ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[H3LL]

Those are just a few examples. There are many thousands of species ranging from fairly large mammals to tiny insects and other arthropods which exist in tiny ecological niches.

This also begs the question how Noah managed to mainain the environment on the arc for those creatures that live in low-pressure sub-zero environments and those that live in high-pressure high-temperature environments.

Transporting them to where they live must have been rather dificult too.

 

[delphi_ote]

It seems to me from glancing over this thread that our friend has memorized much chapter and verse from a variety of creationist tracts, but has little or no grounding in the sciences he's trying to refute.

Which would be fine if he was willing to listen and learn... my offer still stands on showing current biology research, but I don't think he's going to take me up on it.

 

[Nick Harman]

Nick Harman
Proof you haven’t been reading the thread. The exact verses have been referenced and posted by Darat on the third page of this thread.
Answer: Have I ever claimed to read every thread, no, I don't have the time you all have. I saw your reference earlier, but I thought the time of the event was in question, that was the mix up. I had never heard that questioned before.

BTW
Genesis Chapter 6
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.

Genesis: Chapter 7
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Answer: I have never heard this called into question before, barely worth spending the time on. Chapter 7 is further instruction added to Chapter 6. He is telling Noah to bring more than 2 of the clean animals. He is still fulfilling the request of Chapter 6, but God is requiring a larger number of the clean animals. I see absolutely no conflict, and you are the first I have ever heard seeing issue with this.

Ossai

 

[Nick Harman]

No it isn't.

The theory of evolution has no connection whatsoever with the topic which you claim it is "all about".

Once more you are repeating a fundie lie without doing the bare minimum of research to find out whether what you're saying is true or false.

Answer: Has nothing to do with it? Your theory is telling us how everything we have today has evolved over millions of years. Trace it back and where does it lead you. That single celled organism had to come from somewhere. This earth had to come from somewhere. The stars had to come from somewhere. The sun had to come from somewhere. Call it evolution or origins, whatever you want, but it is in the science text books and no one wants to talk much about it they just want to assume it all happened.

Someone mentioned that origins is being worked out now. What is the best evidence to support a naturalistic evolution of life? Life had to start somewhere for your evolution to occur.

In Christ
Nick

 

[Ossai]

Nick Harman

I see absolutely no conflict, and you are the first I have ever heard seeing issue with this.

Then how about going and reading them in context.

God says to take two of every kind and then specifically lists the ‘kinds’;

Genesis Chapter 6
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.

Then god apparently changes his mind and says seven of every clean animal and then seven fowls which is a direct contradiction of the number required.

Genesis: Chapter 7
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

How is ‘take 7’ a clarification of ‘take 2’?

BTW – how was Noah supposed to know the difference between the clean and unclean animals when that isn’t really defined until much later by, I believe, Moses?

Where did the water come from?

Where did the water go?

Ossai

 

[Darat]

Answer: I have never heard this called into question before, barely worth spending the time on. Chapter 7 is further instruction added to Chapter 6. He is telling Noah to bring more than 2 of the clean animals. He is still fulfilling the request of Chapter 6, but God is requiring a larger number of the clean animals. I see absolutely no conflict, and you are the first I have ever heard seeing issue with this.

That actually does not tally with what the Bible says.

After God told Noah to take seven of each clean type into the arc the Bible then states that God only commanded 2 of each type into the arc.

The sequence in the bible is:

Genesis 6:
19 "And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark
to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female"

2 of each


Genesis 7:
2 "Of all the clean beasts, take yourself seven pairs, man and his woman; and of the beasts which are not clean, two, man and his woman"

7 of each clean, 2 of each unclean, 7 of each pair of birds

3 "Also of the birds of the heaven seven pairs, male and female, to keep alive seed on the fact of the earth"

8 "Of the clean beats and of the beasts which were not clean, and of the birds and of all those which creep upon the earth,"

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"


2 of each


So as can be seen this is not a matter of God changing his mind, the bible quite clearly states that god said "7 pairs of each clean beast", however it then says only "2 went in "as commanded by God."

(Edited for words and formatting.)

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: question

I asked you where was the conflicting account to save me time searching it out, or do you know? If you can tell me where you get this idea, I will refute it.

Nick

I took the time to respond to your request when you asked me.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Life had to start somewhere for your evolution to occur.

And as, quite clearly, life did start somewhere, this is hardly a problem for evolutionary biology, is it?

The theory of evolution states that species evolved from a few forms or one by a process of reproduction with random variation and natural selection. That's all (bar the genetics). The question of where the first form or forms capable of reproducing came from is therefore entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and vice versa.

---

Now, back to Noah's Ark.

(1) The following may interest you:

Conservation biologists now calculate as a rough rule of thumb that unless a wlid population contains around 500 individuals, it is liable to go extinct, sooner or later. Yet even 500 is only enough to allow the population to tick over... five hundred, then, is a very conservative figure.

(The Engineer in the Garden, C Tudge.)

How does this square with the story of the Ark?

(2) Every modern disease of animals must have come on the Ark, including of course diseases that affect humans. The Ark must therefore have been loaded with bubonic plague, cholera, polio, typhus, typhoid, sleeping sickness, leprosy, syphillis, smallpox, measles, malaria...

How did Noah and his family survive?

(3) The smallest estimate I can find for the number of seperate species (species, not varieties) in the world is three million. We therefore compute that each person on the Ark was engaged in taking care of at least 750,000 animals.

How is this possible?

(4) If only two of each unclean land mammal was taken into the Ark, but there were eight humans, of which at least six formed breeding pairs, then we ought to find higher genetic diversity in humans than in unclean beasts, and we should also expect the most genetically diverse mammals to be whales, which would not have undergone the same (impossible) population bottleneck.

But this is not what we find when we study genetics. Why do you think this is?

(5) When the world was covered with water to sufficient depths to drown the peaks of the highest mountains --- what happened to the world's vegetation? We are not told that two of every kind of tree and flower came to the Ark.

We should therefore expect that all modern plants, having survived the Flood, would be able to survive the prolonged submersion described in Genesis. Is this really the case?

 

[H3LL]

As I'm invisible I can say what I like.

On the off-chance of miraculous visibility....

Nick, if you whine once more about your lack of time, thus implying that all of us are in some way less productive elsewhere than you. You will get a severe slapping with a wet fish. MP style.

Make the (rule 8) time. Everyone else here is doing it for you.

You are not the first here with your beliefs without evidence and repetition of lies posted elsewhere on the Internet and you won't be the last.

For most here you are just one of many and they have taken the time and trouble to respond to you even though it is tiresome repetition for many here.

So far you have been mainly interesting and almost polite. Don't spoil it.

Thank you.

 

[H3LL]

Nick, FYI. The origins of life is not evolution and is a different area of scientific study and has a different name.

Look it up.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Nick- Excuse me if I repeat something already said. I have only time to glance through the thread. It seems you are as ill informed about the Grand Canyon as about the Pyramids.
May I ask you to read this link-

http://www.johncollins.org/JG/Creationism.html

After which you might back up to his home page and read the whole thing. This would make you better equipped to discuss the geology of the Colorado Plateau. At the moment, I feel you are far too ignorant of the subject. (Several of the posters here are professional geologists.) I'd be interested to hear your account of the Vishnu Schist, or the nature of the erosive unconformity at it's top.

I would repeat Dr. Adequate's plea that you check your facts , before repeating the errors or deliberate untruths of others.
Finding the site linked to above took me about thirty seconds. You could have done that, but you preferred not to bother.

Please, I beg you, believe what you will, but do not bear false witness unto others.

Being a Christian does not require justifying, or believing bronze age legend; It requires loving others as yourself.

Which is a great deal harder.

 

[Ashles]

And more questions for Nick (some current, some new):

Where does primitive man using bone and stone tools fit into the bible story? When did they exist, and why?

What part of the construction of the pyramids could not be achieved today (slightly off the topic I realise, but I'm interested)?

How many of each 'type' of animals were taken on the ark? You appear now to be happy that it was more than 2 of each type. What does this now imply for the size of the ark and feeding the animals on the ark?

What did the animals eat when they disembarked from the ark?

What happened to all the plants? How did they survive?

When Noah and his amazing family were distributing the animals back around the world, what was happening to the animals they weren't distributing?

I am happy for you to ignore these questions for the moment if you can address the question of
Where did water come from,
and
Where did the water go?
You haven't answered that at all. Your volcano theory comes from a lack of knowledge and is utterly incorrect.

And finally, several posters have already mentioned this, but I'll just add my say on the subject.
The subject of how life first started is not part of the study evolution and, once again, anyone or any source telling you that it is is utterly ignorant of either subject.
It is actually called abiogenesis. It is an interesting subject in its own right (and by the way it is perfectly plausible) but, to quote Talk Origins:

One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.

Let's stick to talking about evolution for the moment.

(If you really want to know about abiogenesis then please read this link. It goes into some detail, but it is at least factualy correct, unlike the sources you appear to be currently using for information on the subject.)

 

[CodeComplete]

--Good questions, your right, Jesus said, If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
-- If the bible is in error in one part, the whole book is wrong.

Nick,

Which bible do you consider to be error free, King James Bible, Good News Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, Geneva Version etc. etc. and in which language should the correct version be read for the the true word of God as I doubt Jesus spoke English? If the people who put these together were filled with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit has a bad memory...

 

[Phaycops]

I would repeat Dr. Adequate's plea that you check your facts , before repeating the errors or deliberate untruths of others.
Finding the site linked to above took me about thirty seconds. You could have done that, but you preferred not to bother.

But Saaaaaam, he's too buuussyyyy! We're all just a bunch of freeloading losers who spend all our time online instead of leading happy, productive lives full of career and family-type joys. Didn't you get the memo?

Incidentally, I have to miss out on a lot of this thread because I'll be out in the field the rest of the week.

Anyway. I'm getting a little tired of listening to Nick repeat the rationalizations of others. Nick, if you're seriously that resistant to thinking for yourself, please don't waste our time. It's nice that you can point us towards relevant websites, but if we're going to take the time to read your side, you could at least do us the same favour. Before you reply to a post that links to an article, please read the article and decide what you think about it. If you don't understand some of the technical jargon, just ask. There are a LOT of people here with an impressively wide variety of experience, from truck drivers to PhD physicists! It's neat, if you ask me Anyway, we just want you to use your noggin!

 

[delphi_ote]

So far you have been mainly interesting and almost polite. Don't spoil it.

"Almost" at this point is giving him too much credit. He's been expecting others to listen without listening himself and berating a science he is completely ignorant of for pages now. Any offer to show him that understanding is mocked or ignored. Saying "please" and "thank you" while being rude doesn't make you polite. It's passive aggressive and brazenly un-Christian.

"But I say that if anyone is angry with his brother, he will be worthy of judgment. And if anyone says to his brother, "Empty-headed," he will be answerable to the Sanhedrin. But if anyone says, "You fool," he will be in danger of the fire of hell." - The Damn Bible

Frankly, if Nick is to be shining example of the Christan ethics, I'd rather hang out with Queequeg, Tashtego, Daggoo, and Fedallah.

 

[Nick Harman]

That actually does not tally with what the Bible says.

After God told Noah to take seven of each clean type into the arc the Bible then states that God only commanded 2 of each type into the arc.

The sequence in the bible is:

Genesis 6:
19 "And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark
to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female"

2 of each


Genesis 7:
2 "Of all the clean beasts, take yourself seven pairs, man and his woman; and of the beasts which are not clean, two, man and his woman"

7 of each clean, 2 of each unclean, 7 of each pair of birds

3 "Also of the birds of the heaven seven pairs, male and female, to keep alive seed on the fact of the earth"

8 "Of the clean beats and of the beasts which were not clean, and of the birds and of all those which creep upon the earth,"

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"


2 of each


So as can be seen this is not a matter of God changing his mind, the bible quite clearly states that god said "7 pairs of each clean beast", however it then says only "2 went in "as commanded by God."

Answer: Does Chapter 7 instructions void Chapter 6? No. He is still taking the 2 of each kind. Saying verse 9 in ch. 7 is an error is faulty because you are arguing error by ommission. Because in this particular part of the text it doesn't restate the 7 pairs doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same charge is made in regards to it not stating what clean is at this point in the scripture. I have no problem with that. God told Noah but it isn't in the text. Error by ommission does not prove error. Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here. Any one can read this text and know that God wanted 2 of every kind of animal and 7 of every clean animal, and 7 of fowls.

(Edited for words and formatting.)

 

[Darat]

Answer: Does Chapter 7 instructions void Chapter 6? No. He is still taking the 2 of each kind. Saying verse 9 in ch. 7 is an error is faulty because you are arguing error by ommission. Because in this particular part of the text it doesn't restate the 7 pairs doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same charge is made in regards to it not stating what clean is at this point in the scripture. I have no problem with that. God told Noah but it isn't in the text. Error by ommission does not prove error. Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here. Any one can read this text and know that God wanted 2 of every kind of animal and 7 of every clean animal, and 7 of fowls.

If you want to argue that you can add to what the Bible actually says then I do not see how you can claim your facts come from the Bible. The Bible says one thing; you say another, which should I believe?

 

[Mojo]

Your theory is telling us how everything we have today has evolved over millions of years. Trace it back and where does it lead you. That single celled organism had to come from somewhere. This earth had to come from somewhere. The stars had to come from somewhere. The sun had to come from somewhere. Call it evolution or origins, whatever you want, but it is in the science text books and no one wants to talk much about it they just want to assume it all happened.

OK, so the first single celled organism "had to come from somewhere." But if you are going to use that argument, you are going to have to accept that God had to come from somewhere as well. What makes you think that a supreme being spontaneously arising is any more likely than a (presumably much simpler) single celled organism developing from even simpler systems?

 

[Nick Harman]

Nick,

Which bible do you consider to be error free, King James Bible, Good News Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, Geneva Version etc. etc. and in which language should the correct version be read for the the true word of God as I doubt Jesus spoke English? If the people who put these together were filled with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit has a bad memory...

--The original text is inspired (Hebrew OT, Greek NT). I have about every translation out there. Most are good, I prefer the KJV and NKJV. NIV for example has ommitted verses as do many other more recent translations. They came from a different manuscript than the manuscript the KJV came from. I am not one of those KJV or nothing people, I just simply prefer it.

 

[Nick Harman]

OK, so the first single celled organism "had to come from somewhere." But if you are going to use that argument, you are going to have to accept that God had to come from somewhere as well. What makes you think that a supreme being spontaneously arising is any more likely than a (presumably much simpler) single celled organism developing from even simpler systems?

Isaiah 44:6 (KJV)
Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Rev. 1:8 (KJV)
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

God has always been. A god that has to be created is not worth worship, he is not a god. Not a problem for creationist, that is your problem.