Taking Questions on the Creation

[Breckmin]

Yeah, speaking of that Water Canopy, lets hear what a scientist think about it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o

Although, Hovind's ice theory is rather strange, there are too many
things regarding volume of water rates prior to the flood that are not
being addressed.

The scientist who provided a rebuttal to a rather weak explanation,
clearly did not have a grasp on antediluvian numbers nor antediluvian
theory that is quite a bit more sound.

But I'm not sure demonstrating that it can be viable would make a
difference.
~Michael

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, crazy weird creatures, like "dove" and "raven."

Which could have gotten on the Ark through the window.

 

[Cabal]

Which could have gotten on the Ark through the window.

Not quite what I was getting at. And no doubt they could have gotten on the Ark through the window, but I would have thought if we're going for literalism then there would be only two of each kind, no hitchhikers.

But I digress.

You say the animals on the ark wouldn't have been recognisable, but the only specific species/kinds/whatchamacallems mentioned by name are two of the same we have today. Ok, maybe some animals would be different but to have two birds cited that are named exactly as today? And I'm sure there were others...

Why not something completely unrecognisable (it'd have to be given it's all evolving in a much shorter timespan using methods unfeasible according to science)?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite what I was getting at. And no doubt they could have gotten on the Ark through the window, but I would have thought if we're going for literalism then there would be only two of each kind, no hitchhikers.

But I digress.

You say the animals on the ark wouldn't have been recognisable, but the only specific species/kinds/whatchamacallems mentioned by name are two of the same we have today. Ok, maybe some animals would be different but to have two birds cited that are named exactly as today? And I'm sure there were others...

Why not something completely unrecognisable (it'd have to be given it's all evolving in a much shorter timespan using methods unfeasible according to science)?

I said we wouldn't recognize half of them. The other half, the ones we would recognize, could include the dove and the raven.

And what's wrong with having two birds cited as today? Are you saying that they should have further microevolved and eventually gone extinct by now?

 

[Cabal]

I said we wouldn't recognize half of them. The other half, the ones we would recognize, could include the dove and the raven.

And what's wrong with having two birds cited as today? Are you saying that they should have further microevolved and eventually gone extinct by now?

If the ark chapters mentioned some creatures we hadn't heard of, it might give your argument a little more credence, is all I'm saying.

Although I find it slightly odd this ideas of yours that if the evolution of creatures was vastly different (quicker, for one) from what scientists posit, and yet some creatures are exactly identical to the ones we have today, while some are vastly different. Conveniently, of course, the creatures that are the same are mentioned all the time, whereas there's no mention of these bizarre other forms.

 

[agentorange20]

It may not have occurred to you yet, junior member, that I actually agree with most of what science says.

You agree with science were it suits you and your position and no more, only when it is critical of a literalist view do you switch, which means you're not opposed to the methodology, just the conclusions on *some* particular facts of *some* sciences. And for what, to believe that the universe is a mere 6000 years old, what is so precious about that?

 

[agentorange20]

My favorite way of expressing the fallacy of your thinking is is this way:

• Expecting to use the Bible as a science book is like expecting to build a computer with Bill Gate's diary.

But don't let that logic sway you from thinking that indeed bats are birds, or showing striped patterns makes a striped animals, or that swine are demonic, or that...well you get the point.

 

[agentorange20]

Well, whatever it is/was, I don't think T. Rex boarded the Ark. Like I've said before, if we were there in person, and actually witnessed the animals getting on the Ark, I wonder if we would even recognize half of them.

Ok, now you're way off the deep end.

1) You're proposing that in some 6000 years ago some animals were so radically different as to be unidentifiable now, and yet this is the same bible which remarks on which fowl can and can't be eaten and by today's name no less and how shellfish are unclean and swine demonic. Clearly this is at odds with your statement.

2) This I find most hilarious, you're stating that animals in the past aren't quite the same as those now. In other words, you're saying they've EVOLVED. Well done.

Problem: You are also proposing that species can arise from an ancestral form, this isn't the issue here, the issue is the time span, some 4000 years and with only 2 members of each species or genus there wouldn't be enough genetic diversity or time to propagate the species, as they would suffer from a narrow genetic pool and its disorders.

Paradoxically, the survival of many species involves consuming of others, and as such with a first generation of 2 of each kind getting off the ark you'd have a major population issue as most would be going extinct from simple predation and from competition.

 

[agentorange20]

Although, Hovind's ice theory is rather strange,

Yeah it is, as noted in the vid, it's not even technically a positive theorem, nor is it even a valid hypothesis as he uses 2 mutually exclusive models, both of which contradict each other from the onset.

there are too many things regarding volume of water rates prior to the flood that are notbeing addressed.

Like, examples? According to the no way flood, this flood was the first appearance of water, was it not?

 

[Tomk80]

According to a recent program on the History Channel, the Spanish Armada was defeated by sailing into, and trying to avoid, an ice storm generated by a mini ice age.

Nah, my forefathers just blew them to bits. After selling them ammo of course (or so the legend goes). Wouldn't want to blow someone to bits before making a profit of them . They were dutch after all .

Folk tale also has it that with a subsequent Armada the english tried the same trick, but forgot to get the money of the Spanish beforehand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah, my forefathers just blew them to bits.

No, they didn't. Study how the Spanish Armada really was "defeated". Your forefathers put the Armada to flight, but the sockdolager came later.

 

[tcampen]

Well, whatever it is/was, I don't think T. Rex boarded the Ark. Like I've said before, if we were there in person, and actually witnessed the animals getting on the Ark, I wonder if we would even recognize half of them.

Genesis 6:19-20 (King James Version)

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

NIV:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

NAS:

19" And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20" Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

The word "every" appears in every translation I could find. Not "some", but "every". This contradicts your assertion that T-rex was not on board the ark. But there were thousands of species of dinosaurs, apparently none of which made it. In fact, less than 2% of the species that have ever lived are alive today. If the flood is responsible for the mass extinction of most of the 98%+ species now extinct, how do we get "every" out of the bible. Less than 2% does not "every" make.

 

[AV1611VET]

The word "every" appears in every translation I could find. Not "some", but "every". This contradicts your assertion that T-rex was not on board the ark.

It means every creature alive at the time (obviously).

And for the record --- okay --- let's assume T. Rex was aboard the Ark --- what about it?

 

[Hespera]

It means every creature alive at the time (obviously).

And for the record --- okay --- let's assume T. Rex was aboard the Ark --- what about it?

And every last obscure species of Brazilian bark beetle from deep in the jungle. Penguins! Wombats. Dall Sheep from Alaska.

 

[AV1611VET]

And every last obscure species of Brazilian bark beetle from deep in the jungle. Penguins! Wombats. Dall Sheep from Alaska.

Wow --- give you a dinosaur, and you take the whole animal kingdom!

Okay, you wanna play hardball?

Let's assume, just for the sake of arguing, that every single creature ever born in the past, the present, and the future got aboard the Ark.

In fact, just for fun, multiply the number of animals by 10[sup]100[/sup] power.

What's the problem?

 

[gaara4158]

Well, do you find it likely that marsupials like the kangaroo, the Tasmanian devil, and the wallaby all swam to Australia after the flood and nowhere else? This is what your proposition entails.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, do you find it likely that marsupials like the kangaroo, the Tasmanian devil, and the wallaby all swam to Australia after the flood and nowhere else?

No --- remember there was only one supercontinent at the time. There was no Australia until Genesis 10 or 11.

 

[Skaloop]

No --- remember there was only one supercontinent at the time. There was no Australia until Genesis 10 or 11.

So the kangaroo, Tasmanian devil, and wallaby all happened to end up on the one part of the supercontinent that turned into Australia? But nowhere else at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the kangaroo, Tasmanian devil, and wallaby all happened to end up on the one part of the supercontinent that turned into Australia? But nowhere else at all?

Either that, or their "kinds" did --- yes.

 

[dad]

So the kangaroo, Tasmanian devil, and wallaby all happened to end up on the one part of the supercontinent that turned into Australia? But nowhere else at all?

Apparently! Doesn't the evidence support that? Of course, you would need to prove that there were all those things pre flood as well, over there.
Why would they congregate toward a certain area? Well, if we realize there was hyper evolution, the animals in what is now Australia simply adapted and evolved to the area. In areas where the flora and fauna were different, that likely means that creatures going there adapted in certain ways. No sweat. Whatever evolved into the hopping creatures of Australia, for example, must have had a reason to hop! Was there wet and dry swampy areas? Or....etc etc??