The Flood

[milkyway]

Only if, thereafter, dogs evolved at ludicrously high rates.

It's meant to be 6000 years since the flood? That works out at 58 new beetle species per year, assuming we don't find any more.

That's some evolving going on!

 

[Vene]

It's meant to be 6000 years since the flood? That works out at 58 new beetle species per year, assuming we don't find any more.

That's some evolving going on!

No, it's worse, that is the age of the world, the flood occurred after that. (maybe 4000 years ago, I'm honestly not sure about that one)

 

[RedAndy]

Only if, thereafter, dogs evolved at ludicrously high rates.

Without, of course, any beneficial mutations or an increase in genetic information (whatever that means). Doesn't sound plausible, does it?

 

[FishFace]

Without, of course, any beneficial mutations or an increase in genetic information (whatever that means). Doesn't sound plausible, does it?

Plus, we would have noticed if dogs or other species were evolving so rapidly in recent history, so take that down from 4000 years to 3-3.5k.
Utterly bonkers. But of course, this won't faze AV or those like him. He won't even think about it - that's what irritates me. It's not as if Creationists are thinking up ways of dodging the evidence, they're not thinking at all. It's as if raising evidence against their dogma automatically switches off some higher brain function and engages an auto-response of "No" or "God did it."
Maybe that's why Creationism or Fundamentalism is so attractive - you don't need to think any more; you just automatically deny anything that contradicts you and you're sorted.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't know --- perhaps to put some distance between things for certain specific reasons hitherto undocumented.

So why propose that it happened at all? Why not settle with "After the Flood, God poofed all the animals on the Ark across the globe to their new homes"?

Yet it happened --- and yes, "mind-boggling" would be a natural reaction to a miraculous event.

I agree that witnessing a genuine miracle would be mind-boggling, but I don't agree that it happened. There is, after all, no reason to suppose that it did.

If you move Australia up between Africa and India though, the distance is far shortened.

But it is nevertheless a large distance. Besides, the thing that would boggle my mind is not the distance, but rather the fact that all marsupials went together in a coherant group, and left no trace of their existance. Indeed, the specialised diet of, say, Koala bears would require the existance of eucalyptus trees along the path. Why, then, are there no eucalyptus trees except on Australia?

 

[flatworm]

Plus, we would have noticed if dogs or other species were evolving so rapidly in recent history, so take that down from 4000 years to 3-3.5k.

That's being charitable. I like to say the biggest absurdity in the "hyper-evolution" hypothesis is not that lions, tigers, and cougars evolved from housecats within 4000 years, but that it would have to happen before anyone in the ancient world could notice.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why propose that it happened at all? Why not settle with "After the Flood, God poofed all the animals on the Ark across the globe to their new homes"?

I was going to mention at first that God could easily have done that the same way He teleported the Apostle Philip in Acts 8, but got to thinking that that scenario ignores the fact that all the marsupials were probably muddled around in one general area. The same general area that God broke off and made Australia. In other words, you would get the impression that He "created Australia" first, then populated it.

I agree that witnessing a genuine miracle would be mind-boggling, but I don't agree that it happened. There is, after all, no reason to suppose that it did.

That, of course, is your prerogative.

But it is nevertheless a large distance. Besides, the thing that would boggle my mind is not the distance, but rather the fact that all marsupials went together in a coherant group, and left no trace of their existance.

Again, they had approximately 100 years to migrate to the outer perimeter of Pangaea. In just 100 years of existence, starting from just 7 pair*, how big of an audit trail would you expect to find?

* This, of course, is assuming that the marsupials who boarded the Ark are the same "kind" of marsupials that exist in Australia today. Remember, only their "kind" boarded the Ark, so only their "kind" disembarked. You're assuming that kangaroos, for example, even existed back then, and therefore you're looking for eucalypti and dead Koala bears, where none may ever have existed.

 

[Soul Searcher]

You do realize that Pangea broke apart long before 4000 bc.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Another big question is what would the creatures eat after coming off the ark.

It would seem that plants would for the most part be totally destroyed by the water, the only meat would be that of the animals on board and at least initially all the animals would be confined to a very small location at the top of a rugged mountian that likely had no vegatation before the flood anyway. Quite likely the earth there would be frozen solid with a bit of mud on top that would be saturated with salt. Growing anything at all would be next to impossible and if the predators eat the other animals as is thier nature they would go extinct very quickly.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that Pangea broke apart long before 4000 bc.

The Bible says otherwise:

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

And besides, "long before 4000 bc" to a literalist doesn't mathematically compute.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another big question is what would the creatures eat after coming off the ark.

Presumably the same thing they ate on the Ark.

It would seem that plants would for the most part be totally destroyed by the water, the only meat would be that of the animals on board and at least initially all the animals would be confined to a very small location at the top of a rugged mountian that likely had no vegatation before the flood anyway. Quite likely the earth there would be frozen solid with a bit of mud on top that would be saturated with salt.

Here's an excerpt from Post 10:

When it came time for the Flood, God handled all the details concerning how nature would have interrupted His plans. As I'm fond of saying, nature is currently hostile to God's creation, yet obedient to God, Himself; as in the instance when Jesus stilled the waters, or when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were put into the fiery furnace.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Presumably the same thing they ate on the Ark.

Here's an excerpt from Post 10:

Do you realize how much food would have had to have been on the ark just to feed them while they were on board? How much more to feed them while the waters receeded, crops were grown, animals repopulating to the point that a meal for a lion would not wipe out a species.

There are lots of issues with the senario. If we resort to God did it [magically] then there is no logical arguement to be had but if we use logic and what we know about the world then we are forced to conclude that the events can not have happened as they are recorded.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you realize how much food would have had to have been on the ark just to feed them while they were on board?

Yes --- none.

[bible]1 Kings 17:15-16[/bible]

 

[FishFace]

That's being charitable. I like to say the biggest absurdity in the "hyper-evolution" hypothesis is not that lions, tigers, and cougars evolved from housecats within 4000 years, but that it would have to happen before anyone in the ancient world could notice.

For truth - there's something to look into, actually. The Egyptians were mummifying cats, and that friendly critter who ate you if your heart was too heavy was part lion. So in the time between the animals disembarking and the Egyptian civilization springing up (which can't be long since the record of the Egyptian civilization somehow crosses the period of the supposedly global flood), not only did humans have to repopulate the world to enable such a civilization, but something had to diversify into cats and lions! Nice going!

I wonder whether there are any other examples? In each case the creationist has to resort to yet another unfalsifiable, unevidenced, ad hoc "explanation."

 

[FishFace]

The Bible says otherwise:

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible]

I'm sorry, I may need glasses but I'm pretty sure that neither "Pangaea" nor "Supercontinent" nor any word that is even remotely connected is mentioned in that passage.

 

[FishFace]

Yes --- none.

[bible]1 Kings 17:15-16[/bible]

For a literalist, you sure do like adding things into the Bible that aren't there. I guess you have to since the Bible is bad sci-fi.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I'm sorry, I may need glasses but I'm pretty sure that neither "Pangaea" nor "Supercontinent" nor any word that is even remotely connected is mentioned in that passage.

It is a matter of interpretation. The earth being divided could be interpretated to mean that the land masses were broken apart, physically seperated, or it could be that those upon the earth simply disagreed with each other. Or that people laid claims to certian areas of the earth, creating different kingdoms and such.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was going to mention at first that God could easily have done that the same way He teleported the Apostle Philip in Acts 8,

It would be far more efficient as well.

but got to thinking that that scenario ignores the fact that all the marsupials were probably muddled around in one general area.

What makes you think this?

Again, they had approximately 100 years to migrate to the outer perimeter of Pangaea. In just 100 years of existence, starting from just 7 pair*, how big of an audit trail would you expect to find?

* This, of course, is assuming that the marsupials who boarded the Ark are the same "kind" of marsupials that exist in Australia today. Remember, only their "kind" boarded the Ark, so only their "kind" disembarked. You're assuming that kangaroos, for example, even existed back then, and therefore you're looking for eucalypti and dead Koala bears, where none may ever have existed.

Well, no: if the Flood occured in ~2000BCE, then only 4000 years have passed. This isn't nearly enough time to speciate one proto-marsupial species into the ~330 species we have today.

Unless God snapped his fingers, of course

 

[TheBear]

This has probably been gone over before but I haven't seen it and am curious how those who believe a global flood occured deal with the problems that would likely arise just by the water being that high.

Things such as.

Thin air at such extreme elevation.
High winds
Frigid tempatures
Huge swells, likely larger than any ever seen.

And at such great depths, the water at the bottom would be under so much pressure, the water molecules would start to fuse, forming an ice-like, (not frozen, but solidified), structure across most of the surface of the earth.

 

[Soul Searcher]

And at such great depths, the water at the bottom would be under so much pressure, the water molecules would start to fuse, forming an ice-like, (not frozen, but solidified), structure across most of the surface of the earth.

hmm Never thought about that but it does make sense.