Noah's Ark

[1213]

So why do we have today about 8.7 million living animal species,from which 1.2 milion are observed and classified?
How did that happend?

By creative counting.

Why do you think "black" and "white" people are not called different species, when in animal kingdom similar difference would mean different species?

 

[1213]

You propose an incredibly rapid evolution that has no president, reason or evidence to support it. And I predict that from the typical rejection of evolution by literalists that support the Ark story, this is going to be a difficult hurdle to find acceptance.

If people can believe that from Noah's family we have the variety of people that we can see nowadays, why would it be difficult to accept that in animal families similar differentiation has happened?

The crucial thing is, in Biblical point of view, everything was good when it was created. Then it started to become corrupted, or degenerate. All that we can see in nature supports the idea of degeneration. And nothing supports the opposite, that things would develop, become more complex, as the evolution theory suggests.

If the evolution theory would be true, we should see things become more complex, single cell organisms evolving to organisms that have legs, eyes and other complex systems. All we can see is DNA getting more errors, "whales losing their legs"... ...this means, it could easily be that in the ark there was about 460 animal families and their offspring has deteriorated to this variety that we now can see. And the speed of deteriorating seems to be increasing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If people can believe that from Noah's family we have the variety of people that we can see nowadays, why would it be difficult to accept that in animal families similar differentiation has happened?

The crucial thing is, in Biblical point of view, everything was good when it was created. Then it started to become corrupted, or degenerate. All that we can see in nature supports the idea of degeneration. And nothing supports the opposite, that things would develop, become more complex, as the evolution theory suggests.

If the evolution theory would be true, we should see things become more complex, single cell organisms evolving to organisms that have legs, eyes and other complex systems. All we can see is DNA getting more errors, "whales losing their legs"... ...this means, it could easily be that in the ark there was about 460 animal families and their offspring has deteriorated to this variety that we now can see. And the speed of deteriorating seems to be increasing.

It is a proposal that has no basis given the alleged duration since the alleged event.

Environmental impacts that require millions of years condensed down into a few thousand would be a catastrophe greater than that of the allegorical flood story.

It doesn't make any sense based on the evidence.

 

[Tamino]

But, I think in that time, there were no pandas as we know them, there were the ancestor of pandas, that was also the ancestor of all other bears.

I really don't get how people can accept rapid diversification and speciation in some areas, and deny evolution as a whole.
Your "rapid multiplication and diversification from a single pair" is far less likely and plausible.

And the ancestor bear probably could have eaten food that is easier to get, like for example fish from outside of the Ark. Also, it is possible that the bear pair was not fully grown and could have had for example milk from cows in the beginning of the journey.

I don't think that raising bear cubs on cows milk while simultaneously caring for thousands of other animals is feasible. It appears to be a quite complex process: Bear Milk, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

If you want the bears to survive in the story, your god can just put them in an artificial hibernation state. I mean, why don't you just claim divine intervention and all the animals where teleported to the ark and put into a stasis during the flood? Because any other explanations I've heard of "how that worked" are naive and illogical.

 

[Soandso]

By what I know, pandas can eat also other food, they just nowadays choose to eat bamboo normally.

But, I think in that time, there were no pandas as we know them, there were the ancestor of pandas, that was also the ancestor of all other bears. And the ancestor bear probably could have eaten food that is easier to get, like for example fish from outside of the Ark. Also, it is possible that the bear pair was not fully grown and could have had for example milk from cows in the beginning of the journey.

Bamboo makes up 99% of the food they eat. Yes, they eat other things as well, but without bamboo they die

Were there no monophagous animals before the flood? How do animals go from being omnivorous to eating only one thing or else they die within the span of thousands of years? Do we have examples of this happening in the real world?

 

[Laniakea]

They would not be. The most common definition of "species" is the breeding definition. If two populations can successfully reproduce they are the same species. Do you seriously think that black people and white people cannot reproduce?

They could, but then the offspring wouldn't still be black or white as we still have today.
There are 3 main "races" of humans, and there were 3 sons of Noah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They could, but then the offspring wouldn't still be black or white as we still have today.
There are 3 main "races" of humans, and there were 3 sons of Noah.

No "races" arose after man left Africa. Dark skin protects against UV. But we also need Vitamin D. And dark skin interferes with that. So moving away from the equator meant that protection from skin cancer was not as important as making Vitamin D. We lost our dark pigmentation.


And did you read about cheetahs at all? I gave you a paper on them. If our population had ever been that small transplants would be easy. They are actually quite difficult.

All of the sciences tell us that there never was a flood. You know the silly claim that the sedimentary rocks are from the flood? We can endlessly show that to be wrong. I can show that to be wrong with a single picture:

 

[ppp]

Bible tells the animals went to the Ark, Noah didn't have to get them. And, it is probable that in the Ark there was just one kind of bears and all modern bears are offspring of those that were in the ark. Similarly as we now have about 7 billion different looking people, all though in the ark there were only 8 people.

During Noah's time, that what we call animal family, was probably called species. And there is about 460 families that would have been in the Ark.

Were Amphicyonidae the bear kind, or the dog kind?

 

[1213]

Were Amphicyonidae the bear kind, or the dog kind?

Sorry, I don't know. I think it is also possible that it was own kind, and perhaps got extinct before the flood.

 

[1213]

Bamboo makes up 99% of the food they eat. Yes, they eat other things as well, but without bamboo they die

Were there no monophagous animals before the flood? How do animals go from being omnivorous to eating only one thing or else they die within the span of thousands of years? Do we have examples of this happening in the real world?

Actually, by what I know, what one eats, can affect on the microbes one has, and it can influence to what one "could eat". If you would eat only one food, eventually it would be more difficult for you to start eating something else, because your microbe system would not be adapted to it.

I don't believe Pandas would die without bamboo.

 

[1213]

I really don't get how people can accept rapid diversification...

For example change of color is very small diversification. I have no problem in believing that. If one would claim that one develops for example an eye, that would be a very different matter.

I don't think that raising bear cubs on cows milk while simultaneously caring for thousands of other animals is feasible. It appears to be a quite complex process:

I think most of the animals would have survived easily without and care taking.

...hibernation state....

Good point, bears could hibernate, it does not require any magic.

 

[Audie]

Were Amphicyonidae the bear kind, or the dog kind?

This line of questioning is unfair.

 

[Tamino]

For example change of color is very small diversification. I have no problem in believing that. If one would claim that one develops for example an eye, that would be a very different matter.

And where would you draw that line between small diversification that you believe, and big changes you don't? Because no such line has been found in nature.

I think most of the animals would have survived easily without and care taking.

For 371 days in a small confined space, without harming any others? I find that unlikely.

Good point, bears could hibernate, it does not require any magic.

Bears don't spontaneously hibernate for an entire year.

 

[Audie]

No "races" arose after man left Africa. Dark skin protects against UV. But we also need Vitamin D. And dark skin interferes with that. So moving away from the equator meant that protection from skin cancer was not as important as making Vitamin D. We lost our dark pigmentation.


And did you read about cheetahs at all? I gave you a paper on them. If our population had ever been that small transplants would be easy. They are actually quite difficult.

All of the sciences tell us that there never was a flood. You know the silly claim that the sedimentary rocks are from the flood? We can endlessly show that to be wrong. I can show that to be wrong with a single picture:

View attachment 90597

Those to whom you keep showing
this photo do not have the capacity
to understand it.

 

[Tomef]

If you believe/accept the story of Noah's ark, how did Noah get from Mesopotamia(modern Iraq) to the Arctic to get polar bears for example?

I reckon he daisy-chained it, like the woman in the song who started out swallowing a fly, ‘cept it was the ark what done the ‘swallowing’. Gnat to spider to bird, all the way to seal/penguin (what do polar bears eat?) via fish and hey presto you’ve enticed a polar bear to the Fertile Crescent. Yes, that’s definitely how it happened.

 

[Soandso]

Actually, by what I know, what one eats, can affect on the microbes one has, and it can influence to what one "could eat". If you would eat only one food, eventually it would be more difficult for you to start eating something else, because your microbe system would not be adapted to it.

I don't believe Pandas would die without bamboo.

Not sure how you can believe pandas wouldn't die without bamboo when they are currently dying out due primarily to their food source, bamboo forests, shrinking. Can you show me examples of pandas in captivity being fed anything besides bamboo for long periods of time and surviving? This is essentially what we are talking about in an ark scenario

You've keyed on pretty keenly to pandas though, but there are far more monophagous animals with much less ability to diversify their diets than pandas. So again I'd ask: Were there no monophagous animals before the flood? How do animals go from being omnivorous to eating only one thing or else they die within the span of thousands of years? Do we have examples of this happening in the real world?

 

[ppp]

This line of questioning is unfair.

Oh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those to whom you keep showing
this photo do not have the capacity
to understand it.

And worse yet they do not want to learn. Creationists are afraid to learn.

 

[Audie]

Oh?

It's like quizzing a kindergarten kid on Santa.

 

[Laniakea]

Those to whom you keep showing
this photo do not have the capacity
to understand it.

And worse yet they do not want to learn. Creationists are afraid to learn.

Dude, you're the one who showed the photo.
So you're claiming that it's you that does not want to learn.