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.
It doesn't say He did and doesn't say He didn't. It isn't Scriptural. It's a possibility. It's offered only as that.If scripture doesn't specifically say that God started creating again, any claim you make about his doing so is non scriptural.
If you thought about what you are calling the "Supernatural" for a minute you would realise it's all complete rubbish.If the event was supernatural in origin, as the flood would have been, then supernatural causation is the right answer. After all, God who created all of life in the first place has no restriction on creating more life tomorrow. It need not conform to expected biological developments.
Cheetahs. Fastest land animal, symbol of the African Savannah, product of extreme incest.
Let's back up a bit.
Cheetahs have extremely minuscule genetic diversity. You can perform skin grafts between two Cheetahs with virtually no fear of rejection. It's as if they were all very closely related - indeed, there's virtually no difference between an inbred cheetah and a cheetah with unrelated parents. Their genetic variability is almost non-existent. This is not a good thing - it leads to massive infant mortality rates, high morbidity rates from diseases, and many other serious problems.
This genetic diversity was caused by a population bottleneck some 10,000 years ago. The Cheetah species almost went extinct, but bounced back. However, this "bounce back" took a massive toll on the genetic diversity of the species, as the ended up horribly inbred with almost no diversity to speak of.
So here's the problem.
If almost every mammalian species on earth was culled down to 2 members a mere 4000 years ago, why does only the Cheetah (and the southern elephant seal, and a handful of others) show this sort of lack of diversity? Why does one population seem entirely inbred, while another shows the sort of genetic diversity which, according to everything we know about evolution and the conservation rates of certain parts of the genome, should be blatantly impossible from 2 individuals in 4000 years?
Relevant video:
I read this three times and still don't understand what you're trying to say. If something is not Scriptural then it isn't addressed in the Scriptures. Man walking on the moon is not Scriptural; neither included or precluded by what is written. Of things not mentioned one can have an idea or opinion, but there is no backing for it in the Word. That is not the case when something is precluded in the Scriptures; as evolution is precluded because the Scriptures state God created man from the dust on the sixth day.When someone claims that a subject is not Scriptural they are claiming to have understanding equal to God's unless he can prove but Scripture that it is not Scriptural. No one knows or understands very much by themselves and even if you put every believer together and they agree to a man that something is not Scriptural they are assuming something to be false that is yet to be revealed by God. I'm convinced that there are many truths in Scripture that no one has understanding. Prove by Scripture a matter to be false or admit that you don't know.
If almost every mammalian species on earth was culled down to 2 members a mere 4000 years ago, why does only the Cheetah (and the southern elephant seal, and a handful of others) show this sort of lack of diversity? Why does one population seem entirely inbred, while another shows the sort of genetic diversity which, according to everything we know about evolution and the conservation rates of certain parts of the genome, should be blatantly impossible from 2 individuals in 4000 years?
Actually he is quite aware of his Bible. Please note that he said "almost every mammalian species". Almost every mammalian species is unclean. The clean species of which there were either 7 or 14 on the Ark depending upon your interpretation, is a small subset of mammalia.Two members? You haven't read the bible have you?
Actually he is quite aware of his Bible. Please note that he said "almost every mammalian species". Almost every mammalian species is unclean. The clean species of which there were either 7 or 14 on the Ark depending upon your interpretation, is a small subset of mammalia.
Please look at only the mammals in your list. Which is rather incomplete to say the least. The unclean mammals listed for exceeds the clean mammals listed. The Cadet was talking specifically about mammals.You apparently haven't read the bible either.
I believe God purposely pared the animal kingdom down to a point where it couldn't recover on its own; then blessed them with fertility so as to bring them back online.Actually he is quite aware of his Bible. Please note that he said "almost every mammalian species". Almost every mammalian species is unclean. The clean species of which there were either 7 or 14 on the Ark depending upon your interpretation, is a small subset of mammalia.
The problem is that fertility alone would not do the trick. It seems that whenever you run into trouble your answer is "magic".I believe God purposely pared the animal kingdom down to a point where it couldn't recover on its own; then blessed them with fertility so as to bring them back online.
I believe He did the same for mankind.
Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
The problem is that fertility alone would not do the trick.
It seems that whenever you run into trouble ...
In any event, they were blessed with an agenda to replenish the earth.
Who's the one having trouble with this, you or I?
No.You obviously.
I all I can do is not to claim "magic," so I guess I can bother with it, can't I?Once again, if you all you can do is to claim "magic" why do you even bother?
You obviously. Once again, if you all you can do is to claim "magic" why do you even bother?
Wrong, you just claimed "magic" again. You may try to deny the obvious but by all definitions of the word your claims are of magic.No.
I all I can do is not to claim "magic," so I guess I can bother with it, can't I?
It really is quite tragic, don't you think? Younger people should be turning to men of his age for knowledge and wisdom - and what do they receive instead? A snap of the fingers and a 'Hey Presto!'
You lurked here for six years before joining, did you?All that AV has learned in the many years that he has been here is that if he argues honestly he will lose, so he avoids actual debating.
Or 14. It really doesn't matter - 14 is still a ridiculously tight bottleneck.Two members? You haven't read the bible have you?
Nope, to both.You lurked here for six years before joining, did you?
Or did you post here under another name?
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?