Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[AV1611VET]

Interesting claim that there is no logic to theology. False, but interesting.

Please don't tell me this is the first time you've seen me say what I said.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Try it.

Sure.

You build a road that leads right up to a mountain first.

Then draw a map that shows that mountain not there.

 

[Queller]

Then your post can take a hike.

Noah wouldn't have needed an Ark at all.

Those leaving the flood area to board it would already have moved to safety.

Completely illogical. Since Noah lived in Siberia, all of the animals between Siberia and Turkey had to come to Noah to avoid being drowned. There were no other animals or people anywhere else in the world.

 

[Queller]

Please don't tell me this is the first time you've seen me say what I said.

Yes, I have never seen you claim that there is no logic to theology.

BTW, just because you have claimed it, doesn't make it true.

 

[Queller]

Sure.

You build a road that leads right up to a mountain first.

Then draw a map that shows that mountain not there.

Please don't try to change the conditions after agreeing to them. Why do I have to build the road and why do I have to draw the map?

If you can move the mountain via faith, why does it matter who builds roads or who drew the map?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no such thing as a perfect state for a genome. Remain static and face eventual extinction in a changing environment you cannot change with; change and potentially produce genetic diseases, there is no means by which the genome can be perfect when it has to exist in an imperfect environment.

Additionally, mutation does not degrade our genome exclusively, although it is thanks to mutations that made certain genes not work which promoted our brain growth and allowed our skulls to be a shape that wouldn't impede it.

The rest of your initial statement is just flat out wrong; we have seen bacteria develop the ability to digest materials that are completely man-made and have existed for less than 200 years, that is something new. Have your genome looked at, you have 50-60 mutations your parents don't, some invariably will be additions, not just deletions. Most will have no impact at all. But we have observed it so much that you might as well be saying 2+2= sandwich and expect people to take you seriously.

-_- mutation, what are these "laws of impossibility" you speak of? BTW, Mendel had no idea about mutation, you cannot expect to understand modern science with out of date information. Mendel only dealt with pea plants for a certain number of generations, the absolute most simple means of observing how traits are inherited, not how they arise.

Negatory, you are reading one little piece and making your own conclusions.

I want a statement of an actual scientist saying that.

A perfect genome would have no mutations. What you mean to say is that genomes we observe today are not perfect after thousands of years of mutation and degradation of the genome.

Fischbeck, G., Röbbelen, G., Stutzer, D. 1987,

“The objectives of practical plant breeding, to achieve new opportunities of a gradual and continuous amelioration of tried and tested breeding varieties could...not be realized.”

And you ignore the selection limits reached in every actual breeding program - as if they never happened. Simply because you don't like the results real life obtained versus theoretical results.

Lundqvist, U. 1986, Svalöf 1886-1986, Research and Results in Plant Breeding

Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection.”

In your evolutionary speak - that means the same varieties appeared over and over again - nothing new could further be produced - and could only be changed to what they were in earlier generations. De-evolution.

You ignore that science has all but given up on mutations in real world circumstances - plant and animal breeding. Because you don't want to have to consider facts, you just want theory. Your science is if the facts don't match theory, then the facts are wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no such thing as a perfect state for a genome. Remain static and face eventual extinction in a changing environment you cannot change with; change and potentially produce genetic diseases, there is no means by which the genome can be perfect when it has to exist in an imperfect environment.

Additionally, mutation does not degrade our genome exclusively, although it is thanks to mutations that made certain genes not work which promoted our brain growth and allowed our skulls to be a shape that wouldn't impede it.

The rest of your initial statement is just flat out wrong; we have seen bacteria develop the ability to digest materials that are completely man-made and have existed for less than 200 years, that is something new. Have your genome looked at, you have 50-60 mutations your parents don't, some invariably will be additions, not just deletions. Most will have no impact at all. But we have observed it so much that you might as well be saying 2+2= sandwich and expect people to take you seriously.

-_- mutation, what are these "laws of impossibility" you speak of? BTW, Mendel had no idea about mutation, you cannot expect to understand modern science with out of date information. Mendel only dealt with pea plants for a certain number of generations, the absolute most simple means of observing how traits are inherited, not how they arise.

Negatory, you are reading one little piece and making your own conclusions.

I want a statement of an actual scientist saying that.

A perfect genome would have no mutations. What you mean to say is that genomes we observe today are not perfect after thousands of years of mutation and degradation of the genome.

Fischbeck, G., Röbbelen, G., Stutzer, D. 1987,

“The objectives of practical plant breeding, to achieve new opportunities of a gradual and continuous amelioration of tried and tested breeding varieties could...not be realized.”

And you ignore the selection limits reached in every actual breeding program - as if they never happened. Simply because you don't like the results real life obtained versus theoretical results.

Lundqvist, U. 1986, Svalöf 1886-1986, Research and Results in Plant Breeding

"Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection.”

In your evolutionary speak - that means the same varieties appeared over and over again - nothing new could further be produced - and could only be changed to what they were in earlier generations. De-evolution.

You ignore that science has all but given up on mutations in real world circumstances - plant and animal breeding. Because you don't want to have to consider facts, you just want theory. Your science is if the facts don't match theory, then the facts are wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no such thing as a perfect state for a genome. Remain static and face eventual extinction in a changing environment you cannot change with; change and potentially produce genetic diseases, there is no means by which the genome can be perfect when it has to exist in an imperfect environment.

Additionally, mutation does not degrade our genome exclusively, although it is thanks to mutations that made certain genes not work which promoted our brain growth and allowed our skulls to be a shape that wouldn't impede it.

The rest of your initial statement is just flat out wrong; we have seen bacteria develop the ability to digest materials that are completely man-made and have existed for less than 200 years, that is something new. Have your genome looked at, you have 50-60 mutations your parents don't, some invariably will be additions, not just deletions. Most will have no impact at all. But we have observed it so much that you might as well be saying 2+2= sandwich and expect people to take you seriously.

-_- mutation, what are these "laws of impossibility" you speak of? BTW, Mendel had no idea about mutation, you cannot expect to understand modern science with out of date information. Mendel only dealt with pea plants for a certain number of generations, the absolute most simple means of observing how traits are inherited, not how they arise.

Negatory, you are reading one little piece and making your own conclusions.

I want a statement of an actual scientist saying that.

A perfect genome would have no mutations. What you mean to say is that genomes we observe today are not perfect after thousands of years of mutation and degradation of the genome.

Fischbeck, G., Röbbelen, G., Stutzer, D. 1987,

“The objectives of practical plant breeding, to achieve new opportunities of a gradual and continuous amelioration of tried and tested breeding varieties could...not be realized.”

And you ignore the selection limits reached in every actual breeding program - as if they never happened. Simply because you don't like the results real life obtained versus theoretical results.

Lundqvist, U. 1986, Svalöf 1886-1986, Research and Results in Plant Breeding

"Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection.”

In your evolutionary speak - that means the same varieties appeared over and over again - nothing new could further be produced - and could only be changed to what they were in earlier generations. De-evolution.

You ignore that science has all but given up on mutations in real world circumstances - plant and animal breeding. Because you don't want to have to consider facts, you just want theory. Your *science* is if the facts don't match theory, then the facts are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please don't try to change the conditions after agreeing to them. Why do I have to build the road and why do I have to draw the map?

If you can move the mountain via faith, why does it matter who builds roads or who drew the map?

That map logic just doesn't cut it, does it?

Especially in these days of GPS navigation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure go for it.

QV please:

In fact, I wish my brothers & sisters would just stop demanding evidence for anything ... but it's certainly their prerogative to do so.

 

[morse86]

That map logic just doesn't cut it, does it?

Especially in these days of GPS navigation.

GPS navigation? Google Maps keeps asking to use "Radio and Wifi towers" to improve accuracy.

Infact, before GPS, the military was using radio tower triangulation. GPS is the same technology with the "satellite hoax" part added (LORAN - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[dad]

I did. I showed an example of bamboo which grows in weeks yet has no rings. No mature tree ("fruit-bearing") lacks rings.

Now show us a baboo from Noah's day with rings and you may have something! Talk about a cheap canard.

 

[dad]

Is not evidence for rapid evolution.

Yes. It is. As far as the bible goes it is evidence. There is no evidence for fast or slow evolution in Noah's day from science that I have heard of. So you have nothing, I have God's word for it.

All of science opposes it by showing that evolution is a slow process.

Irrelevant as to what now is any process. The issue is before. You do not know. Let the lurkers take clear note.

You seem to conveniently forget that all post-Flood evolution happened in the present state.

No. Peleg's day was long after the flood. No one but no one lived more than a Peleg length life span after Peleg that I recall! It was in his day that the earth was split.

While you appeal to faith in your own imagination.

Science is faith in all issues regarding the creation debate. Faith and false prophesy and godless dreaming inspired by Satan.

 

[Queller]

That map logic just doesn't cut it, does it?

Especially in these days of GPS navigation.

There are lots of times when the reality of the world does not match that of GPS. When I take my daughter to summer Bible camp, if I follow the GPS, I end up in the wrong place. Which one is wrong, the world or the GPS?

 

[Queller]

QV please:

That's saying what you wish would happen. SLP asked you to tell your brothers and sisters to stop demanding evidence.

Back to you.

 

[Queller]

Now show us a baboo from Noah's day with rings and you may have something! Talk about a cheap canard.

Oh my sweet baboo, why would bamboo from Noah's day have rings? And if it did, that might actually be evidence for your position, not mine.

 

[Queller]

Yes. It is. As far as the bible goes it is evidence. There is no evidence for fast or slow evolution in Noah's day from science that I have heard of. So you have nothing, I have God's word for it.

Last time I checked this is the physical and life sciences forum, sub-forum creation and evolution. The Bible is not evidence for anything in science. Stop abusing Scripture.

Irrelevant as to what now is any process. The issue is before. You do not know. Let the lurkers take clear note.

Yes, lurkers, please take note that dad has offered absolutely nothing in the way of scientific evidence for his ridiculous claims.

No. Peleg's day was long after the flood. No one but no one lived more than a Peleg length life span after Peleg that I recall! It was in his day that the earth was split.

Sorry I have trouble keeping your imaginary timeline straight. Let me correct my statement.

You conveniently forget that all the hyperfast, post-Flood evolution happened in the 339 years between the end of the Flood and the Tower of Babel. You also forget that there is absolutely no evidence for your "different-state past".

Science is faith in all issues regarding the creation debate. Faith and false prophesy and godless dreaming inspired by Satan.

Then why do espouse your false prophecy and Satan inspired godless dreaming here?

 

[Aman777]

So - the flood didn't really kill everyone except those on the ark?

Dear SLP, The flood "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 Adam's Earth and all the creatures there, except those on the Ark. No amount of water would "clean dissolve" our Earth because it's a rock containing molten lava. Thus, your ancient thinking is refuted both scripturally and scientifically. Amen? God Bless you.

 

[Aman777]

No. Peleg's day was long after the flood. No one but no one lived more than a Peleg length life span after Peleg that I recall! It was in his day that the earth was split.

Dear Readers, Peleg was one of Noah's great grandsons. He lived at the time that HUMANITY was scattered (split) over the whole Earth from Babel. Babel was built by one of Noah's grandson's child named Nimrod. Gen 10:10 Our Earth was NOT split but our Humanity was positioned all over the face of the Earth from Babel. Gen 11:9 God Bless you

 

[SLP]

A perfect genome would have no mutations.

How do you know this?

What you mean to say is that genomes we observe today are not perfect after thousands of years of mutation and degradation of the genome.

Right - THANKS JESUS for giving us these crummy genomes that will decay over time.

And you ignore the selection limits reached in every actual breeding program - as if they never happened.

So - in selective breeding, what is being selected for?

Please use your keen insights and in-depth knowledge, for surely you are not just basing your un-yielding position on some quotes gleaned from YEC websites...
Because I truly find it unlikely that YOU searched for and read these 20+ year old arcane articles...

Because it is funny - I googled those quotes and you'll never believe this - they popped up on all manner of YEC websites and in YEC youtube comments, etc.