How did the ark Kinds give rise to extant taxa?

[Shemjaza]

Animals don't warp and twist when they change species. If they did there would be mostly transitional forms in the fossil record and there is not. Most people are hard pressed finding any characteristic forms that are "half-formed".

One researcher did breeding on a wolf pack. By breeding based on attitude or character traits the animals changed so much in just a few generations that they stopped the experiment because the wolves bred with a mild temperament were becoming too small and timid to survive back in the wild. So they stopped the selective breeding.

To get the full variety of modern species from the animals who can fit on a boat you need vast physical and genetic changes extremely quickly.

If you got a fennec fox and a red fox from the same population of "fox kind" they would look warped and deformed. Even though they are both sound animals, they are hardly the same.

 

[SkyWriting]

What the bible doesn't say is that right after the flood animals warped and twisted into near unrecognisable forms every generation until each "Kind" begat tens of thousands of species.

That the literal flood story isn't consistent with the evidence is old news, the fact that the annotated versions (comets, hyper-evolotion, Pangaea break up, Neptune) aren't even consistent with the Bible should give creationists more pause.

Now you're getting mad that more was not written. People get angry with scripture for any reason they can dream up.

 

[SkyWriting]

To get the full variety of modern species from the animals who can fit on a boat you need vast physical and genetic changes extremely quickly.

If you got a fennec fox and a red fox from the same population of "fox kind" they would look warped and deformed. Even though they are both sound animals, they are hardly the same.

I covered that. Animals do not randomly deform when they change. Changes happen in one generation.

I was wrong. It was foxes: Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox

-"Many of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their "musky fox smell."

The first physiological change detected was in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. This system is responsible for the control of adrenaline, which is a hormone that is produced in response to stress, and controls fear-related responses. The domesticated foxes had significantly lower adrenaline levels than their undomesticated cousins. The researchers hypothesized if the foxes were not afraid of humans, they would produce less adrenaline around them. This explains the foxes' tameness, but it doesn't account for their changed fur coloration patterns. The scientists initially theorized that adrenaline might share a biochemical pathway with melanin, which controls pigment production in fur. Further research has since supported this initial hypothesis."


Gene switches do more than flip 'on' or 'off': Can exhibit much

Millions of DNA switches that power human genome's

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No. No, it's not.

This is debate could descend into to: "Yes it is". "No it's not". "Yes it is". "No it's not" - ad nauseum.

Archaeology is a science, and it has gone a very long way to prove that many events in the Bible have proven to be true. Also, when Old Testament prophecy has been compared with subsequent history, it has been shown that actual historical events have proved the prophecies absolutely true right down to the last detail, even though the prophecies have been written hundreds of years before the actual events. In Isaiah, it was prophesied that the Messiah would have his hands, feet and side pierced, hundreds of years before crucifixion was even thought of.

Many professing atheists have been converted to Christ when they have taken the trouble to check the Old Testament prophecies with the historical record, and found that there was no way that the prophets could have known that the events were going to happen exactly as they prophesied. That convinced them beyond doubt that the prophets must have received information from someone who knew exactly what was going to happen hundreds of years in the future. They realised that the someone had to be God, that He really exists, and that they needed to get right with Him.

So, instead of mutter, "No it isn't", take the trouble to study the prophecies and compare them with subsequent history. Read up on recent archaeological discoveries that have identified the actual places where Biblical events actually happened. Did you know that a stone with an inscription about Pontius Pilate was recently discovered in Caesarea? Before then, skeptic were trying to tell us that Pontius Pilate never existed!

Maybe God could be right about you when He spoke about Job's three friends: "Who is he who darkens counsel without knowledge?"

 

[Speedwell]

Animals don't warp and twist when they change species. If they did there would be mostly transitional forms in the fossil record and there is not. Most people are hard pressed finding any characteristic forms that are "half-formed".

Such creatures would falsify the theory of evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Such creatures would falsify the theory of evolution.

Earth - A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes and their bodies changed from it.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is debate could descend into to: "Yes it is". "No it's not". "Yes it is". "No it's not" - ad nauseum.

Archaeology is a science, and it has gone a very long way to prove that many events in the Bible have proven to be true. Also, when Old Testament prophecy has been compared with subsequent history, it has been shown that actual historical events have proved the prophecies absolutely true right down to the last detail, even though the prophecies have been written hundreds of years before the actual events. In Isaiah, it was prophesied that the Messiah would have his hands, feet and side pierced, hundreds of years before crucifixion was even thought of.

Many professing atheists have been converted to Christ when they have taken the trouble to check the Old Testament prophecies with the historical record, and found that there was no way that the prophets could have known that the events were going to happen exactly as they prophesied. That convinced them beyond doubt that the prophets must have received information from someone who knew exactly what was going to happen hundreds of years in the future. They realised that the someone had to be God, that He really exists, and that they needed to get right with Him.

So, instead of mutter, "No it isn't", take the trouble to study the prophecies and compare them with subsequent history. Read up on recent archaeological discoveries that have identified the actual places where Biblical events actually happened. Did you know that a stone with an inscription about Pontius Pilate was recently discovered in Caesarea? Before then, skeptic were trying to tell us that Pontius Pilate never existed!

Maybe God could be right about you when He spoke about Job's three friends: "Who is he who darkens counsel without knowledge?"

Scientific Proof Is A Myth - Forbes

 

[Speedwell]

Earth - A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes and their bodies changed from it.

What was "half-formed" about those animals? The article doesn't seem to mention it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This is debate could descend into to: "Yes it is". "No it's not". "Yes it is". "No it's not" - ad nauseum.

Archaeology is a science, and it has gone a very long way to prove that many events in the Bible have proven to be true. Also, when Old Testament prophecy has been compared with subsequent history, it has been shown that actual historical events have proved the prophecies absolutely true right down to the last detail, even though the prophecies have been written hundreds of years before the actual events. In Isaiah, it was prophesied that the Messiah would have his hands, feet and side pierced, hundreds of years before crucifixion was even thought of.

Many professing atheists have been converted to Christ when they have taken the trouble to check the Old Testament prophecies with the historical record, and found that there was no way that the prophets could have known that the events were going to happen exactly as they prophesied. That convinced them beyond doubt that the prophets must have received information from someone who knew exactly what was going to happen hundreds of years in the future. They realised that the someone had to be God, that He really exists, and that they needed to get right with Him.

So, instead of mutter, "No it isn't", take the trouble to study the prophecies and compare them with subsequent history. Read up on recent archaeological discoveries that have identified the actual places where Biblical events actually happened. Did you know that a stone with an inscription about Pontius Pilate was recently discovered in Caesarea? Before then, skeptic were trying to tell us that Pontius Pilate never existed!

Maybe God could be right about you when He spoke about Job's three friends: "Who is he who darkens counsel without knowledge?"

So many false claims, so many dishonest assertions.

There are no examples of fulfilled prophesy in Isaiah. Rather than just answering "yes there are" please pick one which you think has been fulfilled. And remember, claims in the Bible without any corroborating evidence do not count as fulfilled prophecy.

Pontius Pilate is not very well documented, but there are several extra-biblical sources of evidence for his existence including coins and inscriptions.

 

[SkyWriting]

What was "half-formed" about those animals? The article doesn't seem to mention it.

Nothing was half formed. They changed with no intermediate forms in one generation.

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing was half formed. They changed with no intermediate forms in one generation.

Then I don't understand the point you re making.

 

[pitabread]

This is debate could descend into to: "Yes it is". "No it's not". "Yes it is". "No it's not" - ad nauseum.

It could, but I'm trying to save time by skipping the end game.

Your claim that "Science is progressively proving that the Bible is literally true in what it contains" is not a true statement.

There are many findings in science and archaeology that conflict with events as described literally in the Bible. For example no literal 7 day creation, no literal Adam & Eve, no literal Noah's Flood (e.g. a global flood that wiped out all life on Earth), no literal Exodus, etc.

Archaeology is a science, and it has gone a very long way to prove that many events in the Bible have proven to be true. Also, when Old Testament prophecy has been compared with subsequent history, it has been shown that actual historical events have proved the prophecies absolutely true right down to the last detail, even though the prophecies have been written hundreds of years before the actual events.

My experience reading about and/or debating Bibilical prophesy it's invariably a case of post-hoc interpretation coupled with confirmation bias and a generous helping of interpretative wiggle room. Your claim that Biblical prophecies are "absolutely true right down to the last detail" is more than a little hyperbole.

Many professing atheists have been converted to Christ when they have taken the trouble to check the Old Testament prophecies with the historical record

People convert and de-convert all the time. Claiming that people have converted to Christianity isn't particularly impressive given that people also de-convert from the same.

Maybe God could be right about you when He spoke about Job's three friends: "Who is he who darkens counsel without knowledge?"

I've spent two decades debating this stuff. I've seen what sorts of claims Christians make about Biblical prophecy. I'm familiar with the Biblical prophesy shtick and why it's not nearly as impressive as you think it is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

the discovery of sea shells and fossilised sea creatures high up in the Andes mountains which shows that the sea covered them at one stage, and that could only have happened in a world-wide flood.

Or, it could mean that the Andes were formed because of one tectonic plate being subducted under another, pushing the upper plate (and some scraped off bits of the lower plate) into a mountain chain along the plate border. Land that was once under the sea has been pushed up into mountains.

The Andean orogeny (Spanish: Orogenia andina) is an ongoing process of orogeny that began in the Early Jurassic and is responsible for the rise of the Andes mountains. The orogeny is driven by a reactivation of a long-lived subduction system along the western margin of South America. On a continental scale the Cretaceous (90 Ma) and Oligocene (30 Ma) were periods of re-arrangements in the orogeny. Locally the details of the nature of the orogeny varies depending on the segment and the geological period considered.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So many false claims, so many dishonest assertions.

There are no examples of fulfilled prophesy in Isaiah. Rather than just answering "yes there are" please pick one which you think has been fulfilled. And remember, claims in the Bible without any corroborating evidence do not count as fulfilled prophecy.

Pontius Pilate is not very well documented, but there are several extra-biblical sources of evidence for his existence including coins and inscriptions.

Isaiah prophesied the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem accurately right down to the very day. He spoke of the Messiah being crucified long before crucifixion was even thought of.

That's just two examples.

But if you are committed in your mind that the Bible is not true in its prophecies, then all the documentary proof in the world will not convince you. It is not because you can't believe it. It is because your will is committed to not believing it.

That's what Abraham said to the rich man in hell, in the account that Jesus told, when the rich man pleaded with Abraham to send someone to convince his brothers not to come to "this horrible place". But Abraham told him, "They have Moses and the Prophets, and if they will not believe them, then they won't believe even if someone rose from the dead to tell them."

The problem is, that if someone decides to believe the Bible, then he has to believe that God really exists and He is whom the Bible says He is. Then that leads to the awareness that he is accountable to that God for the way he is living; and one day he will have to answer to God for the deeds he has done in his life.

So, in order to suppress his conscience, he has to take the position that the Bible is God's word to mankind and therefore is not true. It is not a matter of understanding, but of the will. He decides not to believe, and no one will convince him otherwise.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It could, but I'm trying to save time by skipping the end game.

Your claim that "Science is progressively proving that the Bible is literally true in what it contains" is not a true statement.

There are many findings in science and archaeology that conflict with events as described literally in the Bible. For example no literal 7 day creation, no literal Adam & Eve, no literal Noah's Flood (e.g. a global flood that wiped out all life on Earth), no literal Exodus, etc.



My experience reading about and/or debating Bibilical prophesy it's invariably a case of post-hoc interpretation coupled with confirmation bias and a generous helping of interpretative wiggle room. Your claim that Biblical prophecies are "absolutely true right down to the last detail" is more than a little hyperbole.



People convert and de-convert all the time. Claiming that people have converted to Christianity isn't particularly impressive given that people also de-convert from the same.



I've spent two decades debating this stuff. I've seen what sorts of claims Christians make about Biblical prophecy. I'm familiar with the Biblical prophesy shtick and why it's not nearly as impressive as you think it is.

Let's see your evidence that science has disproved the Bible. The evidence has to be substantive, and not based on conjecture, theory or guesswork.

Unless you have made an comprehensive study of Biblical prophecy and compared it with the historical record to see to what extent the prophecy has been fulfilled in history, then any of your arguments against the accuracy of Biblical prophecy will fall on deaf hears with me.

 

[pitabread]

Let's see your evidence that science has disproved the Bible. The evidence has to be substantive, and not based on conjecture, theory or guesswork.

Again, you specifically said "Science is progressively proving that the Bible is literally true in what it contains". That is the statement I am disputing, because modern science does not support a literally true Bible (and I listed a number of examples).

If you really want to find out what science says on such topics, I suggest picking up a science textbook on the subject of the Earth's history (including geology, paleontology, biology).

I'm not actually planning on trying to have a debate with you especially when you've clearly prepped yourself with qualifiers to be able to hand-wave away anything you are presented.

Unless you have made an comprehensive study of Biblical prophecy and compared it with the historical record to see to what extent the prophecy has been fulfilled in history, then any of your arguments against the accuracy of Biblical prophecy will fall on deaf hears with me.

Of course it will. Which is why there is no point in trying to engage in a debate on any of this.

You're going to keep believing what you believe, and likewise with what I believe.

 

[pitabread]

So, in order to suppress his conscience, he has to take the position that the Bible is God's word to mankind and therefore is not true.

FYI, but this isn't why non-believers don't believe the Bible. If you really want to engage non-believers on the subject of why they don't believe, you should try asking them instead of telling them.

 

[Shemjaza]

I covered that. Animals do not randomly deform when they change. Changes happen in one generation.

I was wrong. It was foxes: Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox

-"Many of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their "musky fox smell."

The first physiological change detected was in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. This system is responsible for the control of adrenaline, which is a hormone that is produced in response to stress, and controls fear-related responses. The domesticated foxes had significantly lower adrenaline levels than their undomesticated cousins. The researchers hypothesized if the foxes were not afraid of humans, they would produce less adrenaline around them. This explains the foxes' tameness, but it doesn't account for their changed fur coloration patterns. The scientists initially theorized that adrenaline might share a biochemical pathway with melanin, which controls pigment production in fur. Further research has since supported this initial hypothesis."


Gene switches do more than flip 'on' or 'off': Can exhibit much

Millions of DNA switches that power human genome's

What you are describing is extremely inbred foxes with some unusual, yet cute, deformities encouraged. But genetically and phenotypically they are still very close to the parent population.

The diversity of a single species from a population of two or seven twenty thousand years ago isn't possible... the diversity of thousands of species is totally preposterous.

I'm not saying an omnipotent God can't miracle up genetic and species diversity, but why bother saving animals at all if you are just going to re-create them afterwards?

 

[SkyWriting]

What you are describing is extremely inbred foxes with some unusual, yet cute, deformities encouraged. But genetically and phenotypically they are still very close to the parent population.

The diversity of a single species from a population of two or seven twenty thousand years ago isn't possible... the diversity of thousands of species is totally preposterous.

I'm not saying an omnipotent God can't miracle up genetic and species diversity, but why bother saving animals at all if you are just going to re-create them afterwards?

If it was planned by God, then He could plan it before His morning coffee.
If you read the story, it does assume that God was intimately involved.

And then there is the local flood concept, which is totally logical.

And then there is the "other surviving animals" not on the Ark concept.

Sometimes referred to as tussocks, floatons, or suds, natural floating islands are composed of vegetation growing on a buoyant mat of plant roots or other organic detritus. ... In the Brazilian Amazon, floating islands form in lakes on the floodplains of white-water rivers.
- Floating island - Wikipedia

- Man records video of 'island of trees' floating by home during
https://news.yahoo.com › man-records-video-of-island-of-trees-floating-by...
Sep 6, 2019 - A man who stayed at his Pawleys Island, South Carolina home during Hurricane Dorian captured bizarre footage of what appears to be an “island of trees” floating by. ... It was then he witnessed what appeared to be an island of trees casually floating by in the flooded water.

 

[Shemjaza]

If it was planned by God, then He could plan it before His morning coffee.
If you read the story, it does assume that God was intimately involved.

Sure, but it makes the whole ark endeavour pointless busywork for Noah and his family because it isn't saving animals, if God has to re-create the diversity anyway.

And then there is the local flood concept, which is totally logical.

Sure, no problem, but it makes the global flood interpretation false.

And then there is the "other surviving animals" not on the Ark concept.

Sometimes referred to as tussocks, floatons, or suds, natural floating islands are composed of vegetation growing on a buoyant mat of plant roots or other organic detritus. ... In the Brazilian Amazon, floating islands form in lakes on the floodplains of white-water rivers.
- Floating island - Wikipedia

- Man records video of 'island of trees' floating by home during
https://news.yahoo.com › man-records-video-of-island-of-trees-floating-by...
Sep 6, 2019 - A man who stayed at his Pawleys Island, South Carolina home during Hurricane Dorian captured bizarre footage of what appears to be an “island of trees” floating by. ... It was then he witnessed what appeared to be an island of trees casually floating by in the flooded water.

Doesn't work on a time or space scale depicted by the global flood narative. Also, doesn't allow for the full scale of genetic diversity.

This just creates a larger and more hap hazard ark for God to recreate life after because not enough survived to allow for appropriate genetic and species diversity.