Habilis Wonders: How Squirrels Survive Noah's Flood With No Trees After?

[Chesterton]

 

[roamer_1]

What happens when you mix salt water (oceans) with fresh water (rain)? you get brackish water.

No, where it's let alone, salt water lays under fresh water.

It's one thing to have a tree buried in inches of fresh water,

Not inches. Feet. Waist-high in most places, some places much deeper.

it's another to have trees buried in thousands of feet of brackish water. The pressure alone would kill most things.

They landed in high country, and likely stayed there for a while. Those trees would not be at great depth.
And I have personally logged land here in the mountains that returned to dense growth in a matter of five years.

And lowland stuff grows really quickly, so even if it was gone (probably was, just from wave action), it would grow back from seed in but a few years, long before it was populated again.

Not that there is enough water in existence on the planet to flood it to the mountain tops.

[/quote]

Funny that. They keep finding more and more, deep in the earth.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Actually, we do have that genetic information. We have tons of samples from people from thousands of years ago, including before the supposed flood.

Before the flood, they show clearly different groups of people in different areas - native Americans in the Americas, Asians in china, Europeans in Europe, Africans in Africa, and so on. Then, right after the supposed "flood", we see the same types of DNA, in the same areas described above - as if the flood didn't happen.

That's the opposite of what we'd see if the flood had happened, since suddenly, at ~2500 BC, the old pattern would vanish, and after that all people would have very similar DNA, all being descendants of Noah.

DNA alone shows that the flood myth didn't actually happen. Many other pieces of evidence also show that the flood could not have happened. Many more can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Many of those were known 200 years ago. That's why Christian geologists scrapped the idea of an actual flood decades before anyone had heard of Darwin.

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. Gotta "hand it" to the handy man - impressive show! Let's give him a hand..... : )

Which Christian geologists have scrapped the idea?

DNA alone doesn't show that the flood didn't happen, it shows that it could have and did happen.

I know this is off subject but must ask.
So, God lied?

 

[Edmond Smith]

No, he's not.

The Chinese come from Ham, not Shem.

He was right that the Chinese were around before Noah.
Didn't say who the descendant of Noah's was the originator of the new population.

 

[homohabilis117]

Actually, we do have that genetic information. We have tons of samples from people from thousands of years ago, including before the supposed flood.

Before the flood, they show clearly different groups of people in different areas - native Americans in the Americas, Asians in china, Europeans in Europe, Africans in Africa, and so on. Then, right after the supposed "flood", we see the same types of DNA, in the same areas described above - as if the flood didn't happen.

That's the opposite of what we'd see if the flood had happened, since suddenly, at ~2500 BC, the old pattern would vanish, and after that all people would have very similar DNA, all being descendants of Noah.

DNA alone shows that the flood myth didn't actually happen. Many other pieces of evidence also show that the flood could not have happened. Many more can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Many of those were known 200 years ago. That's why Christian geologists scrapped the idea of an actual flood decades before anyone had heard of Darwin.

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. Gotta "hand it" to the handy man - impressive show! Let's give him a hand..... : )

Habilis thanks. Is good point about DNA. Habilis also thanks for positive comment.
*chews manioc*

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible says nothing of the sort. You make it up as you go along to suit your own mythology.

I beg your pardon?

QV please: The sixteen grandsons of Noah

Does that sound to you like I made it up?

 

[Edmond Smith]

Actually, we do have that genetic information. We have tons of samples from people from thousands of years ago, including before the supposed flood.

Before the flood, they show clearly different groups of people in different areas - native Americans in the Americas, Asians in china, Europeans in Europe, Africans in Africa, and so on. Then, right after the supposed "flood", we see the same types of DNA, in the same areas described above - as if the flood didn't happen.

That's the opposite of what we'd see if the flood had happened, since suddenly, at ~2500 BC, the old pattern would vanish, and after that all people would have very similar DNA, all being descendants of Noah.

DNA alone shows that the flood myth didn't actually happen.

Every cell stores genes in its nucleus. But a small set of genes are also stored in the energy factories of the cell, called the mitochondria. The mitochondrial genes are separate from the nuclear genes. Our nuclear genes come from both parents, but our mitochondrial genes almost always come only from our mothers.3 If a woman fails to have daughters, her mitochondrial genes won’t be passed on to future generations. They go extinct, as it were. As a result, it is relatively easy for mitochondrial gene diversity to be lost during a bottleneck.


Sure enough, when we examine people’s mitochondrial DNA today, we find very little diversity. Generally, mitochondrial genes are very similar. That also implies that there has been little time for mutations to occur. The ancestor of our mitochondrial genes, the woman from whom humans inherited their mitochondria, must have lived relatively recently (just how recently is a matter of debate).

Noah's wife, or one of his daughter in laws, or a descendant of Noah's.

Many other pieces of evidence also show that the flood could not have happened. Many more can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

1. Ship building back in those days were all made of wood. Plus Noah had the chief archetict to show him how to build the Ark to be seaworthy, Plus, God had His hand in it and on the ship the whole time.
2.
Every species of living creature did not need to go on board. Only the animals that were air breathing (‘all flesh in which there is the breath of life’ (Genesis 7:15)) and land dwelling (‘all flesh died that moved on the earth’ (Genesis 7:21)).

So fish did not go on; they are not air-breathing. Whales and dolphins did not go on either. Although they breathe air, they are not land-dwelling. Fish and whales survive under water, although some die during floods when sediment and other debris contaminate the water. We find many marine fossils that were buried during the Flood.

Insects were probably not collected and housed on the Ark. They do not have nostrils (Genesis 7:22) to breathe air, and can survive floods on floating debris such as vegetation mats. No doubt many insects hopped on board anyway.

So, that reduces the number of species. But how many animals?

Take dogs, for example—would Noah have taken two Alsatians, two cocker spaniels, two collies, two red setters, etc.? No, he would have needed just one pair of dogs, like the wolf kind, with much genetic variation, somewhat like mongrels today. We know that the different breeds of dogs have been produced from a wolf-like dog, and this only took a few thousand years. That is not evolution; that’s just variation within the original created kind.1

So we have many more different kinds of animals today than Noah took on the Ark. They have diversified in the 4,500 years since the Flood. The actual number of animals Noah put on board depends on what a biblical ‘kind’ is.

Woodmorappe in his book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study calculated that the number of animals would have been less than 16,000, assuming that a biblical kind is roughly equivalent to the group of animals we call a genus today. However, if the biblical kind is equivalent to the ‘family’ grouping, then there would have only been 2,000 animals. Probably it was somewhere in between.

The animals would have been easily housed in small enclosures because most animals are small, on average the size of a rabbit. Even large animals, such as the biggest dinosaurs, began their lives small. In selecting creatures to repopulate the earth, it would make more sense to choose those that were young and healthy, rather than the older, mature ones.

And the size of the Ark? It was huge. It had a capacity of over 500 railroad stock cars, enough to carry more than 120,000 sheep. So there was plenty of room on the Ark for the animals, for their food and water, and for Noah and his family.

So you see, for every wrong answer there is a correct one. And this is just an abridged version of the proof of the Flood.

Many of those were known 200 years ago. That's why Christian geologists scrapped the idea of an actual flood decades before anyone had heard of Darwin.

An assumption on your part. You don't know if all Christian geologist have scrapped the flood. Which Is highly unlikely.

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. Gotta "hand it" to the handy man - impressive show! Let's give him a hand..... : )[/QUOTE]

 

[AV1611VET]

He was right that the Chinese were around before Noah.
Didn't say who the descendant of Noah's was the originator of the new population.

Right ... and so were the Egyptians and the Sumerians too, I take it?

 

[AV1611VET]

*chews manioc*

That stuff's fattening.

 

[homohabilis117]

We had a beaver dam kill a bunch of trees - Killed them dead, for over a year... It was the dead trees that alerted us to the dam. Knocked out the dam, and the following spring, the trees started growing again. The trunk was fine. The larger branches were fine. Lesser branches were dead. And btw, the grasses came back immediately too.

And your assumption of brackish water is not necessarily true.

We had a beaver dam kill a bunch of trees - Killed them dead, for over a year... It was the dead trees that alerted us to the dam. Knocked out the dam, and the following spring, the trees started growing again. The trunk was fine. The larger branches were fine. Lesser branches were dead. And btw, the grasses came back immediately too.

And your assumption of brackish water is not necessarily true.

Is good to use observations and work backward for explanation. But Habilis disagrees with this interpretation. If flood not local, but global, entire world torn apart by devastating geological forces. Big flood would be destructive. This what prominent young earth theorist say:

"The tranquil-flood theory is even more ridiculous. It is difficult to believe anyone could take it seriously and yet a number of modern evangelical geologists do believe in this idea. Even local floods are violent phenomena and uniformitarian geologists today believe they are responsible for most of the geologic deposits of the earth’s crust. A universal Flood that could come and go softly, leaving no geologic evidence of its passage, would require an extensive complex of miracles for its accomplishment. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the hydraulics of moving water and the hydrodynamic forces associated with it would know that a world-wide "tranquil" flood is about as reasonable a concept as a tranquil explosion!"​

http://www.icr.org/article/geology-flood/
Flood laid down geological layers, so trees would be buried under much sediment. Also, important to remember that sediment not same as soil, sediment is not good for growing things. If flood cover whole world, soil stripped away by waters and replaced by sediments. All things die. But again, Habilis thanks for response. Is good discuss, is good propose new ideas.

 

[homohabilis117]

That stuff's fattening.

Is heavenly fruit.

 

[roamer_1]

Big flood would be destructive.

No doubt. I am all for catastrophism. But by the time the waters were high enough to effect mountain regions, catastrophe would be nearly ended. Not exactly true, as with nothing in the way, tidal forces would be catastrophic in their own right, but that is largely a surface phenomena, and there is no way to really predict what would happen from them.

But I do also know that life will prevail. High mountain Taiga regions probably did survive - the land being too steep for sediments, and most sediments already distributed.

And one might submit that the high mountains never saw actual water, but just very deep snow from the high moisture content - The waters still covering the highest peaks, but in the form of snow and ice... which is but a year-long winter, which my forests could easily withstand, even though all living in them would perish. not sayin', just sayin'.

Flood laid down geological layers, so trees would be buried under much sediment. Also, important to remember that sediment not same as soil, sediment is not good for growing things. If flood cover whole world, soil stripped away by waters and replaced by sediments.

Nope. sediments are the best - River bottoms, creek bottoms are the most fertile. And the last thing to drop out of suspension would be the pulverised organics.

 

[homohabilis117]

What is "young earth science," and how does it differ from Egyptian (worldly) science today; which, by the way, is a mundane, latter-day, veiled attempt at a return to witchcraft?

Young earth science if is attempt to describe worldwide phenomena (evidence) in different way, while using the framework of modern methodological scientific theory. Creation science says viewing world through "lens" of bible's authority explains facts (observed evidence in the present) better than mainstream science. How is it different form witchcraft? Habilis not know. Not know Egyptian idea. But science is method, whether used by creationist or atheist, of examining what we see in systematic way. It makes "hypothesis" that tries to explain what is observed, then tests it. Does big rock fall faster than small rock? Go up on building and drop rocks. Drop them many times. If your hypotheses was that big rock falls faster, it can be falsified. If your hypothesis stated: "big rock falls faster because it is attached to invisible string, and is pulled by a spirit that likes big rocks" then hypothesis cant test idea of spirit or string. It Can only test what can be observed: rock, size, velocity. Maybe rock spirit real. But science cant prove. Must use philosophy to establish existence of rock spirit. And it is true: science and philosophy do compliment each other. Creation science different from belief in rock spirit because it holds that if a divine power (God) acted on the world, the physical phenomena initiated by the God would obey natural laws that that God built into the universe. They make descriptions and explanations of evidence using this thinking. Habilis not argue against God. Habilis argues that descriptions made by young earth hypotheses do not fit with what is observed, and that most mainstream scientific explanations better explain observations of present day world. The past can be known to relative degrees of certainty based on observations seen today.

But we'd have to know how the world was before the Flood for reference, before we discuss physical imprints.

Not really. Do we need to know what color a deer is to follow its tracks when we hunt? Tracks could be made by someone trying to trick us, but no reason to believe so. Deer tracks probably made by same kind of deer observed in past experiences. We have seen deer walking many times. When we find tracks, we infer that tracks were made by deer. Same for other things. If we find a tree stump that is flat, we know it was cut down. Do we know it was the same as other trees presently in forest? If bark on stump same as bark on living tree, this clue. If we cut down neighboring tree and new stump is identical, this bigger clue. Tree of first tree stump may have been different for any number of reasons, but no reason exits to assume so. Same for pre flood world. If flood did happen globally, we dont know for sure what past world looked like. Environment and terrain probably different. But some possibilities can be ruled out: world not have floating rocks like in Avatar movie. Force of wind have same effect on pre-flood rocks and trees. Even if no rain existed, force of rivers would have corresponding effect on land as rivers do today. Maybe other variables effected pre-flood rivers differently. But only so far: Before flood water not flow uphill. What habilis tries to say is that frame of reference from today is enough to rule out certain causes proposed as creating "imprints" seen today. Anyway, sorry for big wind text wall. Habilis thanks for response...
*offers freshly cooked manioc, chews own*

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every cell stores genes in its nucleus. But a small set of genes are also stored in the energy factories of the cell, called the mitochondria. The mitochondrial genes are separate from the nuclear genes. Our nuclear genes come from both parents, but our mitochondrial genes almost always come only from our mothers.3 If a woman fails to have daughters, her mitochondrial genes won’t be passed on to future generations. They go extinct, as it were. As a result, it is relatively easy for mitochondrial gene diversity to be lost during a bottleneck.


Sure enough, when we examine people’s mitochondrial DNA today, we find very little diversity. Generally, mitochondrial genes are very similar. That also implies that there has been little time for mutations to occur. The ancestor of our mitochondrial genes, the woman from whom humans inherited their mitochondria, must have lived relatively recently (just how recently is a matter of debate).

Noah's wife, or one of his daughter in laws, or a descendant of Noah's.




1. Ship building back in those days were all made of wood. Plus Noah had the chief archetict to show him how to build the Ark to be seaworthy, Plus, God had His hand in it and on the ship the whole time.
2.
Every species of living creature did not need to go on board. Only the animals that were air breathing (‘all flesh in which there is the breath of life’ (Genesis 7:15)) and land dwelling (‘all flesh died that moved on the earth’ (Genesis 7:21)).

So fish did not go on; they are not air-breathing. Whales and dolphins did not go on either. Although they breathe air, they are not land-dwelling. Fish and whales survive under water, although some die during floods when sediment and other debris contaminate the water. We find many marine fossils that were buried during the Flood.

Insects were probably not collected and housed on the Ark. They do not have nostrils (Genesis 7:22) to breathe air, and can survive floods on floating debris such as vegetation mats. No doubt many insects hopped on board anyway.

So, that reduces the number of species. But how many animals?

Take dogs, for example—would Noah have taken two Alsatians, two cocker spaniels, two collies, two red setters, etc.? No, he would have needed just one pair of dogs, like the wolf kind, with much genetic variation, somewhat like mongrels today. We know that the different breeds of dogs have been produced from a wolf-like dog, and this only took a few thousand years. That is not evolution; that’s just variation within the original created kind.1

So we have many more different kinds of animals today than Noah took on the Ark. They have diversified in the 4,500 years since the Flood. The actual number of animals Noah put on board depends on what a biblical ‘kind’ is.

Woodmorappe in his book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study calculated that the number of animals would have been less than 16,000, assuming that a biblical kind is roughly equivalent to the group of animals we call a genus today. However, if the biblical kind is equivalent to the ‘family’ grouping, then there would have only been 2,000 animals. Probably it was somewhere in between.

The animals would have been easily housed in small enclosures because most animals are small, on average the size of a rabbit. Even large animals, such as the biggest dinosaurs, began their lives small. In selecting creatures to repopulate the earth, it would make more sense to choose those that were young and healthy, rather than the older, mature ones.

And the size of the Ark? It was huge. It had a capacity of over 500 railroad stock cars, enough to carry more than 120,000 sheep. So there was plenty of room on the Ark for the animals, for their food and water, and for Noah and his family.

So you see, for every wrong answer there is a correct one. And this is just an abridged version of the proof of the Flood.






An assumption on your part. You don't know if all Christian geologist have scrapped the flood. Which Is highly unlikely.

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. Gotta "hand it" to the handy man - impressive show! Let's give him a hand..... : )

The problem with using population bottlenecks is that population bottlenecks show that mankind has not been below 1,000 individuals for our entire time on the Earth. Mitochondrial DNA is much easier to narrow to one individual because it is matrilineal. At the time of "mitochondrial Eve" there were still thousands of people alive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Young earth science if is attempt to describe worldwide phenomena (evidence) in different way, while using the framework of modern methodological scientific theory.

Young earth science can take a hike.

Creation science says viewing world through "lens" of bible's authority explains facts (observed evidence in the present) better than mainstream science.

Creation science claiming the Bible is an authority over [mundane] science?

I guess miracles can still happen.

If flood did happen globally, we dont know for sure what past world looked like. Environment and terrain probably different.

That's an understatement.

I don't think you have a clue what this world looked like before the Flood.

1. What was the average age of mankind at death?
2. What was the average height of mankind?
3. What color was the sun?
4. Were there seven continents at the time?
5. What language did everyone speak?
6. Was there another race of beings on the earth?
7. Did it ever rain prior to the year of the Flood?

Can you answer any of those questions?

 

[pat34lee]

Hello, dis Habilis here. Habilis has question that he wants ask about young earth creationism: how squirrels survive in post flood environment? All trees dead. Seeds take maybe 10, or 15 years regrow. Squirrels die. Habilis thanks for responses.
*chews manioc*

Two things here. Only two or seven of each kind went aboard the ark.
That doesn't mean only two or seven left the ark after 1-1/2 years.
Smaller animals could have had several generations of offspring by then.
Meat for the predators would not be the problem.

As for vegetation. Not only would there be plants growing in mats floating
on the water, as soon as the land dried enough, grass would spring up, along
with weeds and bushes. Trees would take a while, but there would be more
than enough to feed the animals growing within a year.

 

[pat34lee]

1. What was the average age of mankind at death?
2. What was the average height of mankind?
3. What color was the sun?
4. Were there seven continents at the time?
5. What language did everyone speak?
6. Was there another race of beings on the earth?
7. Did it ever rain prior to the year of the Flood?

Can you answer any of those questions?

Can I? Yes

old
about this tall
sun colored
no. no major oceans either
the same language as everyone else
race of what?
yes, but there were no rainbows

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I? Yes

old
about this tall
sun colored
no. no major oceans either
the same language as everyone else
race of what?
yes, but there were no rainbows

And here I thought it couldn't be done!

 

[Gene2memE]

It still astounds me that there are people who try to argue, in all earnestness and seriousness, that a catastrophic global flood happened sometime in the past 5,000 to 6,000 years.

Plenty of evidence has been presented testifying to the physical impossibility of such a thing. I'll add my own to this, which is the records of the dozens of Neolithic and Chalcolithic civilisations.

There are uninterrupted cultural records - tools, pottery, weapons, structures and other artifacts - from these civilisations in the Middle East, Northern and Eastern Africa, the Mediterranean basin, Central Asia, India, Malta, China and Western and Central Europe that would straddle any possible flood period.

None of the cultures show the sort of interruption that a catastrophic global deluge would result in. Some grow, flourish and then diminshed over the course of 3,000 years, but show no indication whatsoever that any global genocide occurred.

So, add archaeology to the list of sciences that give evidence that testifies against a literal reading of the Genesis story.

 

[AV1611VET]

Plenty of evidence has been presented testifying to the physical impossibility of such a thing.

Like ... say ... walking on water or resurrecting from the dead?