ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[Ashles]

Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

So by this are you then saying that you agree that what the bible says disagrees with what scientific evidence shows?

 

[Darat]

What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

Yet when the problems with the Bible text are pointed out you seem quite happy to ignore the contradictions in "god's words" and even add details not in the Bible!

You claim your knowledge comes from the Bible, yet used a few posts ago you were quite happy to tell me that:

Originally posted by Nick Harman

He still took 2 of every kind

...snip..

I've shown (and you even posted the same verses) that the Bible either contradicts itself and we have to discard one figure (2 or the 7) or we can’t make any determination from the Bible how many kinds Noah commanded to enter the arc.

Your knowledge of the “2 of every kind” did not come from the Bible….

 

[Darat]

Darat --- this has been done by theologians. You could look it up. We get to refer him to textbooks on geology. He, equally, can refer us to fundie books on creationism.

...snip...

I disagree, since unlike the people here who have defended the "old earth" theory Nick claims his knowledge comes from a source that is infallible i.e. the Bible. His view is that everything else is just as he says in his last but one post:

Originally posted by Nick Harman

Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

Although he claims the age of the Earth is somehow known he cannot actually use his only source of knowledge to support his claim.

His creation date has no more legitimacy then Bishop Ussher's silliness claiming to have calculated the date of the creation of the Earth as being October 23rd 4004 B.C.

 

[Nick Harman]

I've shown (and you even posted the same verses) that the Bible either contradicts itself and we have to discard one figure (2 or the 7) or we can’t make any determination from the Bible how many kinds Noah commanded to enter the arc.

Your knowledge of the “2 of every kind” did not come from the Bible…. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have never claimed or heard any creationist claim to know how many kinds there were. It says 2 of every kind, then says 7 of clean animals, as we have discussed, but no one knows how many kinds there were. We may not be on the same page here.

 

[Ashles]

Just for reference Nick, you put the text from the person you are quoting in the [quote] tags.

Anyway, to reiterate my quesion:

Do you agree with us (from what you posted above) that what the bible says disagrees with what scientific evidence shows?

 

[Phaycops]

Hi Nick. I hope you had a nice weekend and enjoyed the first blush of spring. I know I did. It was a joy to be able to go outside with no coat on

You wrote:

I have never claimed or heard any creationist claim to know how many kinds there were. It says 2 of every kind, then says 7 of clean animals, as we have discussed, but no one knows how many kinds there were. We may not be on the same page here.

I accept that creationists maybe don't know how many kinds there were. However, this is an important thing to know if we are going to discuss the scientific merits of your YEC story. If there were a limited number of kinds, then how did they give rise to the species we see today? If there were a large number of kinds -- say, for example, every species we see today -- that leads to questions regarding 1) the logistics behind getting that many animals on a boat without eating each other, becoming sick, or overflowing with excrement; and 2) the geographical distribution of those animals post-flood. I know that you folks say that Noah and his family dispersed the critters, but there weren't that many of them, and there are a LOT of species in a LOT of places. Beetles, for example. And lantern fishes. And yes, even wombats. Please let me know what you think about these problems.

 

[Darat]

I have never claimed or heard any creationist claim to know how many kinds there were. It says 2 of every kind, then says 7 of clean animals, as we have discussed, but no one knows how many kinds there were. We may not be on the same page here.

You have misunderstood my post and still have not realised the error in the Bible.

The Bible has God telling Noah to take 2 of every kind into the arc, then God tells him to take two of every kind of unclean and seven of every kind of clean and fowl, but then the Bible says God only commanded that 2 go into the arc.

Do you not see the problem 2 – 7 – 2.

(Plus I’ll ignore the awkward problem of how if God did only command 2 into the arc, Noah could then sacrifice some of the clean beasts after landfall….)

 

[Ashles]

Darat I think you have departed from the Answers in Genesis script so Nick won't have anywhere to get an answer from.

 

[Nick Harman]

You have misunderstood my post and still have not realised the error in the Bible.[

QUOTE]I fully understand what you are saying, I disagree and I have already detailed the answer. Error by ommission is your argument which doesn't prove error. I would have a hard time continuing with my side of the argument if God then commanded 1 of each kind, but this is not the case. And that is my final answer (I think I already said that, but this time I mean it. Ha Ha.)

 

[Ashles]

Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

I'll have another go. Same question. Third time.

Nick, do you agree with us that what the bible says disagrees with what scientific evidence shows?

 

[Nick Harman]

Hi Nick, perhaps you can find time to answer my question.

If, as you seem to have stated, one species cannot give rise to another, and as you have also stated, not every currently existing species was taken on the ark (you say that "kinds" were taken but dont explain what this term means),

you said species, I said kind.
Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so.

You could name many different species of dogs and they are all the same biblical kind, because they are interfertile. So Noah would not have to take every species of dog, but 2 dogs. Species is a relatively new term, you would probably know when that came about, I am not sure.

how did all the currently existing species arise?

I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem. Changes can happen pretty rapidly as cases have been documented. Dogs can have a lot of variety and that doesn't take long. The two sides will probably always disagree on this one. You and I are thinking of different changes. The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this. Variation is not the issue, both sides believe and observe this, the question is whether there are limts or not. ,

 

[Nick Harman]

Darat I think you have departed from the Answers in Genesis script so Nick won't have anywhere to get an answer from.

I do not need AiG for this one, all I needed to do was read the text.

 

[Phaycops]

I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem.

...

The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this.

I'm going to have to ask you for a citation here, Nick. Where did this information come from? I have to warn you, though, that I don't think many of us are going to be happy when you tell us that you got this from AiG, and not a website on paleontology.

Nick, do you understand that your position is NOT supported by ANY scientific evidence AT ALL? How does this make you feel?

 

[drkitten]

you said species, I said kind.
Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so.

You could name many different species of dogs and they are all the same biblical kind, because they are interfertile. So Noah would not have to take every species of dog, but 2 dogs. Species is a relatively new term, you would probably know when that came about, I am not sure.

There may be a confusion in terminology here, but the word "species" does not mean what you think it means. Mr. Harman. Specifically, all dogs are one species (Canis lupus familiaris), despite the wide variety between various "breeds," "races," "varieties," et cetera, of dogs. The very definition of a "species," when the word is used properly by biologists, is of a group of interfertile organisms.

So dogs are a single species because they can interbreed with each other. In fact, because dogs and wolves can interbreed, the dog and wolf are now considered to be the same species (Canis lupus) -- Canis familiaris used to be considered a separate species unto itself. Donkeys and horses are different species because they cannot interbreed (more formally, of course, because their joint offspring, mules, are themselves sterile).

In this light, the odds of any two members of different species but the same "kind" (for example, perhaps a horse and a zebra) being able to produce fertile offspring is miniscule. But similarly, the odds against a pair of horses being able to produce zebras is also miniscule, especially given, first, the fact that only one breeding pair of horses would have been on the Ark, and second, that there would have been fewer than ten thousand years elapsed since that time.

 

[Ashles]

I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem.

It is a massive problem so I am asuming your reading has again come from AiG and not from any scientific source.

I take it you are actually not reading the information we are typing and the links we are providing then?

AiG is scientifically inaccurate. Whether deliberately or accidentally, the information they provide on scientific matters is not correct. So why do you keep quoting them and assuming they are correct? Where do you think they are getting their 'scientific' information from?
It is not from the bible, obviously, and it is not from scientific research, so I am curious to know where do you think it is coming from?

Animals cannot have very much variety quickly from just 2 ancestors, but aside from this the health problems would likely be chronic very rapidly (see previous posts).

To get all the animals we have now from one of each 'type' is not a big problem - it is flat out impossible. The variety, the spread, the food required, the numbers, the genetic inbreeding, the different environments required...
And that's just dealing with the situation after leaving the ark.
And all assuming somehow there is loads of vegetation (which there wouldn't be).

Anyway, I'm still curious as to where stone age man fits into all of this.

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs.

 

[Darat]

I fully understand what you are saying, I disagree and I have already detailed the answer. Error by ommission is your argument which doesn't prove error. I would have a hard time continuing with my side of the argument if God then commanded 1 of each kind, but this is not the case. And that is my final answer (I think I already said that, but this time I mean it. Ha Ha.)

Ok thanks, I'll put that to one side for now.

Back to my other point about how you know the age of the Earth. I am not really interested in what fallible people may have calculated after all " Man's opinions and ideas are always changing.".

So Nick, could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have not done the math on this one

No, you haven't.

As I pointed out, the smallest estimate I can find of species living today is three million.

How many were on the Ark?

but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem.

This is because you have only read fundie tracts, and are entirely ignorant of biology.

This is why you see problems where there are no problems, and no problems when there are lots.

Ignorance.

Please try to learn something about anything.

Changes can happen pretty rapidly as cases have been documented. Dogs can have a lot of variety and that doesn't take long.

We are talking about species not varieties.

The two sides will probably always disagree on this one. You and I are thinking of different changes.

Yes. We keep talking about species. We say: "there are three milion species". And you keep explaining how to get lots of varieties. Nick, there are three million species. Did they all fit onto the Ark, or was there speciation?

But the fundie side keeps on talking about variation because it's the only way they can thing of to duck the question.

This does not make them look smart, but what else could they do --- tell the truth?

Once for all, Nick:

HOW MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES WERE ON THE ARK?

The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion

You mean, like the world being round rather than flat, eh? Man's opinion, tut, tut.

The problem is, as I have pointed out, that you look at fundie tracts and we look at the evidence.

Nick, here is some evidence.

Is that "a lot of man's opinion" or a lot of fossilised bones?

Here is an abstract of the description of this fossil in the scientific literature.

Incidentally, I looked to see what AiG have to say about the information in the paper above, and they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!

You must decide for yourself whether this is due to ignorance, laziness, or a habit of telling lies.

and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest.

Citation, please. No, from not AiG. From the scientists who found the fossil.

So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this. Variation is not the issue, both sides believe and observe this, the question is whether there are limts or not. ,

Could we have that in English?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

This Invisible Geologist (TM)(R)(C) is asking if you realize that the Bible was assembled by men. I will not enter on the issue reagrading if the texts were or not inspired by god. I am just asking if you acknoweledge it was several times assembled -and edited- by men that were subject to failures. Do you trust these men?

And again remembers you of another place with very specific fauna - Madagascar. Even the fossils are different there. And also remembers of fossil fauna in Antarctica, quite different from that of the rest of the world. How this fits with the deluge?

And the Invisible Geologist (TM)(R)(C) is still waiting for the counter arguments that defenders from YE "theory" were supposed to provide - other than quotes of the Bible- regarding the inexistence of a geological record of the universal flood.

 

[Nick Harman]

[
Nick, here is some evidence.

Is that "a lot of man's opinion" or a lot of fossilised bones?

Here is an abstract of the description of this fossil in the scientific literature.

Incidentally, I looked to see what AiG have to say about the information in the paper above, and they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!

You are not giving an accurate account of the AiG material. They mentioned that it passed a peer review to there surprise. They mentioned that Thewissen's site now says there are more bones than was in the original paper. AiG did not deny outright, but said to their knowledge no new paper had passed a peer review so they would not consider the additions as evidence until it passed the peer review. I was already in the process of looking @ Thewissen's material.

 

[Nick Harman]

Evidence

Started a new reply to get away from the picture.

You say you look at evidence. The truth is you look at facts and interpret them. Fact is that you are looking at bones. Interpretation is that it is evolving into a whale. That is not even close to a proven fact. Would you say that these bones prove they are turning into a whale, or is it more appropriate to say that many scientists believe this?

Nick