Evolution, the flood, and two of every animal

[chickenman]

the old "were you there" garbage

theres no written record of the origins of stonehenge - I suspect it was aliens. You can't prove me wrong either, because you "weren't there"

 

[lithium.]

well lets see here, A long time ago there was a asteroid that hit earth and killed almost everything on it, and when it hit a dust cloud would have covered the planet for years. Which would have killed all plants cause of no sun light. So a flood or continental drift doesn't have to be the reason for North Africa being mostly desert.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Back to the subject of inbreeding. Does *anyone* have anything to overcome the problem of inbreeding with regards to the pairs of animals Noah took on the Ark? Anyone?

(Considering how some people are so willing to attack anything and everything relating to the theory of evolution, the lack of response on this point has been very disappointing.)

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Hmm the hunter theory. Never heard that one. I can see why, pretty poor reason to explain the population issue. To bad people will fight evolution issues with poor reasoning. Also science and religion should go hand in hand. Since God did make all we test and observe it would be bad science to take the maker out of the studies. Many scientists did in the past and currently realize that and will gladly be a strong Christian in science. Science has turned many people INTO Christians.

 

[npetreley]

Here are some interesting tidbits on the Sahara...

http://www.africana.com/Articles/tt_383.htm

The area now known as Western Sahara has been populated for thousands of years. What is now the desolate Sahara was once a plentifully watered grassland with a great deal of wildlife. During prehistoric times it supported a small population of hunters and gatherers. The transformation from grassland to desert, beginning around 2500 B.C.E., drove this population south into what is now sub-Saharan Africa.

Wasn't something else significant supposed to have happened around 2500 BC? I seem to recall a subject line in this forum referring to a date like that.

The following article says the Sahara became a desert because the lack of vegetation causes a lack of rainfall.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1511/1_21/58398806/p1/article.jhtml

It became a desert because the fact that it was a desert caused the weather patterns to change? Sounds like a joke to me. Perhaps this quote from the article reveals the author's motivation for believing in this paradox. Even the out-of-place comment itself is somewhat self-contradictory.

Miracle or catastrophe, the birth of the Sahara was not an act of God.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"the birth of the Sahara was not an act of God."

Wow not an act of God? He must believe in God to know what his acts are and are not I guess.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by chickenman
the old "were you there" garbage

theres no written record of the origins of stonehenge - I suspect it was aliens. You can't prove me wrong either, because you "weren't there"

heh yep aliens did it all.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Project 86
"the birth of the Sahara was not an act of God."

Wow not an act of God? He must believe in God to know what his acts are and are not I guess.

What I find amusing is this part of the statement: "Miracle or catastrophe." Not even I assume it was a miracle, so if he is the one saying it's possible it was a miracle, then why is he so sure it wasn't an act of G~d? And if it was a catastrophe, then how is it possible to chalk it up to a lack of vegitation? Actually, now that I think of it, one way to solve the contradiction of the article's suggestion that it became a desert because it was a desert would be if the author invoked a miracle.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
the old "were you there" garbage

theres no written record of the origins of stonehenge - I suspect it was aliens. You can't prove me wrong either, because you "weren't there"

I wouldn't even think of challenging you since I wasn't there. But it's not surprising that you've come to that conclusion. You believe in evolution without any evidence, so why not believe aliens constructed stonehenge? My only problem with that would be if you talked like you knew aliens constructed stonehenge. Then I'd have to ask if you knew because you were there.

 

[lithium.]

Lets see.

The Saharan became a desert because of shifting weather patterns caused by the end of the Ice Age. For the Sahara to remain green, the Ice
Age would have to continue in Europe, which would cause great changes in
history.

Surprisingly, this is not quite so. Sahara was also green under the
"climatic optimum", the hot spell after the end of the Ice Age.
(After the Younger Dryas setback, more exactly.) It seems that the
increased moisture due to evaporation from the sea more than offset
the heat, probably because the global warming of the period was
most pronounced in the arctic. Sahara did not turn into a complete
desert until civilizations were underway in Mesopotamia, ca 6000
years ago.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"then why is he so sure it wasn't an act of G~d"

To be honest it shows why he's not a Christian. Like I use to be he has a hate for Christianity and God. Wether it was bad experiences, pride issues or what not this statement reflects this very well. It's people like this we should never forget to pray for even if we ever have a formal debate against them always pray for them before and after.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Project 86
It's people like this we should never forget to pray for even if we ever have a formal debate against them always pray for them before and after.

That's the spirit. And the Spirit. Thanks for the reality check!

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Lemme say the following.

About a "literal reading" of the Tanakh. I don't think that any two people could agree on a "literal reading" of, say, Genesis (certainly mine, as an orthodox Jew and based on the original Hebrew, will probably differ in many particulars from that of a fundamentalist Protestant, based on the
KJV); such a thing is inherently subjective and based on our own idiosyncrasies, psychological/emotional/spiritual baggage and personal it-seems-to-me's. Thus, we should be very leery of basing beliefs and/or arguments on a "literal reading" of the scriptures. Those who do insist on a strict, narrow, "literal" interpretation of this or that section of scripture are, I believe, forcing it into a literary and spiritual strait-jacket entirely of their own devising that does no justice to the scriptures.

So, that being said, how do I ? as an orthodox Jew ? view the scriptures? Well, of course, I believe that it (and the other 4 books of the Torah: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is the literal word of God as He revealed it to Moses our Teacher. We believe that the Torah can be understood/appreciated/interpreted on any of four general levels ranging from that which is most in accord with a close reading of the (original Hebrew!!!) text, to the metaphorical, to the most rarefied and esoteric (the grasp of which is waaay beyond most of us). Who is to say which chapter and verse of, say, Genesis is to be best understood or appreciated on which level? Moreover, our Sages say that the Tanakh in general & the Torah in particular, is like a diamond with many facets, each with its own brilliance, each offering a different perspective from which to behold the wondrous jewel.

I do not see why God could not have created His world and the life in it through and by the system we (as yet) imperfectly understand as evolution". I do not see how the previous sentence violates anything I said in the previous paragraph or in how orthodox Jews appreciate the Torah.

Lastly, I would humbly argue that we are grasping at trees & missing the forest. What is more important, (sterile?) debates over whether Genesis proves/supports or disproves/opposes evolution, or whether the Flood "really happened", or discussing, studying and seeking to internalize Genesis's sublime moral, ethical and spiritual truths (such as befit the word of God)?

Be well!

ssv

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
I do not see why God could not have created His world and the life in it through and by the system we (as yet) imperfectly understand as evolution". I do not see how the previous sentence violates anything I said in the previous paragraph or in how orthodox Jews appreciate the Torah.

I agree that there's no reason why G~d could not have created His world through evolution. But the problem with that is the same as the whole problem of evolution in the first place. Just because I can conceive of something being possible doesn't make it credible or probable. So when I look at the plain meaning of what the Bible says and combine that with the evidence (and lack of evidence for evolution) we can see on earth, the most credible explanation for things is that G~d created kinds as is, just like it says in Genesis, the plain meaning.

Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
Lastly, I would humbly argue that we are grasping at trees & missing the forest. What is more important, (sterile?) debates over whether Genesis proves/supports or disproves/opposes evolution, or whether the Flood "really happened", or discussing, studying and seeking to internalize Genesis's sublime moral, ethical and spiritual truths (such as befit the word of God)?

Be well!

ssv

I agree that the moral and spiritual truths are important, perhaps even more important. But there are places in the Bible that make it clear that it is important to Him that we trust in His having created all things. And what's important to Him should obviously be important to us.

 

[lithium.]

To say that the bible is right with out any evidnece of the bible being right is just wrong, you have to have evidence in order to have proof. There is evidence of evolution that science has found. To bad people are to crazy to see it.

 

[Morat]

Nick, I have a question for you:

   Why aren't we up to our tail ends in rabbits? After all, rabbits reproduce much faster than humans. There should be tons of them for every human, in all those years from the flood.

   Why aren't there?

 

 

[ocean]

Because predators eat rabbits, and that keeps the population down. Disease, loss of habitat, and human intervention also helps curb the rabbit population.

 

[Morat]

Ocean: Yes, I know that. It's more than that, of course. The main limitation generally isn't predation, but food.

   However, the reason we're not waist deep in rabbits is because there are enivormental factors that keep population at a certain level.

   Nick seems to assume, for some odd reason, that such things don't apply to humans. *laugh*. Even a quick glance at say, 13th century Europe shows that it does.

 

 

[excreationist]

Originally posted by npetreley
I was under the impression North Africa turned into desert primarily due to a change in weather patterns. If the flood and continental drift are related, perhaps the weather patterns changed because Africa was shifted into a different position.

These changes would have happened *after* any kind of global flood:

from Archaic art of northern Africa:

...The earliest phase is called the Bubalus Period, for the art shows animals that became extinct in the area, including the buffalo (Bubalus antiquus), elephant, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus...

Those animals usually require a lot of water.

Then it talks about the cattle period (4000-2000 BC) and when sheep and goats were herded. The thing about those animals is that they can eat right down to the roots killing the plants. In Australia deserts have been spreading due to overfarming... I think I read somewhere that if there are less plants or trees, rain is less likely to be attracted... also, without plants holding the ground together (because the sheep, etc, ate it all) the top-soil can blow off or be washed away... exposing the barren sand or rock underneath.

You seem to know a lot about what it was like in the supposed age of hunter-gatherers. Were you there?

Well I've read that when the Europeans came to Australia, all of its inhabitants were hunter-gatherers... (i.e. no permanent settlements and famrs) - same with many parts of Africa - except those parts that herded animals - sometimes people were "horticulturalists" which meant they grew some crops but they still hunted a lot - this is often how those in the Pacific Islands were like. Those around Central America (the Aztecs, etc) did proper farming and permanently lived in cities - but creationists and non-creationists agree that they only travelled there relatively recently. (in the last 2000 years or something) The Native Americans were usually nomadic which meant that they needed to rely on a very large amount of land to support their tribe. But they had horses which would let them hunt buffalo better so I guess their population density could be a big more than other hunter-gatherers. But non-creationists and creationists agree that they only came to America fairly recently as well. Maybe 20,000 years ago - for non-creationists...?

The thing is that people all over the world as homo sapiens. In evolutionary theory, this species only came about around 40,000 years ago - somewhere around Africa. So the humans in different parts of the world have been in their homelands for *less* than about 40,000 years.

Do you think people, like the Australian Aborigines used to be farmers, etc? If so, why did they give it up and become hunter-gatherers? I suppose it was the "Tower of Babel" that confused them and since their language was different they had to run away and when they arrived in Australia they forgot how to farm and build cities... ?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by excreationist
In Australia deserts have been spreading due to overfarming... I think I read somewhere that if there are less plants or trees, rain is less likely to be attracted... also, without plants holding the ground together (because the sheep, etc, ate it all) the top-soil can blow off or be washed away... exposing the barren sand or rock underneath.

Do you think people, like the Australian Aborigines used to be farmers, etc?

I don't know. That brings to mind the quote I cited before:

The area now known as Western Sahara has been populated for thousands of years. What is now the desolate Sahara was once a plentifully watered grassland with a great deal of wildlife. During prehistoric times it supported a small population of hunters and gatherers. The transformation from grassland to desert, beginning around 2500 B.C.E., drove this population south into what is now sub-Saharan Africa.

I suppose you think the small population of hunters and gatherers overfarmed the Sahara?