Noah's unmentioned problem

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:40 pm

It seems that even now we are quite ignorant of most of the species on Earth. There are so many unknown to us that it has been estimated that it would take 1000 years just to catalogue them. With a total of 8.7 million species, how long would it have taken Noah to marshall the animals among them (the vast majority) in his boat? The old soak was said to have been given 120 years in which to build it but he'd need to use quite a lot of that time making his design fit for the vast number of often incompatible (or interdependent) species he had to accommodate. Would he have had time to get beyond the design stage?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14616161
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Yorkie » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:20 pm

Oh no no no no
Apparently he only took one pair of each Baramin and they microevolved to what we have today :shock:
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
http://alphahelices.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Yorkie
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby cathy » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:40 pm

I do believe that is correct yorkie. An arkful of baramin evolved into 8.7 million different species in 4000 years with onlly micro evolution to help them. That is pretty speedy going on the old evolution front, especially when Marc has queried the amount of time for whales to evolve. Even with that there must have been a fair few baramin on that ark. All with their specially adapted DNA with micro evolutionary genes already built in, that knew when they were going to cross that illegal boundary to macroevolution and stop.

Anyway with evolution going at that rate I'm terrified to go near the gerbil lest he's evolved into something vicious and large overnight.

I can't help thinking God would have saved himself a whole lot of bother by just popping some chemicals into a nice primal soup and letting us all evolve. Much more efficient.
Last edited by cathy on Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:47 pm

Yorkie wrote:Oh no no no no
Apparently he only took one pair of each Baramin and they microevolved to what we have today :shock:


Strewth - should have realised (smacks forehead). You learn something everyday from creationism.

So that Dutch bloke who's bringing a replica of the ark to London next year will have no problem filling it with the appropriate baramins beforehand?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:53 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:It seems that even now we are quite ignorant of most of the species on Earth. There are so many unknown to us that it has been estimated that it would take 1000 years just to catalogue them. With a total of 8.7 million species, how long would it have taken Noah to marshall the animals among them (the vast majority) in his boat? The old soak was said to have been given 120 years in which to build it but he'd need to use quite a lot of that time making his design fit for the vast number of often incompatible (or interdependent) species he had to accommodate. Would he have had time to get beyond the design stage?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14616161



Not forgetting that a vast majority of the fossil record consists of species that we consider long extinct.

But hold on a minute Brian. You don't know your kinds from your species. Kind is a much broader definition than species so Noah probably only needed about 50 kinds of dinosaur on the ark for example, or couple of dog kinds etc. etc. etc.

I suppose it just gets sillier and sillier.

Why well educated people buy into this nonsense without even thinking about it is beyond me.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:58 pm

Yorkie wrote:Oh no no no no
Apparently he only took one pair of each Baramin and they microevolved to what we have today :shock:


Yeah, ironically, that's a rate of evolution and speciation far, far greater than anything ever postulated by evolutionary science.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Yorkie » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:05 pm

I think it's hilarious.
They go around berating science with one hand, then try (and fail) to use it to support their aims.
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
http://alphahelices.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Yorkie
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:30 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
But hold on a minute Brian. You don't know your kinds from your species. Kind is a much broader definition than species so Noah probably only needed about 50 kinds of dinosaur on the ark for example, or couple of dog kinds etc. etc. etc.



No, No Peter. Pay attention dear boy. There were 17,000 kinds on the Ark, not 50. Stop making things up!

So it's obvious there were enough to go to 8.7 million species today and account for the 870 million extinct species.

There's no problem at all explaining how we went from 17,000 kinds 4,400 years ago to 878.7 million back to 8.7 million, all within recorded history without anyone noticing and all the evidence being absent from the archaelogical record and without the same process being observed today.

You've obviously been spending far too much time down at your local Freemasonry lodge.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Steve660 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:31 pm

Yorkie wrote:Oh no no no no
Apparently he only took one pair of each Baramin and they microevolved to what we have today :shock:


So he took on board only one pair of the ancestral bear "baramin", which in the years after the flood rapidly gave rise to black bears (Asiatic and American), brown bears, polar bears, sun bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears and pandas, and numerous extinct bears, and subspecies of both extinct and living bears totalling about 50 (so far). And this all stopped in historical times, as there is no evidence that they are continuing this spectacular radiation now. The bears of today are just the same as those of 100 years ago. That's an awful lot of new genetic information to cram into the genome in a very short space of time, and it is very odd that it should stop now. Puzzling also how the various bears coped while waiting for their habitats to recover. Repeat this for every "baramin", many giving rise to groups far larger, and more genetically diverse, than bears, and it shows how astonishing it is that anyone smart enough to get a science degree can actually force themselves to believe such crap. How does Marc do it?
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:36 pm

And, don't forget everybody, mutations can only result in the loss of information from the genetic code, so any species of bear that micro-evolved from the bear baramin has only lost genetic code to get to that state! That original Noah-bear must've been a pretty amazing animal!
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:46 pm

Steve660 wrote:
Yorkie wrote:Oh no no no no
Apparently he only took one pair of each Baramin and they microevolved to what we have today :shock:


So he took on board only one pair of the ancestral bear "baramin", which in the years after the flood rapidly gave rise to black bears (Asiatic and American), brown bears, polar bears, sun bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears and pandas, and numerous extinct bears, and subspecies of both extinct and living bears totalling about 50 (so far). And this all stopped in historical times, as there is no evidence that they are continuing this spectacular radiation now. The bears of today are just the same as those of 100 years ago. That's an awful lot of new genetic information to cram into the genome in a very short space of time, and it is very odd that it should stop now. Puzzling also how the various bears coped while waiting for their habitats to recover. Repeat this for every "baramin", many giving rise to groups far larger, and more genetically diverse, than bears, and it shows how astonishing it is that anyone smart enough to get a science degree can actually force themselves to believe such crap. How does Marc do it?


Where are the intermediate species between the kinds and the species we see today? They should be abundant in the archaelogical record as species we observe today are.

Don't forget that the recolonisers like Marc Surtees don't appear to believe that there was any great extinction during the "Noachian flud".
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby Yorkie » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:55 pm

Guys you have it all wrong
It was:
Image
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
http://alphahelices.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Yorkie
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:58 pm

Yorkie wrote:Oh no no no no
Apparently he only took one pair of each Baramin and they microevolved to what we have today :shock:


But of course what was on the Ark, just 4,500 years' ago, became the millions of land or flying species seen today (plus any that have gone extinct in the last 4,500 years) - but without ANY evolution from the original 'kinds' into any new 'kinds'.

All sound pretty miraculous to me. Might as well forget all about science and just BELIEVE.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:05 pm

cathy wrote:I do believe that is correct yorkie. An arkful of baramin evolved into 8.7 million different species in 4000 years with onlly micro evolution to help them. That is pretty speedy going on the old evolution front, especially when Marc has queried the amount of time for whales to evolve. Even with that there must have been a fair few baramin on that ark. All with their specially adapted DNA with micro evolutionary genes already built in, that knew when they were going to cross that illegal boundary to macroevolution and stop.

Anyway with evolution going at that rate I'm terrified to go near the gerbil lest he's evolved into something vicious and large overnight.

I can't help thinking God would have saved himself a whole lot of bother by just popping some chemicals into a nice primal soup and letting us all evolve. Much more efficient.



What do you get when you convert a 2,000+ year old sacred text into a scientifically accurate document for the 21st century? Either a miracle or a mess.

Whilst a committed Christian I tended to avoid investigating science (my O level Physics grade C in 1975 did not impinge upon my evangelical Christian worldview at the time).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Noah's unmentioned problem

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:13 pm

Ken Ham will be annoyed about all this talk of species (if he reads the BBC article or a similar one). It was clear from Ham's 22.8.11 blog that, in his view, David Instone-Brewer wasn't being properly biblical when he used the word 'species' instead of 'kind'.

Sarfati was unable to define kind in his 'Hoax' book - as he appeared to claim hybridisation experiments were needed to determine 'kind' boundaries.

In fairness, science does not have a cast-iron definition of 'species'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests

cron