Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you have a point to make - make it. Don't direct me to some fathead Creationist tome (1) and expect me to do your research for you.
And what on earth is your point about hourglass -shaped DNA?
I made my point. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean I didn't make my point very clear.
Calling those you don't agree with a "fathead" reveals a distinct lack on your part to form a cohesive argument contrary to ones they put forth. They are very gracious and take their time to do very good research.
Quote:
(1) I had a quick check and that it just what it is. The case for geology indicating a global Flood rather than millions of years of geological change has been extensively discussed and has transpired to have serious flaws in its case.
This is what an hourglass looks like:
Do you see how it constricts in the middle? Above that constriction point, at the very top is Adam and Eve
and below is their progeny. The constriction point in the very middle of the hourglass is the global flood in Noah's day.
That is when human DNA went into a constriction point of just eight people.
Below that constriction point is all of us post-flood.
Again, it would help you to read "The Flood" by Rehwinkel. You can get it pretty inexpensively at Amazon.
To get the amount of species alive today, he would have needed far more, upwards of a million+ more to achieve this, with it being a short space of time from then to now.
Plus, you'd need room for all the plants, and other organisms that would have died in the flood. Plus the amount of people you would have needed is incredible.
To get the amount of species alive today, he would have needed far more, upwards of a million+ more to achieve this, with it being a short space of time from then to now.
Nope, he just needed approximately 16,000 animals.
Quote:
Plus, you'd need room for all the plants, and other organisms that would have died in the flood. Plus the amount of people you would have needed is incredible.
You wouldn't fit everything on it.
They are still finding thousands of years old seed in the mud of rivers in Russia and planting them. So, no, Noah did not have to take all the seeds of all plants we have today onto the ark for safety. The seeds quite well.
I made my point. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean I didn't make my point very clear.
Calling those you don't agree with a "fathead" reveals a distinct lack on your part to form a cohesive argument contrary to ones they put forth. They are very gracious and take their time to do very good research.
You haven't made a point - you have told me to go and read a book and do your work for you. In any case I have looked and found the source long since worthless. Trying to scrape cheap points by playing the hurt martyr (on their behalf) is dishonest. The creationists tomes I have seen are fatheaded. The science is flawed if not non -science.
I am willing to look at any arguments put forward, but throwing Creationist books at me is not putting forward an argument, just pretending you have. It is utterly dishonest,. because I have the choice of getting buried in refuting tons of Creationist garbage or giving you the opportunity to claim that I am somehow avoiding the challenge.
I'm not falling for that one. I have dealt with such claims before and you know that well. I don't deny that you put up a stout defence, but with the single exception of a good case for Ark stabilizers, the rest of your case was speculative, far -fetched and denialist.
Quote:
This is what an hourglass looks like:
Do you see how it constricts in the middle? Above that constriction point, at the very top is Adam and Eve
and below is their progeny. The constriction point in the very middle of the hourglass is the global flood in Noah's day.
That is when human DNA went into a constriction point of just eight people.
Below that constriction point is all of us post-flood.
Again, it would help you to read "The Flood" by Rehwinkel. You can get it pretty inexpensively at Amazon.
Good grief. You have got to be putting me on. If you think the shape of DNA somehow reflects a constriction in population, you had better give up reading Creationist tripe and study some biology.
You haven't made a point - you have told me to go and read a book and do your work for you. In any case I have looked and found the source long since worthless. Trying to scrape cheap points by playing the hurt martyr (on their behalf) is dishonest. The creationists tomes I have seen are fatheaded. The science is flawed if not non -science.
I am willing to look at any arguments put forward, but throwing Creationist books at me is not putting forward an argument, just pretending you have. It is utterly dishonest,. because I have the choice of getting buried in refuting tons of Creationist garbage or giving you the opportunity to claim that I am somehow avoiding the challenge.
I'm not falling for that one. I have dealt with such claims before and you know that well. I don't deny that you put up a stout defence, but with the single exception of a good case for Ark stabilizers, the rest of your case was speculative, far -fetched and denialist.
In other words, you can't refute what they wrote so you have to post a lot of denigrating puff.
Quote:
Good grief. You have got to be putting me on. If you think the shape of DNA somehow reflects a constriction in population, you had better give up reading Creationist tripe and study some biology.
It seems you have a problem figuring out things. IT IS NOT THE SHAPE OF THE DNA THE SCIENTISTS WERE WRITING ABOUT. The point the scientists were making was that there was a sort of BOTTLENECK where all mankind re-started with just a few individuals about 5 to 6 thousand years ago. THEY DISCOVERED THIS BOTTLENECK DOING DNA RESEARCH.
They are still finding thousands of years old seed in the mud of rivers in Russia and planting them. So, no, Noah did not have to take all the seeds of all plants we have today onto the ark for safety. The seeds quite well.
And you believe these thousand year old seeds are from the Ark, or from a flood that was global?
He would have had to take them onto the ark (at least one of each type of plant), as you cannot over feed a plant, it will drown. Google photosynthesis. That will adequately explain why the seeds/plants would not have lived.
I made my point very well.
Matt, I'm not about to re-invent the wheel. If someone has already done the research, I will link to it.
My point was a slam dunk for a world-wide flood in Noah's day and how many animals needed to be on the ark.
Research indicates sources and evidence outside of the Bible.
Your points were poor and flawed, if you didn't bother to even read the 'research' and just see which bit you wanted, then you can't discuss or back up that argument.
Whatever the amount he needed he took. Your link is incorrect on so many points, I don't know where to begin.
Quote:
And you believe these thousand year old seeds are from the Ark, or from a flood that was global?
He would have, as you cannot over feed a plant, it will drown. Google photosynthesis. That will adequately explain why the seeds/plants would not have lived.
Did I say they were all seeds from the Ark? Of course he took many seeds with him on the ark. Wouldn't you? He planted a vineyard after the flood. That takes grape seeds or at least rooted plants.
Whatever plants survived the global flood did so. What plants didn't survive left seed that would re-grow after the historic global-flood.
Quote:
How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?
To answer this question, we must first ask how many animals were actually on the ark. Critics have fantasized the presence of millions of animals overloading the ark. In actuality, the Bible makes it clear that the cargo was limited to landbreathing vertebrate animals—corresponding to modern birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their extinct counterparts.
Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminological2 research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark. How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them? - Answers in Genesis
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you think the shape of DNA somehow reflects a constriction in population, you had better give up reading Creationist tripe and study some biology.