The Flood

[SBG]

Has anyone Haley's Bible Handbook before?

Yes, I have a copy.

 

[keyarch]

If you just read your Bible and nothing else, you are most likely going to walk away with the impression that the flood was world wide and covered the whole earth.

Probably because that’s literally what it says!

Biodiversity alone falsifys the idea that the flood was world wide. There are way to many species of animals in the world to fit on the

Ark. Even if they could fit on the ark, how would they get to the Ark? How would the animals from the north pole get to the Ark? How would the Kangaroo from Autstalia get to the ARk. There are 10,000 islands in the Philippines, many of them have animals that are unique to that island they are on. You do not find them anywhere else in the world. How did they get to the Ark, and then back to their island.

I don’t see how you can compare the biodiversity of today with what existed before the flood. Also, please consider that the Bible talks about “kinds” and not species. For example, if there were a dog “kind” that contained the genetics for a number of different species of dogs to come about, then all that was needed is that one pair of dogs. It’s also possible that the male and female were already different but still able to breed, thereby being the same kind and yet their offspring could contain even more diversity.

Another point to consider is that according to the Bible, all the land masses should have been contiguous (Genesis 1:9) and the animals had at least 120 years to get to the Ark. There is evidence that indicates sea level was some 400 feet lower than today; and some islands were from volcanic activity sometime after the creation week.

To disqualify the flood account in the Bible as literal by saying that all the species of today would have to travel from their current habitat and back again to the same spot is an example of coming to a conclusion without fully understanding exactly what scripture is saying and/or giving God’s word the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think we should discount the historical accounts in the Word of God just because we don’t fully understand how it could have happened.

 

[gluadys]

Also, please consider that the Bible talks about “kinds” and not species. For example, if there were a dog “kind” that contained the genetics for a number of different species of dogs to come about, then all that was needed is that one pair of dogs.

This is a physical impossibility. There is not enough space in only two genomes to fit all the genetics of the modern gene pool of domestic dogs, not to mention the gene pools of other species of the dog "kind" as well.

 

[ethos]

If we of faith are to accept that scripture is divinely inspired, why do we then question what Genesis 7:19 says: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. And Genesis 7:20 says; Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. If one believes that only a portion of the earth was covered, what are we to make of these two verses. Frankly, there is too much time spent trying to explain how God preformed these events, and not enough faith exercised in believing scripture.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I do not define faith as trying to screw myself up to believe something that patently isn't true.

 

[Vance]

If we of faith are to accept that scripture is divinely inspired, why do we then question what Genesis 7:19 says: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. And Genesis 7:20 says; Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. If one believes that only a portion of the earth was covered, what are we to make of these two verses. Frankly, there is too much time spent trying to explain how God preformed these events, and not enough faith exercised in believing scripture.

But you are missing the point. You are equating believing that God is speaking literally with "believing Scripture". I can assure you that I believe Scripture every bit as much as you do, even if I believe that God did not intend us to read that text as literal history. And, of course, I believe God divinely inspired the text.

I think this gets to the core of the misunderstanding. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether we believe Scripture, it is what we believe Scripture is saying. Please consider the thread on C.S. Lewis.

 

[keyarch]

This is a physical impossibility. There is not enough space in only two genomes to fit all the genetics of the modern gene pool of domestic dogs, not to mention the gene pools of other species of the dog "kind" as well.

'Impossible' is a strong word to describe something that happened in the past that you have no real way to prove. The 'New York Times' had an article last May relating to the genetics of dogs. I quote the following from that article:

"Dr. Kruglyak speculated that these breeds were directly descended from the first dogs and then spread out with their nomadic owners. When and where dogs first separated from wolves is hotly disputed, with time estimates based on mitochondrial DNA evidence ranging from 15,000 to 135,000 years ago."

We have no way to know how God selected the "kinds" that comprise the genetic diversity that we have had since the landing of the Ark.

Also, I would think there is plenty of "room" to store much more genetic diversity than is "expressed" within any current breed. After all, if you look at the breeds that have been controlled by man, many of them have little resemblence to the original parents, yet that "information" was there to begin with.

I would be happy to send you the full NYT article if you wish. I can't post it due to it's copyright.

 

[ethos]

But you are missing the point. You are equating believing that God is speaking literally with "believing Scripture". I can assure you that I believe Scripture every bit as much as you do, even if I believe that God did not intend us to read that text as literal history. And, of course, I believe God divinely inspired the text.

I think this gets to the core of the misunderstanding. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether we believe Scripture, it is what we believe Scripture is saying. Please consider the thread on C.S. Lewis.

I can give you a little on that one Vance, but sometimes I feel that we risk redefining scripture when we attempt to discribe events that we simply don't have all the facts on. I will grant you that sometimes various scripture must be viewed allegorically. I fear however that we too oft find ourselves rewriting scripture whenever it doesn't appeal to our logic. Just a note here however about something I read some time back regarding the flood. I can't remember the author, so forgive me if I can't back this point of view up with reference material. The theory was presented by this scientist that at about the same time in history that we place the flood, Mars was passing very close to our earth. His theory was that, because the earth has a greater gravitational field that this resulted in our earth capturing a large part of Mar's atmosphere. He surmised that this event might explain the deluge of moisture that could have taken place. Just a thought??

 

[gluadys]

'Impossible' is a strong word to describe something that happened in the past that you have no real way to prove.

The proof is simple and mathematical and obvious to anyone who knows the physical basis of storing genetic information in the genome.

May I ask if you know the difference between a genome and a gene pool?

Also do you know the difference between a gene and an allele?

If you have those basic definitions down pat, I can show you why you cannot pack the genetic differences in a gene pool into only two genomes.

 

[SBG]

This is a physical impossibility. There is not enough space in only two genomes to fit all the genetics of the modern gene pool of domestic dogs, not to mention the gene pools of other species of the dog "kind" as well.

But evolution believes that there was enough space in a unicellular organism for all of the species of the earth to come about, including humans. For the genetic mutations to come about there would have to be at least the basis for the information there already in the unicellular organism. And genetic mutations themselves have a very low chance of producing anything that is beneficial.

Francis Crick stated numerous times that no matter how much time, there would never be enough time for life to come about from the primordial soup.

Andrew Flue stated that evolution cannot understand the human body.

In our paper today, it had an article on evolution and on the front a picture of a skeleton of pre-man. They had to bring in an artist to help out on the linking of the fossils because they have no proof for a transistional pre-man fossil. I will scan it in and post it later next week.

 

[The Lady Kate]

But evolution believes that there was enough space in a unicellular organism for all of the species of the earth to come about, including humans.

Um, no.... there just needs to be enough space in that unicellular organism for the next species to come about....and from that species, for the next.... and so on....

You don't jump from step 1 to step 100 instantly...

 

[gluadys]

But evolution believes that there was enough space in a unicellular organism for all of the species of the earth to come about, including humans.

No, the scientific theory of evolution does not say that. This is a strawman definition of evolution you will only find in creationist sources. Please do not mistake the creationst version of evolution for the scientific version. They are not the same.

For the genetic mutations to come about there would have to be at least the basis for the information there already in the unicellular organism.

The basis of genetic information are the base nucleotides of the DNA and RNA molecules. They operate like an alphabet. Just as you can fill hundreds of libraries with books written using only the 26 letters of the English alphabet, you can write all the genomes of all the species through all time with the 4 "letters"/base nucleotides of DNA. To get from one species genome to another, you just have to change how the nucleotides are arranged. Just as to get from one book to another, you just have to change how the letters are arranged.

And genetic mutations themselves have a very low chance of producing anything that is beneficial.

That's ok. Beneficial mutations don't have to be common. They only have to be preserved so that they are still there when the next one comes along. One beneficial mutation building on another and then another building on it, and so one gives you evolution.

Francis Crick stated numerous times that no matter how much time, there would never be enough time for life to come about from the primordial soup.

His premises were wrong. So his conclusions were also wrong. Remember what they say about computers: garbage in, garbage out. Since Crick put gargage in, that's what he got out.

Andrew Flue stated that evolution cannot understand the human body.

How does he know that? He's not a scientist and probably doesn't know or understand a tenth of what science does understand about the humand body.

In our paper today, it had an article on evolution and on the front a picture of a skeleton of pre-man. They had to bring in an artist to help out on the linking of the fossils because they have no proof for a transistional pre-man fossil. I will scan it in and post it later next week.

Artists are used for folk like you and me who don't understand how to study a fossil skeleton. By showing us how a fossil might have looked with muscle and fat and skin on, it gives us a better idea of what scientists have concluded.

But an artist's rendition is never used as scientific evidence. The fossil is the evidence, not the art work based on it.

 

[SBG]

Well, the picture does not have muscle nor fat nor skin. It is only bones. And an artist was used because there are no real transitional fossils from pre-ape to man.

 

[gluadys]

Well, the picture does not have muscle nor fat nor skin. It is only bones. And an artist was used because there are no real transitional fossils from pre-ape to man.

No, that is not why artists are used. Check with Aron-Ra. He has actually created a model of a fossil tetrapod.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

No, that is not why artists are used. Check with Aron-Ra. He has actually created a model of a fossil tetrapod.

Aron-Ra he is our man if he cant do it no one can ra ra ra. Show me a reptile with cold blood with hair, a reptile with mammary glands. a reptile with scales and warm blood. Show me a mammal with cold blood and no mammaries. nope wont find it. His info is but together very very well though. he is very good at what he does. Couldnt ever take that away from him.

 

[notto]

Aron-Ra he is our man if he cant do it no one can ra ra ra. Show me a reptile with cold blood with hair, a reptile with mammary glands. a reptile with scales and warm blood. Show me a mammal with cold blood and no mammaries. nope wont find it. His info is but together very very well though. he is very good at what he does. Couldnt ever take that away from him.

Please define
1) reptile
2) mammal

Can you show me a hairless dog with hair?

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Please define
1) reptile
2) mammal

Can you show me a hairless dog with hair?

you have never made since to me. i never understand what you are getting at. There are many things different between them and some come from nothing as in the mammary glands, warm blood, and hair. Yes scale is one mutation from a hair i have been told yet we never see this happen to any mammals or reptiles. I would think they attach differently as well. The mammaries come from what, i have been told from some liguid dripping sort of thing in reptiles cant remember exactly what but it was just graping thin air. just to say it camre from this is hardly evidence. It must be shown or told how it could of. Like this mutated to this and this to this. but you wont get that kind of answer because it wouldnt. There is more then one part to a mammary gland and function for it. It involves the whole idea of milk and birth and chemicals and organs and a lot of other stuff. all needed together for it to be of use and passed on by natural selection. Please explain to me these possibilities. Try going deeper then the surface.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

you have never made since to me. i never understand what you are getting at. There are many things different between them and some come from nothing as in the mammary glands, warm blood, and hair. Yes scale is one mutation from a hair i have been told yet we never see this happen to any mammals or reptiles. I would think they attach differently as well. The mammaries come from what, i have been told from some liguid dripping sort of thing in reptiles cant remember exactly what but it was just graping thin air. just to say it camre from this is hardly evidence. It must be shown or told how it could of. Like this mutated to this and this to this. but you wont get that kind of answer because it wouldnt. There is more then one part to a mammary gland and function for it. It involves the whole idea of milk and birth and chemicals and organs and a lot of other stuff. all needed together for it to be of use and passed on by natural selection. Please explain to me these possibilities. Try going deeper then the surface.

W Jay - tell me - what do you know about lactation in monotremes?

 

[notto]

you have never made since to me. i never understand what you are getting at. There are many things different between them and some come from nothing as in the mammary glands, warm blood, and hair. Yes scale is one mutation from a hair i have been told yet we never see this happen to any mammals or reptiles. I would think they attach differently as well. The mammaries come from what, i have been told from some liguid dripping sort of thing in reptiles cant remember exactly what but it was just graping thin air. just to say it camre from this is hardly evidence. It must be shown or told how it could of. Like this mutated to this and this to this. but you wont get that kind of answer because it wouldnt. There is more then one part to a mammary gland and function for it. It involves the whole idea of milk and birth and chemicals and organs and a lot of other stuff. all needed together for it to be of use and passed on by natural selection. Please explain to me these possibilities. Try going deeper then the surface.

You asked for things that by definition we can't show you.

I can't show you a warm blooded reptile with mammaries because by definition, it would not be a reptile.

I can't show you a cold blooded mammal without mammaries because by definition, it would not be a mammal.

I can't show you a hairless dog with hair because by definition, it would not have hair.

What we can show you is intermediates between these and organs and features such as hair, feathers, and mammary glands in intermediate steps between not having them at all to their full development. I think a lot of this has been shown to you before.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

You asked for things that by definition we can't show you.

I can't show you a warm blooded reptile with mammaries because by definition, it would not be a reptile.

I can't show you a cold blooded mammal without mammaries because by definition, it would not be a mammal.

I can't show you a hairless dog with hair because by definition, it would not have hair.

What we can show you is intermediates between these and organs and features such as hair, feathers, and mammary glands in intermediate steps between not having them at all to their full development. I think a lot of this has been shown to you before.

But yet they say its a reptile mammal, they have tried but none of them were very good, its easy to assume with only bones. The problem is that you cant have intermediates with these it is all there or unuseful. You show what a platybus does, but this doesnt help because ther is a lot of other things involved with the change, hormones, organs and such which still all have to be there to work. Similarities dont explain anything except they are similiar.