Noah's Ark & post-flood speciation

[Caino]

Huh? No, that's why hyperevolution didn't occur 4000 years ago after a global flood.

As far as macroevolution being in the fossil record . . .

It's all over the place.

The term is "belligerent denial." The Hebrew priest wrote a creation story that simpletons could understand, yet the archeological record is sooooo much more complex and at odds with their outdated creation myth. The only answer is denial to rebut misdirected faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago and correspond roughly to the family level of current classification.

So humans are in the same "kind" with other primates. Good to know. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists should not have a problem with the concept of rapid speciation.

Stripe says speciation never happens. Is he wrong?

 

[User Name]

6.5 million is an estimate. Only about a million have been described.

Keep in mind that this estimate does not include the even larger numbers of species that are extinct, nor does it include the large number of species that have yet to be discovered.

 

[6days]

So humans are in the same "kind" with other primates. Good to know. :up:

What George said..."Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago and correspond roughly to the family level of current classification."
God created mankind separate and distinct from animals.

 

[Jose Fly]

What George said..."Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago and correspond roughly to the family level of current classification."
God created mankind separate and distinct from animals.

So as you've said before, this isn't science but rather is just "a belief about the past" derived from the Christian Bible.

 

[6days]

Keep in mind that this estimate does not include the even larger numbers of species that are extinct, nor does it include the large number of species that have yet to be discovered.

Keep in mind that it seems Noah only took land animals, birds and reptiles on the ark. As Christians we can be certain that Noah took exactly what God commanded...
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.’
And,
‘Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.’

 

[6days]

So as you've said before, this isn't science but rather is just "a belief about the past" derived from the Christian Bible.

Correct... creationism and evolutionism are not science, but beliefs about the past.

 

[Jose Fly]

So bigger picture-wise, if "kinds" are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families, that raises an interesting issue given other creationist arguments.

Let's say there is a "cat kind", which means Noah took aboard the Ark two (or seven, depending on which of the two stories you read) representatives of the "cat kind", from which all of today's species of cats are descended. But remember, creationists also argue that mutation cannot increase the amount of "genetic information" in a genome, and that genomes have been degrading over time since The Fall.

So exactly how is a single breeding pair of cats able to give rise to the diversity of cats we see around us today....everything from tigers to house cats...without adding a single bit of "genetic information", and given the claim that the genomes have only been "degrading"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Correct... creationism and evolutionism are not science, but beliefs about the past.

Well, we can disagree about evolution (which given its status in the scientific community over the last 150+ years, your opinion on it is inconsequential), but it's good to know we both agree that creationism isn't science. :up:

 

[User Name]

Evolutionists should not have a problem with the concept of rapid speciation.

Rapid speciation within both a small population and a short time-frame is difficult to imagine (except perhaps among bacteria and viruses).

Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago and correspond roughly to the family level of current classification.

Extremely roughly, I would have to imagine. For example, sheep, antelope, bison and buffalo all belong to the same family, called Bovidae.

 

[User Name]

Keep in mind that it seems Noah only took land animals, birds and reptiles on the ark. As Christians we can be certain that Noah took exactly what God commanded...
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.’
And,
‘Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.’

And apparently Noah also took on dinosaurs. But for no reason apparently, because they all suddenly went extinct after the flood anyway. Speaking of which, I've been wondering, were dinosaurs clean or unclean?

 

[6days]

*

A full compliment of genetic information means that God gave the organisms a genome allowing survival and adaptation.

A full complement would still mean only max of two copies of each gene per individual.

If Eve was a clone.... (She likely wasnt) ...
"This still allows for a lot of diversity overall, but it restricts the variation at any one spot to 2, 3, or 4 original readings.

Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel."
http://creation.mobi/noah-and-genetics

Heretical Biologos teaches that, (that we would only have 4 variants if we are all ancestors from one couple) however it doesn't fit God's Word...and it doesn't fit the scientific evidence.

Sure it does.

??
You link an article that supports what I said. *They suggest only 4 variants as you do. And, they say humans evolved from non human ancestors, *contrary to God's Word. *

http://creation.mobi/historical-adam-biologos
By Robert Carter PhD Marine biologist

This guy doesn't appear to really grasp the problem. He's trying to pretend that the amount of heterozygosity over the whole genome somehow fixes the problem.

I think the problem is that you refuse to accept explanations that harmonize scripture with science.

Here is another..."God initially created some alleles in Adam and Eve, but others were generated by mutations, or mistakes, in DNA copying. For example, every human has a gene for eye color, called OCA2. Different variations of OCA2, called alleles, are believed to code for brown, hazel, or blue eyes. Everyone has a copy of this OCA2 gene, but our individual eye colors are determined by which OCA2 alleles we have"
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/four-women-a-boat-and-lots-of-kids/hemistry
Todd Wood PhD biochemistry

Or
http://www.icr.org/article/abo-blood-human-origins/
By Daniel Croswell PhD molecular biologist

He tried to explain the origin of blood types only. Mind you in that case there are only three main alleles but in many other genes there are even more alleles.

He also didn't explain the Hemoglobin pseudogenes in humans that are identical to the versions in chimpanzees and gorillas.

So called psuedogenes is another evidence for our common Designer.* Science has proven many of these genes that were thought to be functionless relics, do serve a purpose.
[/quote]
Rejecting a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal Noah and flood account destroys the gospel. If Adam and Eve are mythical, then Jesus died for a mythical problem..... and we have a mythical hope. Embrace the absolute authority and truth of God's Word.... Jesus did. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as a real couple quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24[/quote]
Not everyone at Biologos rejects a literal Adam, but Adam cannot have been the sole ancestor of all humans living today unless God directed dozens of extra (not biblically recorded) miracles to make it look like there were more ancestors.[/quote]
Everyone I know of from Biologos rejects the clear gospel message of Christ, the Last Adam. going to Calvary to undo original sin by first Adam.* Adam and Eve are the sole ancestors of all humans living today.

The gospel doesn't rest on Adam and Eve bringing in original sin. It's obvious to anyone thoughtful that humans are sinful, self serving creatures. Original sin as understood in protestantism isn't even a common doctrine in all of Christendom. You build for yourself a doctrine that's a house of cards and the tiniest deviation can bring it down.

It isn't a matter of religion /Protestantism /Catholicism etc... Its a matter of trusting what scripture clearly teaches. The problem with evolutionism is it erodes the foundation of the gospel. Evolutionism makes the gospel confusing and the need of a Savior non-existent.

Here is a question posted on a forum that shows how evolutionism destroys the purpose of our Savior * the Last Adam

The general consensus about why Jesus had to be sacrificed was that he had to remove the original sin that humanity had been cursed with because Adam ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. But most Christians don't believe the Garden of Eden was an actual historical event, but rather a metaphor. (Hopefully I won't have to explain why Adam and Eve never existed).

But if Adam and Eve weren't real, then why did Jesus have to die? If there is no Adam and Eve then there is no original sin, therefore no need for a sacrifice."[/b]

 

[6days]

And apparently Noah also took on dinosaurs. But for no reason apparently, because they all suddenly went extinct after the flood anyway. Speaking of which, I've been wondering, were dinosaurs clean or unclean?

If God's Word tells about the flood..which animals went on..which people ...etc etc. And if Jesus and different Bible authors treat the account as real history; why won't you?

 

[Yorzhik]

According to Answers in Genesis (who are building a replica of the ark), there were approximately 8,000 "kinds" which Noah took aboard the ark.

ok

I'm willing to accept

It doesn't matter what you are willing to accept. The various definitions make the term useless.

What we really need to know is how adaptation works. Right now, we know very little. And it doesn't just have meaning for YEC, but just as much for common descent. The problem is that common descentists make declarative statements based on little knowledge, while YEC's make predictions based on evidence we know more about.

 

[CabinetMaker]

ok


It doesn't matter what you are willing to accept. The various definitions make the term useless.

What we really need to know is how adaptation works. Right now, we know very little. And it doesn't just have meaning for YEC, but just as much for common descent. The problem is that common descentists make declarative statements based on little knowledge, while YEC's make predictions based on evidence we know more about.

YEC's make proclamations based on their faith. There is nothing wrong with that, I respect them for their faith. But YEC's cannot be considered be scientifically in their approach to the history of Earth or to the adaptation/evolution of species/kinds.

 

[TracerBullet]

Keep in mind that it seems Noah only took land animals, birds and reptiles on the ark. As Christians we can be certain that Noah took exactly what God commanded...
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.’
And,
‘Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.’

So how did all the fish, crustaceans, microorganisms and aquatic mammals survive?

 

[6days]

So how did all the fish, crustaceans, microorganisms and aquatic mammals survive?

Many didn't.
I think your question is how they survived mixing of fresh and salt water? We would need to know salinity of oceans pre flood. The oceans would be much saltier now from water draining off the continents. Also, we would need to know genetic makeup of fish from thousands of years ago. It's quite possible many of today's organisms have lost genetic info as they are fragile and highly adapted to specific conditions.

 

[George Affleck]

Keep in mind that this estimate does not include the even larger numbers of species that are extinct, nor does it include the large number of species that have yet to be discovered.

Yes, it does include the species that have yet to be discovered. That is why it must be classified as an estimate. Check it again.

However, it does not include extinct species. But any estimate for this is bound to be flawed; possibly greatly flawed. Determining their ability to produce offspring/no offspring would be nearly impossible.

 

[George Affleck]

So how did all the fish, crustaceans, microorganisms and aquatic mammals survive?

When trolls ask questions like this, the answers to which are freely available and which have been answered before, they leave themselves open to certain, well-deserved replies.

:mock: Evolutionists!