Seriously? This is your notion of what it means to qualify as science?
And I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's becoming clear why you mostly stick to posting links without attempting to engage in conversation.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Noah's Ark & post-flood speciation
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
And I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's becoming clear why you mostly stick to posting links without attempting to engage in conversation.
CherubRam
New member
The key is (every kind that God commanded him) to take. Not every creature needed to be on the ark.
Let's test to see if you can even think. Restate my argument in your own words and then we'll continue to try and discuss the topic at hand.
I can't think; I'm too stupid to think. That's why I just need to be told, and right now I'm asking you to tell me how many "bird kinds" there are.
How many "bird kinds" are there?
:mock: Ignorant fool.
To address your question, which Stripey is unwilling or unable to:
Well, according to Bodie Hodge and Dr. Georgia Purdom, two of Answers in Genesis stars, a kind is most likely what today real taxonomists consider a family (back to high school biology---Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species), maybe at the Order level on occasion. All part of the creation "science" of baraminology.
Taxonomists can be a prickly lot--some are lumpers, some are splitters. As best I have been able to find out currently science looks at about 200 bird families. So Noah would have had at least 400 birds on board. Although some were clean and therefore 7 pairs (ye olde chicken kind) and some unclean so only 1 pair (vultures and buzzards?)
The most interesting "kind" would seem to be the family Tyrannidae, the tyrant flycatchers. There are at last count, 400 or so species in this family, the most species in any bird family. Potentially then all the same kind. So if Bodie and Georgia are correct, those species "evolved" since The Flood". What made them evolve so much? Are they still evolving into different species? If not, why have they stopped? Why have they managed to change from the original 2 or 7 pair and others have not.
Anyone of the crack scientists at Answers, Institute for Creation Research, Discovery Institute or Liberty University working on that?
Ooooh, Stripey, I was just trying to help you answer the question directed at you. A little google search did it. You should learn how to do that
:mock: Dog
And apparently you can't think either because you can't answer a simple question.
The self described non-thinker somehow is the arbiter of who can think :darwinsm:
I am the arbiter of who can't answer a simple question! :darwinsm:
You don't get "local" floods that are 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Water seeks it's own level.Not too many since I think the flood was local. It was mostly focused on saving domestic animals as evidenced by taking seven of each.
About two million have been described by science. There's estimated to be up to 10 million. Of course that includes a lot of microorganisms.
But on the earth today there are approximately:
300,000 species of flowering plants.
5000 species of mammals
10,000 species of birds
8,000 species of reptiles
30,000 species of fish
950,000 species of insects
Estimated run up to 5 billion species have ever existed.
But when we look at diversity - the current number of species is larger than at any time in the past. But most of the species in the past are not the same species alive today.
Plus, both the earth, moon, heck even the entire Solar System, just looks like they were ravaged by a cataclysmic, worldwide event that extended past the boundary of the earth's atmosphere.
Significant amounts in diamonds, dinosaur fossiles, marble, giant extinct aquatic lizard, natural gas, coal, and reportedly in oil.
kgov.com/c14
Why couldn't erosion have affected the land bridge in the spots where it's the thinnest?Yeah the same one I already posted that unites New Guinea and Australia. There are kangaroos in New Guinea.
Spoiler
Your problem is it doesn't unite with the rest of Asia. So you have the same problem. No land bridge connecting the middle east to Australia. The Wallace line is a location where the east side has kangaroos in the trees and the west side has monkeys in the trees.
Explain that with YEC ideas.
Seems like you're attempting to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Any idea what the erosion rate would be for the areas that are closest to providing a connection to Australia if the water levels were lower?
To discuss science, people need to respect two things: The idea presented, and the laws of physics.
Darwinists have no time for either.