Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well I can safely assume you're out of arguments. Here come the insults.
My same argument remains. When you are ready to justify your position, you let me know.
It seems very reasonable that boats could and would have been used to transport animals... imagine people traveling to new continents or islands and not bringing what would have contributed significantly to their daily diet (Genesis 9:1-3).Okay, great. So you asking me for evidence of something we already agree on. There is a history of humans housing animals on boats and it goes all the way back to Noah.
So there you go! I didn't make it up. I pulled it from a reliable source we both agree on. We also both agree there were once land bridges due to the ice age we just disagree about the timeframe.
Bam! You're up.
I actually haven't heard any arguments from you. Just insults, made up Armada stuff, no real engagements. Seems you're more interested in stifling debate. It's a defense mechanism I suppose.
It seems very reasonable that boats could and would have been used to transport animals... imagine people traveling to new continents or islands and not bringing what would have contributed significantly to their daily diet (Genesis 9:1-3).
In addition to land bridges, and boats, I've also come across other research that suggests the possibility of something similar to what happened to Spirit lake north of Mt. St. Helens with the log mat, but on a larger scale, which could have allowed for certain types of animals to naturally migrate.
I don't know if the absence of it being widely proposed means it isn't supported as much as this may just be an idea not yet considered or fully vetted/published yet. I'm just approaching from the perspective as to whether it seems rational/logical.You have to admit @NobleMouse, this idea that he is proposing, isnt even something supported by other young earthers. Even here on this forum, no young earther has ever proposed this idea of Noahs sons building an armada of ships, or perhaps building the worlds greatest search party, and over hundreds or even thousands of years, searching for every single animal endemic to australia.
From a biblical perspective, I would believe the fossil succession is the result of the flood. I wasn't sure exactly what post @Calminian suggested the fossil record was the result of humans. If you're thinking of post #42, that was just in response to my prior post that the skin/fur from marsupials may have been highly beneficial after the flood and the climate cooled dramatically - it was just to suggest that people may have hunted marsupials (not necessarily all animals in the fossil record) to the point of extinction in the regions where they (marsupials) are not found today.Even further, i dont think ive ever even heard anyone suggest that people caused the extinction of animals, in a fashion that would produce the fossil succession. Every young earth that I know, suggests that the flood just killed all of these animals. But he is saying something else. That people did something that caused these animals to die in a sequence, independently of the flood.
This is like, fringe young earth creationism, if there is such a thing.
Ok, so there is no armada, then please explain how noahs sons gathered every single animal that is endemic to australia and transported them (over hundreds of thousands of years as you put it). This is hundreds of species, depending on the time frame, its thousands or even tens of thousands of animals.
Where is the evidence? Nothing in scripture, nothing in history, nothing in science. Even though its a huge event.
And you continue to ignore issues with this alleged ice age, as well as mankind producing the fossil succession.
this is not an insult to you as a person, its just a response to your claims.
I don't know if the absence of it being widely proposed means it isn't supported as much as this may just be an idea not yet considered or fully vetted/published yet. I'm just approaching from the perspective as to whether it seems rational/logical.
Biblical creationists believe people have migrated since the time of the flood, so it's logical that animals may have been brought along.
From a biblical perspective, I would believe the fossil succession is the result of the flood. I wasn't sure exactly what post @Calminian suggested the fossil record was the result of humans. If you're thinking of post #42, that was just in response to my prior post that the skin/fur from marsupials may have been highly beneficial after the flood and the climate cooled dramatically - it was just to suggest that people may have hunted marsupials (not necessarily all animals in the fossil record) to the point of extinction in the regions where they (marsupials) are not found today.
From your perspective, why do you think God had Noah bring 2 of each kind of animal on the ark?
When I say "Noah's sons," can you tell me what you think that means? Could you possibly be thinking I'm taking about first generation sons, Shem Ham and Japheth?
I'm speaking of Noah's descendants. Hundreds and hundreds of years of descendants. Generation after generation. And very smart descendants who lived very longs lives, 400-600 years early after the Flood.
And you admitted, you believe the Noah account is literally true. A great ship was built that housed perhaps 1500 kinds of original land animals.
But now you're struggling with the notion that Noah's descendants knew how to sail and how to transport animals when they settled new lands?
Why are you so dogmatic this couldn't happen if you believe that Noah did it? You've already conceded it happened once in ancient history.
And you never answered my question about Hawaii. How did the land animals get to the most remote Island chain in the world? Land bridges? Spontaneous generation?
Agreed. I recently read an article by ICR about Noah's family and mtDNA studies seem to confirm the lineage we have back through Noah's sons:I'm not sure how widely proposed this is. But I do think it's one of a few possibilities. If there was an Ice Age after the flood, there would have been several land bridges for migration. That would explain a lot. The only real challenge is remote Islands. Natural floating mats are possible but human transportation jumps out at me considering the ancestor we all go back to. I could see the original explorers taking in upon themselves to populate Islands with the creatures of their choice.
Agreed. I recently read an article by ICR about Noah's family and mtDNA studies seem to confirm the lineage we have back through Noah's sons:
New DNA Study Confirms Noah
....The reason for this, is that often young earthers operate with...perceived truth. "I think this, therefore, it is or likely could be, based on my thoughts of scripture". Scripture gives us information that we can extrapolate from. But many young earth extrapolated ideas, exist without logical or mathematical support. So young earthers typically do not rely on things like science or even philosophy, because the two concepts logically just don't coincide......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?