Noahs engineering skills (Christ, religion, science, evidence)

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Vizio

You think that's what Christians believe? Really?

According to McLean v. Arkansas, the definition of Evolution, as taught in the schools in the United States, includes "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes". It is my understanding that Christian doctrine rejects at least that part of evolution, and it is difficult to reconcile evolution in general with the falsity of that point.

If you will state that you believe man emerged from a common ancestor with apes, I will withdraw anything I said about your endorsement of the Christian position on evolution.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by jtur88

According to McLean v. Arkansas, the definition of Evolution, as taught in the schools in the United States, includes "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes". It is my understanding that Christian doctrine rejects at least that part of evolution, and it is difficult to reconcile evolution in general with the falsity of that point.

If you will state that you believe man emerged from a common ancestor with apes, I will withdraw anything I said about the Christian position on evolution.

I fully agree with the idea that evolution is a load of bunk. Having said that, the strawman you posted earlier is a far cry from saying that evolution is not correct.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I fully agree with the idea that evolution is a load of bunk. Having said that, the strawman you posted earlier is a far cry from saying that evolution is not correct.

If you believe Evolution is a load of bunk, the you must accept that no new species of animals has emerged through evolution since the Flood, and that therefore every species currently in existence must have been rescued by Noah. Including many millions of insects. A million species of insects have been described and catalogued, 7,000 new ones are found every year, it is estimated that there are at lest 5-million species, so your man Noah must have gathered 10 million insects, many of which have been seen by no human being since, but are still out there somewhere thanks to Noah' untiring efforts. Except for the unclean insects (whichever ones they are, and however Noah could tell them apart), the total would be close to 50-million. After all, God's plan was for all those species of insects to exist, and they would mostly be extinct now, had Noah not saved them from the flood. Not to mention the spare insects to feed 1,250 pairs of bats, some of which eat half their weight in insects every day on the ark.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by elamigo

Care to share what common sense you used to come up with that conclusion? Remember that such thing called common sense is nothing something that can be used as a universal rule for everybody to go by. What is common sense to you may not be to others, 2+2=4 which does not need common sense because all you have to is add. However, in the case of a flood that may have happened thousands of years ago is subject to personal biases from both sides to either agree or disagree.

Also, as I stated before there other research from individual that have said it is possible such event could have happened.

Another point, how does the Bible suggest it happens? The reason I ask if because people have interpreted some angles of the event differently but in the overall picture certain scientist have do have an open mind to at least say it is possible such event could have happened. Take care.

Thankfully, others have provided the sources for this common sense information.

The Bible suggests it happened just as Vizio believes, except that there were 2 of each animal/fish/bird. The fairy tale is easily understood.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If you believe Evolution is a load of bunk, the you must accept that no new species of animals has emerged through evolution since the Flood, and that therefore every species currently in existence must have been rescued by Noah.

That is incorrect. I have no problem believing that when the Bible says that Noah took on the ark pairs of animals that he didn't take on every sub-species of canine. We know that today's domesticated dog likely evolved from wolves or other canines. I grew up on a farm...I watched the process of natural selection and breeding cattle for certain characteristics.

Including many millions of insects. A million species of insects have been described and catalogued, 7,000 new ones are found every year, it is estimated that there are at lest 5-million species, so your man Noah must have gathered 10 million insects, many of which have been seen by no human being since, but are still out there somewhere thanks to Noah' untiring efforts. Except for the unclean insects (whichever ones they are, and however Noah could tell them apart), the total would be close to 50-million. After all, God's plan was for all those species of insects to exist, and they would mostly be extinct now, had Noah not saved them from the flood. Not to mention the spare insects to feed 1,250 pairs of bats, some of which eat half their weight in insects every day on the ark.

Or every little variation of insect that is classified as a "species" has since evolved. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the nonsense of a evolutionists telling us there have been massive jumps from one type of animal to another.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by Griffis

^^^

However, it is completely, utterly impossible for a flood to cover the entire Earth. There is simply not enough water, obviously.

Good point. There are some, including Christians, that do not believe it was a universal event. This means that if such event happened it may have been a local event that covered the writer's account in his world. As far as impossible, why? The account of a flood can be found in civilizations around the world in differing ways. However, what makes it impossible? Take care.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Thankfully, others have provided the sources for this common sense information.

Here is where you show you as all anybody can be circumscribed by personal bias. "Thankfully"? To me it seems to be an indicator that you want it to be that way. Others have provided evidence they claim such an even could have happened. I will not say thankfully as happy it did not happen. I am only saying that from what have read both sides of the issue do seem to have information that can have valid claims.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

The Bible suggests it happened just as Vizio believes, except that there were 2 of each animal/fish/bird. The fairy tale is easily understood.

You are already incorrect because the Bible does not say anything about fish. It only mentions land animals and birds.

Here is where people on both sides of the story are stuck with preconceptions. First, how long ago this event happened if it did? Open to different views.

Next, was it necessary to have wolves and dogs? Maybe not if they are from the same general kind, not every different species of the same kind, makes sense if this is the way it happened. Something like that would narrow down the required list.

As I said credible people with high scientific credentials have said it is probable that such an event could have happened so they keep the door open for further research.

However, your mind is made up. I just mentioned what I have read myself also on both sides on the story. Take care.

[rifleman]

They'd be on board because they are here now, and by the totally brainless literary version of the Noah's Ark tale had to have been post-fludd, they all Evolved what?) after that fludd, a mere 2500 or so years ago. all he dinos, all the world's 60+ M now-known species, in reproducibly possible numbers!

But fact is, all the aquatics would have completely died out in the vastly revised oceanic biochemistry if Noah did not save them in the necessary numbers and then dropped them off in the right environment (which I know you don't begin to to understand in the slightest. Simple "land or water" is all they need according to an illiterate fundy: no correct vegetative or prey species food, no rest, no sun, no habitat, no correct temps, humidity or location, etc. etc. It's all just GOO fDor you, right? and btw...

...common sense does not require a citation. If we cut off your oxygen in a room, will you die off? Or do you need to see some official study to that effect, Eusebius? let me know: we can try it out on you if you'd like!)

You seem to think, or "know", that ecological and environmental biochemistry and seasonal changes, and the right ecological conditions for the happy, successful and reproductively capable survival of a species are all immaterial.

In other words, that any water environment is identical everywhere, huh? Ocean, lake, swamp, tepid, warm, sultry stagnant Amazonian jungle back-water, Antarctic ocean, mid-south Pacific deep oceanic trench: all the same.

That a jungle- raised and fed Amazonian parrot would just love to live in mid-winter -70˚ C Antarctica! Yup: furshur you're right, eh?

ONE: THE SALINITY REQUIREMENTS OF ALL MARINE SPECIES HAS BEEN MORE THAN STUDIED! IT WOULD BE YOU THAT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT ALL MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD'S OCEANIC SPECIES.

Note the recent story about the Pacific NW oyster farmer whose larval output has been significantly reduced by a mere 5% (or was it a staggering 7%) change in the simple pH (you DO understand pH, don't you" It's the negative hydrogen ion concentration ratio expressed as an exponent. pH is defined as the decimal logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion activity, aH+, in a solution."

You do understand such things like I and all the other biologists out there do, right? Yep: I'm so sure you do. But... uhmmm... which biblical text did you get that from? Citation please.

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

[Oh my; say it isn't so, that God will save the oyster larvae in the end! And that we biologists know, essentially NOTHING about ANYTHING!!"]

So... yup: go with that one, Eusebius. Show us all your vast intransigent & stubborn technical illiteracy! Show us that you believe, first, your inerrant bible, but then you necessarily also totally disbelieve anything else, despite who says it or their credentials.

PS: I, plus quite a few scientist posters here, do not need to provide our scientific credentials. We already have. So: how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed science?]

(I'm only returning the option for you to show us where we're so veryyyy verrrrryyyy wrong here!)

SO: ALL THOSE TUNA? SALMON? (WHO HAVE TO WAIT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AT THE INTERMIX ZONE OF FRESH WATER OUFLOW RIVER OUTFLOWS [like the mouth of the massive Fraser River in B.C., where I grew up and also conveniently studied it all..] TO RE-ESTABLISH THEIR TOLERANCE, BUT THEN, AS WE WHO ACTUALLY STUDIED BIOLOGY RATHER THAN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL VERSION, ALSO KNOW THAT SHORTLY AFTER THEY MIGRATE, SUCH SPECIES AS SALMO GIARDINERI (trout, not to mention steelhead, a transiently land-bound [anadromous... you're familiar with the term I'm sure, in your pursuit of advanced knowledge of ecology of acquatic species )...] DIE! DEATH.

But , ALL OH WHAT IS IT CALLED when they are subjected to an out-of-season, instantly violently macro-variations in the complete biochemistry of their living environment? Like if we were to alter the percentage of O2 down to ,say, 5%, up the CO2 to 45% and add in some, oh... helium as your new "air"? You'd just cough it off, with a Godly stuff, yeah/

Oh yeah; it's called DEATH.

Your move, Einstein! Not mine. you have made the outrageous and outstandingly illiterate and broad-based assumptions here. I know that biblical Creationists never thought for a moment about the water environment, assuming (big mistake, btw..) to assume that "water is water", be it hot ,cold, clean, sluggy, full of mineral salts or not, to a right whale or dolphin or salmon or jellyfish. They just love thet-thar water, eh?

So.. please pricide us all with just ONE, just one citation that a total revision to the entire global aquatic ecology would have essentially little to no instant nor long-term effect on all those aquatic species and plants.

Very phunny. Really! You are obviously the other species of "man" who didn't quite make the intellectual evolutionary and educational grade...

[Eusebius]

Is there any atheist on these boards who can help rifleman with his posts in this thread. He might listen to you. For some reason I can't seem to get through to him as to how his propositions would be laughed at in any school where critical thinking is important. I don't post this to "get at rifleman." It's just the facts.

So are there any of you trained in critical thinking who can help him?

Thanks.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by NightBazaar

If you mean fish such as salmon, please keep in mind that whales are not fishes. The salinity of water is necessary (helps fight infection) for whales, along with other factors. Rivers aren't deep enough for whales to dive nor do they provide enough food for whales.

Can Whales Live In Fresh Water?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

First of all you need to duplicate exactly what occurred during the deluge to see if Whales would drown during a heavy downpour.

Secondly you'd have to prove whales would have to be on board the ark to survive.

Saying so does not prove so.

There are plenty of other aquatic animals that are not harmed by fresh water.

Sharks go up fresh water rivers as well. Besides, you'd have to prove (re-duplicate} exactly what the salinity of the oceans would have been during the world-wide flood of Noah's flood in order to make any kind of absolute statement that aquatic animals could or could not survive in such an environment. All such statements are just special pleading until you duplicate the environment of that time. Dig?

And you'd have to blithely conclude that even post-fludd, the water's biochemistry, so chock-full of dead and dying plant and animal materials, would all instantly self-correct. All the fresh water inland lakes, all the streams, major rivers, etc. etc., you think would all just Insta-Poof change back to their original biochemisty, of which salinity is but one tiny component.

But OK: do this: I double-down dare you! Mix a cup of salt into a quart of drinking water, let rest in your fridge, and then drink only that mix for 40 says. Then another, and another, period for the biblically claimed 180 days (6 mo).

Then do tell us how they dealt with your dehydrated corpse. (We do not see healthy whales or dolphins or marine sharks happily swimming about up in some fresh-water river. At least not for longer than a day or so, during which they often make a salinity run back down to the ocean to "Get biochemically right again!" Fact.

It's provided to us in great detail, we're told, and it's utterly compelling and "believable"! Yup!

Oh. Grew up on a farm, huh? So you fully understand evolution, speciation, and so on? You also make some typical claim that we evolutionists require massive changes, which is EXACTLY WHAT WE DO NOT SAY.

Rather, it's you techno-illiterate nuts who have always evasively and lyingly demanded some transitory species, the so-called Missing Link, which we know does not occur. It's ALWAYS a gradual process, sometimes a bit faster (the Cambrian Explosion was actually millions of years old' it is meant in a relative sense, obviously!


It is obviously you, Vizio, who needs the primer on, well, all of it, since you continue to demo your huge lack of knowledge on the subject, 'ceptin' for watching some sheep breed. and then claiming to sus it all out here! The arrogant silliness of it all

BTw, a sheep is a different species than a wolf, which is different than a bison, which is different from a whale, a salmon, an ape and a man. Trust me.