth during different seasons. If there were no seasons, why would there be rings?

Queller · Apr 27, 2015

dad said:
Rapid evolving and adapting of the kinds from the ark.

Please provide evidence for this rapid evolving.

Queller · Apr 27, 2015

SkyWriting said:
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.
Perhaps I'm missing it but I see nothing whatsoever in that verse that indicates God chose the animals that would be on the Ark, which was after all, your original assertion.

Coming two by two to Noah.........two of each Kind......is not normal animal behavior.

OK, for a moment let's say you're right. Which animals did God not choose to be on the Ark?

Queller · Apr 27, 2015

SkyWriting said:
I did mention looking for truth yourself.
But I guess it's wise to trust me instead.

Super-fast evolution

From the link;

Frans Witte compared fish caught in 1999 and 2001 with examples of the same species caught in 1977/1978, and discovered differences in the shape of the head, the surface area of the gills, the size of the eyes, the structure of the retina and a masticatory muscle.

In other words they aren't different species of cichlid.

How quickly can new species arise? In as little as 6,000 years, according to a study of Australian sea stars.
Read more at: Superfast evolution in sea stars

From the link

The results show that the species separated about 6,000 to 22,000 years ago. That rules out some ways new species could evolve. For example, they clearly did not diverge slowly with genetic changes over a long period of time, but were isolated quickly.

Not to mention that this evolution is a result of quick isolation, which most species on the Ark did not have.

Also, this is in sea life, not something that would have been genetically bottlenecked by being on the Ark.

Lastly, this says a minimum of 6,000 years. Too bad we only have 4,400 since the Flood.

Queller · Apr 27, 2015

SkyWriting said:
A prophet who speaks for the past. Not much to worry about I guess.
Who is going to check your visions?

Anyone and everyone that cares to. That's the beauty of science; anyone can educate themselves and repeat the studies that others have done.

SkyWriting · Apr 27, 2015

Queller said:
Anyone and everyone that cares to. That's the beauty of science; anyone can educate themselves and repeat the studies that others have done.

History is not science.

PsychoSarah · Apr 27, 2015

SkyWriting said:
History is not science.

It can be, in certain contexts. We can scientifically test events that happened in the past.

SkyWriting · Apr 27, 2015

Queller said:
In other words they aren't different species of cichlid.

They are if they're separated by time and features.
They certainly aren't going to be mating anytime soon.....and past.

SkyWriting · Apr 27, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
It can be, in certain contexts. We can scientifically test events that happened in the past.

Nope. You can attempt to recreate what you imagined
happened in the past.

But let's talk about King Tut.

We have his body, but we don't know if his ankle
was bent before or after death. I could go on and on
just on this one mummy....that we have.

And those scientific tests are NOT history. Face facts.

Subduction Zone · Apr 28, 2015

SkyWriting said:
History is not science.

No one has said that it was. But it seems that you have a very poor, and incorrect concept of what science is. Why do you think that science cannot tell us what happened it in the past? When we have massive evidence of what happened reconstruction of the past is possible, at least to some extent.

Queller · Apr 28, 2015

SkyWriting said:
History is not science.

Did I say it was?

However, what I said about science applies to history as well. Anyone can educate themselves and study history just as others have done.

Queller · Apr 28, 2015

SkyWriting said:
They are if they're separated by time and features.

No, they are not.

They certainly aren't going to be mating anytime soon.....and past.

Why not? What prevents the different types of cichlids from mating?

Queller · Apr 28, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Nope. You can attempt to recreate what you imagined
happened in the past.

But let's talk about King Tut.

We have his body, but we don't know if his ankle
was bent before or after death. I could go on and on
just on this one mummy....that we have.

And those scientific tests are NOT history. Face facts.

Not being able to know some things does not mean we are not able to know anything.

SkyWriting · Apr 28, 2015

Queller said:
No, they are not.

Why not? What prevents the different types of cichlids from mating?

Time...in your example. Or anything that prevents two groups
from mating.....is a different species.

It could be attitude....color.....agressivness....anything.

SkyWriting · Apr 28, 2015

Queller said:
Not being able to know some things does not mean we are not able to know anything.

That's the foundation of science. We can test things now and in the future.
But we can't test things in the past. Sorry.....but time has screwed you.

Subduction Zone · Apr 28, 2015

SkyWriting said:
That's the foundation of science. We can test things now and in the future.
But we can't test things in the past. Sorry.....but time has screwed you.

All scientific tests are of past events. There is no such thing as "simultanity" (my spell checker agrees). The only difference of a test that you run today and a test of something that occurred in the past is how long it takes you to observe the event. You cannot justify this claim of yours. Nor could Ken Ham. All scientists laughed at him for that bit of nonsense.

SkyWriting · Apr 28, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
All scientific tests are of past events. There is no such thing as "simultanity" (my spell checker agrees). The only difference of a test that you run today and a test of something that occurred in the past is how long it takes you to observe the event. You cannot justify this claim of yours.

Your problem is that the logic cannot be refuted.
What's past is past. One is lucky if you can remember what happened.

I've never heard of the word "simultanity" either.
What an odd point to not make.

All scientific tests are of future events.
And the next trial may result in a different outcome.
The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for...for past events.

That why science tests things over and over and over.
Old observations are outdated by new concepts and new ideas.
So old test are run again and again....looking for new aspects
of old observations.

And when a "NEW" observation is documented....the process starts again.

Will Einstein's General Relativity Break Under Extreme Conditions?

PsychoSarah · Apr 28, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Nope. You can attempt to recreate what you imagined
happened in the past.

But let's talk about King Tut.

We have his body, but we don't know if his ankle
was bent before or after death. I could go on and on
just on this one mummy....that we have.

And those scientific tests are NOT history. Face facts.

-_- we can tell that his ankle was bent close to his death, because if a certain amount of time had passed, it would have shown healing and indicated an obvious pre-death injury. This means that if the ankle was bent before death, likely it had occurred within the same month as his death.

Just because we can't tell every detail doesn't mean science can never test anything about the past. You give one example in which science cannot reveal a specific detail, neglecting the other details that it can reveal, such as how tall King Tut was, his age, his health, cause of death. Some with historical records to back them, others without, you cannot assess the deductive abilities of science based on 1 specific detail in a specific case.

dad · Apr 28, 2015

Queller said:
Please provide evidence for this rapid evolving.

The bible time table, coupled with the lack of any science to oppose it or prove it was slow. They simply appeal to faith in the present regime.

dad · Apr 28, 2015

Queller said:
Well that didn't address what I said at all. Care to try again?

Tree rings represent tree growth during different seasons. If there were no seasons, why would there be rings?

The seasons rings represent now are not what cycles rings represented if a tree grew in weeks. Obviously. Care to address this?

Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

I'm where?

I'm where?

I'm where?

I'm where?

I'm where?

The Librarian

Chaotic Neutral

The Librarian

The Librarian

Regular Member

I'm where?

I'm where?

I'm where?

The Librarian

The Librarian

Regular Member

The Librarian

Chaotic Neutral

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency