Noah way?

[poikilotherm]

Patterns of animal distribution were one of the principal evidences that inspired Darwin to formulate the Theory of Evolution. Biogeogaphy is not only observable evidence for evolution but also poses grave difficulty for the Noachian paradigm. I assert that these patterns are irreconcilable with, and therefore observable evidence against, the historicity of the story of Noah. For example;
Australian mammals are almost exclusively marsupials found nowhere else on earth. These marsupials are extremely varied in terms of morphology and the ecological niches they inhabit, species as varied as marsupial "mice" "moles" "wolves" "bears""squirrels" "tigers" and various marsupial grazers, carnivores, tree dwellers and burrowers.
The usual question raised is "how did they get from the Ark to Australia" I find this a most uninteresting query which misses a more profound point;

Why were almost all the many varied mammals, that found their way from the Ark to Australia, marsupials? and why did no placental mammals succeed in joining them, and why did most all of theses marsupial species not succeed anywhere else?

Why did no mice, moles, bears, squirrels,tigers,goats, sheep, lions, cattle, monkeys, antelope, dogs, etc mammals found all over the rest of the world find their way there?

Moreover, when placentals are introduced by man, they thrive; introduced mice, rats, dogs, camels, horses, goats, rabbits etc, all do very well.

Similar patterns of endemic species are found elsewhere, most notably Madagascar.

I assert that these particular, observable non-random patterns of distribution are irreconcilable within a Noachian paradigm?

Can any creationists explain the above using a Noachian worldview?

 

[Aman777]

Can any creationists explain the above using a Noachian worldview?

Dear poikilotherm, Easy, IF you read the creation story for what it actually says, instead of what some ancient man thought it said.

The animals were already in place when Noah arrived. Adam's world was the world which was destroyed in the Flood. Our's is still here, and will be until it's burned. ll Peter 3:3-7 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[poikilotherm]

Dear poikilotherm, Easy, IF you read the creation story for what it actually says, instead of what some ancient man thought it said.

The animals were already in place when Noah arrived. Adam's world was the world which was destroyed in the Flood. Our's is still here, and will be until it's burned. ll Peter 3:3-7 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Sorry, I do not understand. I thought all the animals were released from the Ark in the middle east some 4000 years ago, after the flood, and all animals not on the Ark were killed. Can you clarify?

 

[Aman777]

Sorry, I do not understand. I thought all the animals were released from the Ark in the middle east some 4000 years ago, after the flood, and all animals not on the Ark were killed. Can you clarify?

Dear poikilotherm, Sure.

ll Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek, destroyed totally)
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Adam's world, the first Heaven, was "clean dissolved" Isaiah 24:19 in the Flood. This allowed the Ark to escape from Adam's world, that THEN WAS into the world of today, WHICH IS NOW. The Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat some 10k years ago. Noah was the FIRST Human to arrive on our Earth, and Human civilization can be traced to his arrival. Here is evidence of the FIRST Human farming, which led to city building, or Human civilization on our Planet. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I do not understand. I thought all the animals were released from the Ark in the middle east some 4000 years ago, after the flood, and all animals not on the Ark were killed. Can you clarify?

Aman has an idea that no other Christian here seems to support. He believes that Adam was on a different world than our present day one and that he was magically transported here through the Flood. That way he gets around the lack of a worldwide population bottleneck. Of course he still cannot give a valid excuse for the huge population bottleneck that would show up in people.

 

[poikilotherm]

Dear poikilotherm, Sure.

ll Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek, destroyed totally)
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Adam's world, the first Heaven, was "clean dissolved" Isaiah 24:19 in the Flood. This allowed the Ark to escape from Adam's world, that THEN WAS into the world of today, WHICH IS NOW. The Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat some 10k years ago. Noah was the FIRST Human to arrive on our Earth, and Human civilization can be traced to his arrival. Here is evidence of the FIRST Human farming, which led to city building, or Human civilization on our Planet. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

A rather idiosyncratic interpretation, and I`m not sure I fully understand, but if it means that the animals were put in situ by God then that would account for the animal distribution patterns - So thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can any creationists explain the above using a Noachian worldview?

A good question, poikilotherm.

Let me ask you this?

Why don't non-believers ask how they got to the Ark in the first place?

Once it's established how they got to the Ark, don't you think it can be established how they got back to their points of origination?

 

[Aman777]

Aman has an idea that no other Christian here seems to support. He believes that Adam was on a different world than our present day one and that he was magically transported here through the Flood.

Dear SZ, No magic about it. The Ark was released when the firmament sank. You're just ticked off because you cannot tell us HOW magical evolution produced the unique intelligence of Adam in Apes.

That way he gets around the lack of a worldwide population bottleneck. Of course he still cannot give a valid excuse for the huge population bottleneck that would show up in people.

There was no bottleneck since prehistoric people could produce children with Humans. Bottlenecks don't show when prehistoric people inherit the invisible Human intelligence of Adam. Sour grapes is indicated since you haven't been able to refute God's Truth.

IOW, God's Holy Word has defeated you since you cannot tell us HOW ancient men knew this thousands of years before Science. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[poikilotherm]

A good question, poikilotherm.

Let me ask you this?

Why don't non-believers ask how they got to the Ark in the first place?

Once it's established how they got to the Ark, don't you think it can be established how they got back to their points of origination?

As far as I know, God brought them to the ark which would mean that you imply that God returned them to their points of origination.


1 The Bible does not say that God helped with their dispersal.

2 The Bible does not say that they were returned to their original points of origin;

All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on land—came out of the ark, one kind after another.

You wouldn`t want to be accused of adding to the Bible to fit the evidence would you?

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.


3 I think I am right in saying that the Earth experienced upheaval that moved the land masses from their pre-flood positions so they could not be returned to their points of origin.

4 If they were, then that would mean that God placed the animals in just the right patterns that fit with an evolutionary paradigm.

 

[Loudmouth]

A good question, poikilotherm.

Let me ask you this?

Why don't non-believers ask how they got to the Ark in the first place?

Once it's established how they got to the Ark, don't you think it can be established how they got back to their points of origination?

It is called a hypothesis. When you form a hypothesis you are not accepting the hypothesis as true, but rather formulating predictions that would prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this case, we could hypothesize what the distribution of species would look like if the Ark story were true.

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as I know, God brought them to the ark which would mean that you imply that God returned them to their points of origination.

That is correct.

1 The Bible does not say that God helped with their dispersal.

Does It have to?

2 The Bible does not say that they were returned to their original points of origin;

Then how else did they get there, if not by an Acts 8 miracle?

All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on land—came out of the ark, one kind after another.

Okay.

You wouldn`t want to be accused of adding to the Bible to fit the evidence would you?

You mean like saying the Flood was local, as opposed to global? or the Flood didn't occur at all? or assuming evolution?

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

I don't believe I did.

3 I think I am right in saying that the Earth experienced upheaval that moved the land masses from their pre-flood positions so they could not be returned to their points of origin.

That, in my opinion, came in Genesis 10.

4 If they were, then that would mean that God placed the animals in just the right patterns that fit with an evolutionary paradigm.

Suit yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is called a hypothesis. When you form a hypothesis you are not accepting the hypothesis as true, but rather formulating predictions that would prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this case, we could hypothesize what the distribution of species would look like if the Ark story were true.

And what's your conclusion?

Is the Ark story true or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

And what's your conclusion?

Is the Ark story true or not?

The distribution of species is entirely inconsistent with the Ark story. What we see is a continuance of fossil species to living species, both geographically and temporally. That shouldn't be seen if the Ark story is true. For example, the survival of species after the flood should not be determined by how deeply their fellow members are buried in flood deposits, and yet that is what we supposedly see. Also, there is no reason that marsupials should all suddenly migrate back to Australia just because there are no fossils of placental mammals on Australia. There is no reason why the marsupial mole would outrun the gazelles all the way to Australia, as one example.

However, biogeography is entirely consistent with the continuous evolution of life over hundreds of millions of years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, there is no reason that marsupials should all suddenly migrate back to Australia just because there are no fossils of placental mammals on Australia. There is no reason why the marsupial mole would outrun the gazelles all the way to Australia, as one example.

That point goes in my favor.

Kangaroo, for example, stepped through the door of the Ark into [what is now] Australia.

However, biogeography is entirely consistent with the continuous evolution of life over hundreds of millions of years.

Let me get this straight.

You would expect to see common ancestry fossils along the way from Mesopotamia to Australia?

Are you saying man (viz., Noah and his family) were on the earth before the kangaroo were?

In other words, Noah dwelt among the kangaroos common ancestors?

 

[KWCrazy]

I assert that these particular, observable non-random patterns of distribution are irreconcilable within a Noachian paradigm?

An atheist asserting that the flood of Noah never happened? Who would have thought? I'm astounded! Let's examine this deeper, though. As it turns out, there WAS a witness. Let's see what He said about it.

Luke 17:
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all."

So on one hand we have the argument from incredulity of an atheist who doesn't believe any of it anyway, and on the other hand we have the witness of the son of God. Who shall we believer? Eenie, meenie, minie.. wait. Since I'm a Christian I'll go with Christ on this one. The flood happened. Final answer.

Evolution and post flood speciation aren't all that removed from each other. It's only when we evolutionists pursue the notion of universal common descent that things become very different. Both beliefs have to account for the presence of animals throughout the world; either from one cell or from one boat. Creation needs a lot less time because it goes back to seas teeming with fish and two of every kind of land dwelling animal.

Part of the problem is the absence of pre-Noah cartography. We don't have detailed relief maps of the world so we don't know if pangea existed and the continents drifted apart beginning immediately after the flood or not. We further don't have anything in the Scriptures that state whether God ever created again or if everything that exists now came from what existed then. We don't know the global conditions pre and post flood.

We know that we can't attribute this to a Noachian paradigm because the Noachian is a geologic system and early time period on the planet Mars. Clearly, this doesn't explain anything for us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An atheist asserting that the flood of Noah never happened? Who would have thought? I'm astounded! Let's examine this deeper, though. As it turns out, there WAS a witness. Let's see what He said about it.

Luke 17:
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all."

So on one hand we have the argument from incredulity of an atheist who doesn't believe any of it anyway, and on the other hand we have the witness of the son of God. Who shall we believer? Eenie, meenie, minie.. wait. Since I'm a Christian I'll go with Christ on this one. The flood happened. Final answer.

Evolution and post flood speciation aren't all that removed from each other. It's only when we evolutionists pursue the notion of universal common descent that things become very different. Both beliefs have to account for the presence of animals throughout the world; either from one cell or from one boat. Creation needs a lot less time because it goes back to seas teeming with fish and two of every kind of land dwelling animal.

Part of the problem is the absence of pre-Noah cartography. We don't have detailed relief maps of the world so we don't know if pangea existed and the continents drifted apart beginning immediately after the flood or not. We further don't have anything in the Scriptures that state whether God ever created again or if everything that exists now came from what existed then. We don't know the global conditions pre and post flood.

We know that we can't attribute this to a Noachian paradigm because the Noachian is a geologic system and early time period on the planet Mars. Clearly, this doesn't explain anything for us.

In a trial the worst sort of evidence is eyewitness testimony. It is known that personal biases heavily affect such testimonies. Second what you have is not eyewitness testimony. Your testimony is hearsay. That is extremely poor evidence. It is not even allowed in most court cases.

So you prefer hearsay evidence to repeatable, observable, scientific evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is correct.

Does It have to?

Then how else did they get there, if not by an Acts 8 miracle?

Just to be clear here, AV -- you're invoking a miracle here, not because the Bible says there was one, but because you require one in order to read the Bible as you think it should be read?

 

[TLK Valentine]

An atheist asserting that the flood of Noah never happened? Who would have thought? I'm astounded! Let's examine this deeper, though. As it turns out, there WAS a witness. Let's see what He said about it.

Luke 17:
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all."

Does an analogy require an eyewitness?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to be clear here, AV -- you're invoking a miracle here, not because the Bible says there was one, but because you require one in order to read the Bible as you think it should be read?

Correct.

 

[KWCrazy]

In a trial the worst sort of evidence is eyewitness testimony.

This isn't a trial.
There is no proof that increasing complexity could ever happen.
There is no proof that we live in a purely physical, purely natural world.
It ll comes down to where you put your faith; in God or in naturalism.
The trial will come when you stand before God and explain to Him why you rejected His word, His son and His offer of salvation.

You can tell Him at that time that the testimony of His Son is meaningless hearsay.

You write about "repeatable, observable, scientific evidence," all the time ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that evolution has none of the the above. Nothing has ever been observe to evolve into anything else. Irradiated fruit flies remain, you guessed it, fruit flies. You put your faith in molecules-to-man. I put my faith in God. In the end, I may have to explain myself to a molecule, but you'll have to explain yourself to God.