Noah and the Flood. Fact or Fantasy?
- Thread starter Micaiah
- Start date
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
For the evolutionist it is always that it happened all by itself, there is no cause, it just happened. There is no reason, it just happened. Man is not going to be held accountable for his actions, it just happened. I can kill, rob, plunder, do whatever I want to do, because there is no one to hold me accountable.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
What fairy tale book did you get that out of? You can not answer the real issues that come up in the natural course of debate, so you make up a story that is a total lie then you knock that lie down. You should join us here in the real world for a while. You may not like it, but at least you could say you tried it.
Upvote
0
JohnR7, this is only the evolutionist that lives in your head. There may be people like that, but they constitute only a tiny minority of the scientifically minded.
Upvote
0
No, I described variation within a "kind" not evolving from one kind to onother. The latter is evolution and impossible, has never happened, or been evidenced to have happened, it's a myth.
Upvote
0
Um... "variation within a kind" IS evolution. And the mechanism for what you describe as "variation" and evolution of species to species is exactly the same. There's no distinction between the two and nothing to suggest one is impossible and the other isn't.
Upvote
0
Whether others missrepresent the revealed truth is up to them, it doesn't change the revealed truth one bit.
"Probably Viewed". There's alot riding on that vague statement. Again, if people ignore revealed truth and substitute it for something else then that's their bussiness. It doesn't alter the truth.
Here's how the Ancients viewed it.
Greeks. World held on shoulders of a Titan named Atlas.
Egyptians. Supported by pillars.
Others. By an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea.
These were the world cultures of their day.
All had the earth supported by someone or something, yet Job stated simply and accurately "God is......hanging the earth apon nothing" Job 26:7
Upvote
0
euphoric
He hates these cans!!
- Jun 22, 2002
- 480
- 5
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
You keep saying this, but I'm yet to see you provide any objective definition for "kind." So what objective standard can we use to determine what "kind" an organism belongs to?
Further, using said standard, what "kind" does the giant panda belong to? The koala? Are domestic dogs and wolves of the same "kind?" How about lions, tigers and domestic cats?
-brett
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hector Medina
Questioning Roman Catholic
- May 10, 2002
- 845
- 6
- 42
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Man all this anti flood junk has been refuted time and again( even on tacokids ol' thread)!
There is theory to support the Great Deluge.
Honest!
However the theory to support all of evolution(except micro which does happen)is full of *lies* and so ridiculous with far too many holes!
In Christ,
Hector
There is theory to support the Great Deluge.
Honest!
However the theory to support all of evolution(except micro which does happen)is full of *lies* and so ridiculous with far too many holes!
In Christ,
Hector
Upvote
0
kaotic
Learn physics
Refuted by who? And what evidence do you have to show that a global flood happened?
No disrespect but you seem to say the same thing over and over with out any scientific evidence backing what you say. All of the READ WORLD evidence shows that evolution "micro" and "macro" is real and has happen. But you and others seem to think it's not good enough or something. Just because you think it goes against your religion doesn't change the EVIDENCE.
Evolution has not been refuted, but a global flood has (well lets just say that there is not one piece of evidence backing it up) and that will not change.
Upvote
0
??? Your answering the question with the story itself. It proves nothing. Its a nice story but totally unbelievable.
Upvote
0
Living things reproduce only "according to their kinds." The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same "kind."
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: "Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution."
Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: "Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]." So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.
And so, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: "The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction." And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: "All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity." Scientific American also observes: "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation." And a science writer commented: "Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs." He concluded that mutations "cannot account for overall evolution-why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals."
The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin's original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature's genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.
Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only "according to their kinds," so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.
The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: "No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these 'slips' of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding 'adaptations.'"
The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how "the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation" are preserved "by enzymes that continually repair" genetic damage. The journal states: "In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized."
That a mechanism designed for stability within it's "Kind" would be the force behind evolutionary changes on the scale you advocate is science fiction not science fact.
Upvote
0
The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that God created earth's living things "according to their kinds." (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created "kinds," which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring "according to their kind" in a fixed, orderly manner. Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.
The Biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
In recent years, the term "species" has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word "kind." The basic meaning of "species" is "a sort; kind; variety." In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis "kinds."
Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created "kinds," there is no support for theories maintaining that new "kinds" have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that "kinds" cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new "kinds" have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created "kinds" would interfere with God's purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created "kinds," each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other "kinds."
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a "kind." This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created "kind."
Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new "kind," in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same "kind," such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.
Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline "kind." The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each "kind." But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these "kinds" can commingle genetically.
Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds." The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible's history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and "according to their kinds" during the final creative days. Ge 1:20-25.
From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different "kinds," since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.
Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic "kinds" emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their "kinds." Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving "kinds" have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of God. Isa 55:8-11.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Scientific American, "Inducible Repair of DNA," by Paul Howard-Flanders, p. 72.
Science, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," by Roger Lewin, p. 884.
Molecules to Living Cells, "Simple Inorganic Molecules to Complex Free-Living Cells," Scientific American, Section I, introduction by Philip C. Hanawalt, p. 3.
Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, by Lynn Margulis, p. 87.
Scientific American, "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," by Edouard Kellenberger, p. 32.
Los Angeles Times, "Fishing for Evolution's Answer," by Irving S. Bengelsdorf, 2.
The Orion Book of Evolution, by Jean Rostand, p. 79.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hector Medina
Questioning Roman Catholic
- May 10, 2002
- 845
- 6
- 42
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
seesaw,
Here goes some info again even know ya'll are gonna trash it w/ more of your junk.
Here goes:
How did Noah collect all of the animals?
Noah didnt have to collect any animals. God had the animals come to him. (God probably wanted Noah and his family to keep working on the ark). See Genesis 6:20.
How did Noah fit millions of animals into the ark?
There were not millions of animals, only a few thousand. Genesis 7:22 indicates that Noah only had to bring land animals that breathed through nostrils. This eliminates water living mammals, fish, insects, etc. He also only brought a pair of each kind of animal. For instance a pair of dogs would have sufficed to repopulate all 300 or so types of dogs found today as they bring forth after their kind. (Genesis 7:14-15).
World renowned Taxonomist, Ernst Mayer, estimated that there are only @ 20,000 kinds of land dwelling animals today, perhaps 40,000 in the days of Noah. That would total @ 80,000 animals, not millions. Also, the average size was of a house cat and God was certainly smart enough to send Noah young ones as needed.
At 300 X 50 cubits (the length from elbow to fingertip) and 3 decks, the ark would have been twice as large as needed to fit the animals and their food on board.
Where did the flood water come from and go to ?
According to the Bible (Genesis 7:11), most of the water came from under the surface of the earth and the windows of heaven rained down to add to the deluge. Toward the end of the flood the unstable plates, over the now empty fountains, collapsed, causing todays ocean basins to form (Psalms 104:8) and the waters to flow into these basins (Genesis 8:2-3). For a global flood theory that answers dozens of questions which evolutionists cant viably explain, please view video Seminar 4.
Did it rain before the flood?
My understanding, or interpretation, is that the pre-flood world had a great underground watering system (Genesis 2:6) and rain was not needed until after the flood (Genesis 2:5). But the Bible doesnt specifically say. For scientifically based theories on the pre-flood world and the flood, please view video Seminar 4.
This information is feom:
www.creationministries.org
In Christ,
Hector
Here goes some info again even know ya'll are gonna trash it w/ more of your junk.
Here goes:
How did Noah collect all of the animals?
Noah didnt have to collect any animals. God had the animals come to him. (God probably wanted Noah and his family to keep working on the ark). See Genesis 6:20.
How did Noah fit millions of animals into the ark?
There were not millions of animals, only a few thousand. Genesis 7:22 indicates that Noah only had to bring land animals that breathed through nostrils. This eliminates water living mammals, fish, insects, etc. He also only brought a pair of each kind of animal. For instance a pair of dogs would have sufficed to repopulate all 300 or so types of dogs found today as they bring forth after their kind. (Genesis 7:14-15).
World renowned Taxonomist, Ernst Mayer, estimated that there are only @ 20,000 kinds of land dwelling animals today, perhaps 40,000 in the days of Noah. That would total @ 80,000 animals, not millions. Also, the average size was of a house cat and God was certainly smart enough to send Noah young ones as needed.
At 300 X 50 cubits (the length from elbow to fingertip) and 3 decks, the ark would have been twice as large as needed to fit the animals and their food on board.
Where did the flood water come from and go to ?
According to the Bible (Genesis 7:11), most of the water came from under the surface of the earth and the windows of heaven rained down to add to the deluge. Toward the end of the flood the unstable plates, over the now empty fountains, collapsed, causing todays ocean basins to form (Psalms 104:8) and the waters to flow into these basins (Genesis 8:2-3). For a global flood theory that answers dozens of questions which evolutionists cant viably explain, please view video Seminar 4.
Did it rain before the flood?
My understanding, or interpretation, is that the pre-flood world had a great underground watering system (Genesis 2:6) and rain was not needed until after the flood (Genesis 2:5). But the Bible doesnt specifically say. For scientifically based theories on the pre-flood world and the flood, please view video Seminar 4.
This information is feom:
www.creationministries.org
In Christ,
Hector
Upvote
0
Similar threads
