To all athiests out there: bring it on

[Doubting Thomas]

Not that I buy it, but I've seen believers in the Deluge write that Noah and his family contained all of the genetic diversity we see in contemporary people. Of course, there are grave problems with such a claim. However, I'd bet that they might try to apply that same hooey to the various animal pairs to try to short-circuit the inbreeding objection.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JesusServant

I didn't understand what you mean't by it would be suicide. Sorry for the .

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Not that I buy it, but I've seen believers in the Deluge write that Noah and his family contained all of the genetic diversity we see in contemporary people. Of course, there are grave problems with such a claim. However, I'd bet that they might try to apply that same hooey to the various animal pairs to try to short-circuit the inbreeding objection.

I've seen claims about genetically "pure" animals (or "super" animals). The problem with that claim is genetic defects supposedly began after the Fall. Well, the Flood was a good, what, 1000+ years past that? So, unless you invoke God, you've got no argument (and, of course, by invoking God, you've just thrown science right out the window).

Likewise, Noah and his family containing all the genetic diversity of humankind also has a few problems. Such as, how do you explain the distribution of skin-pigment and climate, then? If you rule out evolution as being responsible, then what are you left with? Blind luck?

 

[tacoman528]

okay, who wants to talk science?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Smilin
On a serious note, think about this:  To bring any credibility to the Animals on the ark story, evolution HAS to be considered.  It would have been physically IMPOSSIBLE to house all species on earth today, much less all those that have become extinct.

And this is why I don't understand how some creationists can accept the common ancestors from Noah's Ark (producing all the species of those animals we see today), but turn around and declare the theory of evolution a load of bollocks.

As far as inbreeding, I'll have to reasearch some facts before making statements.  I'm not sure how many species could/can sucessfully inbreed with each other.

Just do a search for "minimum viable population". While there are no hard and fast numbers (obviously there is a lot of room for variation), most numbers I've seen for specific species are usually in the hundreds (sometimes up over a thousand). And yet people would have me believe that pairs of animals from Noah's Ark somehow successfully produced all the world's species we see today. Outside of Divine intervention, it just isn't realistically possible (and again, by invoking God, science goes out the window).

 

[seebs]

I still haven't seen any scientific evidence that the world is young, except for stuff (like the moon thing) that we knew was wrong 40 years ago. I'm still interested in it.

 

[ocean]

By science, do you mean science or creationist myths?

 

[tacoman528]

To Seebs,
Why is it wrong,

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff

Likewise, Noah and his family containing all the genetic diversity of humankind also has a few problems. Such as, how do you explain the distribution of skin-pigment and climate, then? If you rule out evolution as being responsible, then what are you left with? Blind luck?

and thus an argument that only evolution can support racial diversity from a single pair of parents.

 

[ocean]

tacoman528,

If the flood actually happened, how do you explain the problem of inbreeding? 2 animals is an extremely small gene pool. An entire animal population could not have come from 2 animals.

Also, if there were only 2 of each "kind" of animal, what did the carnivores eat?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by tacoman528
okay, who wants to talk science?

tacokiddo,

back up and read my responses to your young earth and global flood arguments.  I'm interested in your scientific responses.

 

[tacoman528]

Please see one of my previous posting for a list of reason why the earth is less than 6000 years old. goto www-drdino-com for even more reasons. And I would appreciate some evidence as to why the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Before you say RADIOCARBON!!! be sure to see Dr. Hovind's explanation for that at his website near the top of this message.

 

[tacoman528]

could you copy and paste all of those on a message right after this one, I don't feel like looking for it through 20 pages of letters. Thanks. I will be happy to place my scientific explanations for them.

 

[lithium.]

LOL I don't think you will be seeing any of us going to drdino.

 

[ocean]

Hovind is full of nonsense. His arguments have been refuted over and over and over again.

 

[tacoman528]

Really, I'm sorry you feel that way

 

[tacoman528]

Because if you didn't, you would find many of your answers right there

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by tacoman528
Please see one of my previous posting for a list of reason why the earth is less than 6000 years old. goto www-drdino-com for even more reasons. And I would appreciate some evidence as to why the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Before you say RADIOCARBON!!! be sure to see Dr. Hovind's explanation for that at his website near the top of this message.

taco, are your reading comphrension skills lacking?

People have already seen Hovind's claims. Again and again and again. You're not the first person to bring these up, and you certainly won't be the last.

Everything you've posted from his site has been refuted. Yet, you won't back up those claims, other than to (once again) refer us to Hovind's site. Been there, done that.

Go find something original, then come back.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by tacoman528
Really, I'm sorry you feel that way

Why? It's true he is a crackpot all of this stuff has been refuted.

 

[ocean]

Originally posted by tacoman528
Because if you didn't, you would find many of your answers right there

The only problem is, I want the RIGHT answers.