Noah, One Continent and about a Billion Years Too Short
-
There is a great article I read about the Flood but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In lieu, check out 'Common Sense and Noah's Flood. This has some of the hydrologic and meteorological arguments against a world-wide flood, but doesn't touch the thermodynamic impossibilities (the entire planet being at over 40C/110F with 99% rel. humidity or something like that just to hold the water vapour in cloud form). Then there are the genetic arguments: you need a minimum gene pool for a race to survive. Two of each won't do it. For an argument about a likely Ark scenario see Noah's ark had less than 280 animals. For an account of why getting two or seven of each animal on board is impossible check out Problems with a Global Flood. In any case, I think it's generally accepted that there was a flood but only in a relatively small area. In my view the Bible contains stories - some accurate, some dramatised or exagerated, and some made up. Anyone who tries to apply the scientific principle to such a work to support their faith is doomed to failure (and is welcome to come door knocking around my place anytime!). Besides - Christianity is based purely on faith and not on data, so even if you do prove something right or something wrong it doesn't actually affect the underlying principles. ooh - found the thing about thermodynamics: "_Is there enough water to cover the earth? The vapor canopy is remarkably flawed. It would take about 9 kilometers of water to cover Mount Everest. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere, or about 14.5 pounds per square inch. There would have to be enough vapor to produce 9 km of water. This vapor would add air pressure to the atmosphere; in fact, it would be the majority of the antediluvian atmosphere. This would be the equivalent of living 9 km underwater. Since the pressure increases by one atmosphere about every ten meters you go underwater, the vapor would add 900 atmospheres, or 13050 pounds per square inch, to the air pressure. And the only way to keep all this water from condensing would be to raise the temperature. The pressure and heat would surely be enough to kill life as we know it." - http://skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html_ As to the whole time scale thing there is no reason to equate a 'day' with a day as we know it. There is
OK Alan Wilkie, this must be you on this weather site. If you must know, I was Googling for "Chris Maunder" pornography a while back. But I see you cover your tracks well. Probably had some traditional Aboriginal training in your diverse past. ;) Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
There is a great article I read about the Flood but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In lieu, check out 'Common Sense and Noah's Flood. This has some of the hydrologic and meteorological arguments against a world-wide flood, but doesn't touch the thermodynamic impossibilities (the entire planet being at over 40C/110F with 99% rel. humidity or something like that just to hold the water vapour in cloud form). Then there are the genetic arguments: you need a minimum gene pool for a race to survive. Two of each won't do it. For an argument about a likely Ark scenario see Noah's ark had less than 280 animals. For an account of why getting two or seven of each animal on board is impossible check out Problems with a Global Flood. In any case, I think it's generally accepted that there was a flood but only in a relatively small area. In my view the Bible contains stories - some accurate, some dramatised or exagerated, and some made up. Anyone who tries to apply the scientific principle to such a work to support their faith is doomed to failure (and is welcome to come door knocking around my place anytime!). Besides - Christianity is based purely on faith and not on data, so even if you do prove something right or something wrong it doesn't actually affect the underlying principles. ooh - found the thing about thermodynamics: "_Is there enough water to cover the earth? The vapor canopy is remarkably flawed. It would take about 9 kilometers of water to cover Mount Everest. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere, or about 14.5 pounds per square inch. There would have to be enough vapor to produce 9 km of water. This vapor would add air pressure to the atmosphere; in fact, it would be the majority of the antediluvian atmosphere. This would be the equivalent of living 9 km underwater. Since the pressure increases by one atmosphere about every ten meters you go underwater, the vapor would add 900 atmospheres, or 13050 pounds per square inch, to the air pressure. And the only way to keep all this water from condensing would be to raise the temperature. The pressure and heat would surely be enough to kill life as we know it." - http://skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html_ As to the whole time scale thing there is no reason to equate a 'day' with a day as we know it. There is
Ok, I'm going to answer several threads in this one so that I don't have to follow a bunch of separate threads. Here are some things about the issues that have been raised in this thread so far. 1) The Global/Local flood -- I have heard several arguments either way on this one. One is that the word that is translated as 'earth' also can mean area or region, and is used both ways in the Genesis account. If you take the Bible as truth, mankind did not spread across the earth until after the flood, when God destroyed the tower of Babel, so to destroy all men at the time would only take a local flood to accomplish. 2) Perfect Genes -- Although seemingly enough to cause heart attacks, this idea is quite straight forward. God's creation was perfect. Adam was given the choice of obeying God or not obeying God. He chose poorly. In cursing Adam for his failure, God altered the universe to make it a harsh place for Adam to live in. This is the point at which death enters the universe, and it is made clear, through the act of God killing an animal to make clothing for Adam (the real first killing in the Bible). As time marched on mutations entered into the gene pool. No christian will tell you that mutation isn't possible. However, mutations are almost always negative. You don't see the prohibition for incest until Moses' time, which was probably when the gene pool was corroded enough that birth defects were likely. Since they were also being told for the first time, they probably did not have a problem with it beforehand (the preceding scentence is conjecture). 3) Cain's wife, and the 'other people' in Genesis. There is no indication of the length of time that passes between the creation account and the story of Cain and Abel. It is likely that Adam had more than 500 direct children before his death, and given the life spans described in Genesis several generations would be alive, probably several thousand people. The story of Cain does not state that he went off and found a wife, it says he went off and knew his wife, leaving it possible that he took his wife with him and left. 4) The flood -- The verse in the bible, in most translations other than the KJV, that talks about how far the waters rose state that the waters covered the mountains by 15 cubits. That is the waters covered everything to a minimum depth of 15 feet. 5) Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew. Now in the numerolgy of Hebrew there are special meanings for the numbers 40, 1000, a
-
OK Alan Wilkie, this must be you on this weather site. If you must know, I was Googling for "Chris Maunder" pornography a while back. But I see you cover your tracks well. Probably had some traditional Aboriginal training in your diverse past. ;) Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
I love the way everything you ever wrote on the net is saved for ever and easily retrievable by whoever feels like digging around a bit. :rolleyes: I always wanted to be a meteorologist but they didn't offer it as a course at ANU. Ah - to think what could have been... ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Genesis - 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark Christian, I'm interested to see how you can explain the apparent differences betweent the actual passages of the bible (as shown above) and your interpretation that these verses do NOT describe the destruction of the entire world. There are several phrases here, in context, which clearly state everything under the entire heavens, to the top of the mountains, was destroyed - including ALL men except Noah and the inhabitants of the Ark. The language here is 'pretty crystal clear'. There is no context I can see that allows for you to dispute these verses, unless you choose to say that the literal meanings of these words (which I repeat seems unbelievably clear) must be ignored, and in stead the words must be re-intepreted in the light of other sections of the bible. Is this your position ? Or do you have some other reason for claiming the Flood was localised, despite the clear references that it was not ? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
You need to keep in mind that these passages were written by people who probably never traveled out of their region of the world. When that region flooded, it was their whole world that was being destroyed.
-
You need to keep in mind that these passages were written by people who probably never traveled out of their region of the world. When that region flooded, it was their whole world that was being destroyed.
No, actually if the bible is a literal work of god's hand then I don't have to keep in mind the 'frame of reference' of the local people. This is god's word, delivered to the people - not their version of what they think god meant. On the other hand, if the bible happens to NOT be the literal word, then you are right! Can you guess which of these two options I favor ?? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Got the inbreeding thing from a John Fisher post earlier today. Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Er... I don't know where Christian got his idea from, but it isn't a Bible source. The Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve had daughters as well. This means it was quite easy for non-sinful 'inbreeding' to work without anyone marrying someone else's spouse. Genesis 5:4 John
-
I love the way everything you ever wrote on the net is saved for ever and easily retrievable by whoever feels like digging around a bit. :rolleyes: I always wanted to be a meteorologist but they didn't offer it as a course at ANU. Ah - to think what could have been... ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
I always wanted to be a meteorologist but they didn't offer it as a course at ANU. Ah - to think what could have been... ;) Channel 0, 2, 7, 9 or 10? :laugh: Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Ok, I'm going to answer several threads in this one so that I don't have to follow a bunch of separate threads. Here are some things about the issues that have been raised in this thread so far. 1) The Global/Local flood -- I have heard several arguments either way on this one. One is that the word that is translated as 'earth' also can mean area or region, and is used both ways in the Genesis account. If you take the Bible as truth, mankind did not spread across the earth until after the flood, when God destroyed the tower of Babel, so to destroy all men at the time would only take a local flood to accomplish. 2) Perfect Genes -- Although seemingly enough to cause heart attacks, this idea is quite straight forward. God's creation was perfect. Adam was given the choice of obeying God or not obeying God. He chose poorly. In cursing Adam for his failure, God altered the universe to make it a harsh place for Adam to live in. This is the point at which death enters the universe, and it is made clear, through the act of God killing an animal to make clothing for Adam (the real first killing in the Bible). As time marched on mutations entered into the gene pool. No christian will tell you that mutation isn't possible. However, mutations are almost always negative. You don't see the prohibition for incest until Moses' time, which was probably when the gene pool was corroded enough that birth defects were likely. Since they were also being told for the first time, they probably did not have a problem with it beforehand (the preceding scentence is conjecture). 3) Cain's wife, and the 'other people' in Genesis. There is no indication of the length of time that passes between the creation account and the story of Cain and Abel. It is likely that Adam had more than 500 direct children before his death, and given the life spans described in Genesis several generations would be alive, probably several thousand people. The story of Cain does not state that he went off and found a wife, it says he went off and knew his wife, leaving it possible that he took his wife with him and left. 4) The flood -- The verse in the bible, in most translations other than the KJV, that talks about how far the waters rose state that the waters covered the mountains by 15 cubits. That is the waters covered everything to a minimum depth of 15 feet. 5) Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew. Now in the numerolgy of Hebrew there are special meanings for the numbers 40, 1000, a
However, mutations are almost always negative What? How does that work? A mutation is a change, and should have an equal chance of being good or bad...unless you consider that evolution has already brought us to the point where we have kept all the good mutations, and those with bad mutations didn't survive - which would then mean that mutations are more likely to be bad since we are the 'cream of the crop' so to speak in regards to collective random changes. Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew In the Hebrew that the bible was written in? I could have sworn I read a reference about there not being one, but after not being able to find it again I figured it may have been a furfy. much more genetic diversity than they expected, along with a healthy population. That's fruit fly. It's not the same for hippopotumuses. Take a look at the problems with endangered species: once the population gets below a certain point (I think my biologist friends once had a debate about this and mumbled the number '7' - though that could have been the number of lagers they'd had) there is no chance for the species to recover. Again - I'm no biologist so I'm happy to be proved wrong. Nothing conclusive, just a possibility to you non-believers. There are also volumes of work on evolution and the continual change in the genetic makeup of plants and animals. The possibility of entertaining ideas that go against one's own belief goes both ways ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Er... I don't know where Christian got his idea from, but it isn't a Bible source. The Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve had daughters as well. This means it was quite easy for non-sinful 'inbreeding' to work without anyone marrying someone else's spouse. Genesis 5:4 John
Well ... I thought marrying and fucking your sister was a sin? Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Got the inbreeding thing from a John Fisher post earlier today. Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. I cannot believe you let slide such a golden opportunity to make a Tasmanian joke here. ;P cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Ok, I'm going to answer several threads in this one so that I don't have to follow a bunch of separate threads. Here are some things about the issues that have been raised in this thread so far. 1) The Global/Local flood -- I have heard several arguments either way on this one. One is that the word that is translated as 'earth' also can mean area or region, and is used both ways in the Genesis account. If you take the Bible as truth, mankind did not spread across the earth until after the flood, when God destroyed the tower of Babel, so to destroy all men at the time would only take a local flood to accomplish. 2) Perfect Genes -- Although seemingly enough to cause heart attacks, this idea is quite straight forward. God's creation was perfect. Adam was given the choice of obeying God or not obeying God. He chose poorly. In cursing Adam for his failure, God altered the universe to make it a harsh place for Adam to live in. This is the point at which death enters the universe, and it is made clear, through the act of God killing an animal to make clothing for Adam (the real first killing in the Bible). As time marched on mutations entered into the gene pool. No christian will tell you that mutation isn't possible. However, mutations are almost always negative. You don't see the prohibition for incest until Moses' time, which was probably when the gene pool was corroded enough that birth defects were likely. Since they were also being told for the first time, they probably did not have a problem with it beforehand (the preceding scentence is conjecture). 3) Cain's wife, and the 'other people' in Genesis. There is no indication of the length of time that passes between the creation account and the story of Cain and Abel. It is likely that Adam had more than 500 direct children before his death, and given the life spans described in Genesis several generations would be alive, probably several thousand people. The story of Cain does not state that he went off and found a wife, it says he went off and knew his wife, leaving it possible that he took his wife with him and left. 4) The flood -- The verse in the bible, in most translations other than the KJV, that talks about how far the waters rose state that the waters covered the mountains by 15 cubits. That is the waters covered everything to a minimum depth of 15 feet. 5) Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew. Now in the numerolgy of Hebrew there are special meanings for the numbers 40, 1000, a
I'm confused ! (no comment Christian, please) 1) Seems to offer the possibility of a local or global flood; 4) Seems to be suggesting a global flood; 6) Seems to infer either a global flood (affected everybody, no matter where they lived) or a local flood (the story spread when the survivors spread). You seem to have missed the obvious conclusion here - that perhaps there have been floods in South America, China and North America sometime in the past several million years (or 4,000 years, if you are a true Creationist). And your conclusion offers : Finally, there are a lot of answers that I don't have (i.e. where did the water come from and where did it go?) but I am willing to accept that something did happen to it because I trust in the Word of God. So, you aren't sure if it was local or global and you can't explain how it happened? Yet you're sure it did, in some form, because the bible sort of says something about it (minus lots of the details). I think I'll pass on that as much of an explanation - and it doesn't sound like you have much to offer beyond "the biblical flood must have happened, because the bible says so". Thanks for that enlightening contribution... ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. I cannot believe you let slide such a golden opportunity to make a Tasmanian joke here. ;P cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Look around I have been slipping in Tasmanian jokes galore and peppering Christian at the same time. Haven't done in many posts not including an Australian as most people in these discussions don't have maps of the world or globes with Tasmania on them. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I cannot let this one go, not in a million years. In the Evolution thread below (which turned out rather fun didn't it? ;) ) I got a bit hot headed at John Fisher who tried to discount evolution by stating that Noah's flood was for real and that every species on earth (including 6.3billion human beings) came from just what was onboard his ark. Now I am not discounting Noah, I believe it comes from somewhere but is not quite as catastrophic as the Bible suggests. However in reply to my hot-headed rebuke of John's post I got this reply: Understandably, you're trying to reconcile the flood story with your understanding of the world and it's not working. The world before the flood was vastly different than it is now. Before the flood, there was only one continent. (Genesis 1:9) During the flood, the entire topography of the earth was changed with mountains rising where land masses collided and the previous layout of the earth being totally altered. (In the meantime, it buried most of things that we now see as fossils.) One good conclusion (since the Bible doesn't say otherwise) is that the pre-flood world had nothing like what we consider mountains today. Rather they were more like our bluffs or even smaller. Now I nearly had apopoplexy when I read this. It is not a matter of not believing in continental drift and the whole one mother continent splitting into what we see today (and in a few billion years our Earth will look very different), but rather the timescales involved. From what I gather John is saying that in the span of 40 days and 40 nights the entire Earth changed. Africa, Asia, Australia, Antartica, America etc. all formed in those few days. The Himalayan mountain range came to be along with the Great Rift Valley in Africa. Naturally deep sea trenches had to be formed at the same time. Also I assume the largest mountain on Earth, one of the Hawai islands I believe, also came to be. All from one continent, some bluffs, the action of a lot of water and all in 40 days, and 40 nights. Now don't tell me I am being literal with the Bible here, these are from John's mouth (fingers) and he seems to be an educated and literate person. So can someone tell me, what gives? Did something which I believe took 4.2billion years actually happen in 40 days and 40 nights? I am not wanting to start a flame war here, I just need someone else, knowledgeable of the Bible, to tell me how this all actually fits in. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We wo
Sorry about the confusion. This is just one of those areas where there's a lot of information in my head, and I happened to leave out some of the stuff that would have changed your post (at least a little). As far as the time scale is concerned, I don't claim that it all happened in 40 days and nights -- that's just how long the flood waters continued upward. The flood waters didn't abate until 115 days after it started according to Genesis 8:3. (Not that this number of days will really seem significant in comparison to the evolutionary time scale.) Also, the world hasn't been inactive since the flood. Volcanoes erupt and mountains form. It's been somewhere around 4000-5000 years since the flood, too. BTW, this link explains a little about the ice-age and has some side-issues which may help you understand where I'm coming from. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v11n2_iceage.asp There is a lot of other information I could give you, but I don't even know where to start. I guess specific questions are a good way to go, so please keep posting. John
-
Look around I have been slipping in Tasmanian jokes galore and peppering Christian at the same time. Haven't done in many posts not including an Australian as most people in these discussions don't have maps of the world or globes with Tasmania on them. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Yeah but it was a reply to Christian which talked about inbreeding. DOH - and Michael fumbles the ball... (oops - Christian is starting to looki suspicious) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Yeah but it was a reply to Christian which talked about inbreeding. DOH - and Michael fumbles the ball... (oops - Christian is starting to looki suspicious) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Yeah but it was a reply to Christian which talked about inbreeding. It was recovering old ground from a previous thread where I hammered Christian with inbreeding. He came back with West Coast and Married with Children references. Didn't think a second mention was clever or in context. "Oh No, Magnificent Maunder has gone to the top rope. Preparing for his double somersault with triple twist piledriver with people's foot odour." "Wait ... what's this, Magic Mick is up on his feet. He has Magnificent Maunder in what looks to be a Squirrel Grip. Maunder has pulled the pin, he has retired. What a wuss". :laugh: Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Well ... I thought marrying and fucking your sister was a sin? Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Only after God said it was a sin which wasn't until several hundred years after the flood. The Bible indicates this first by not giving the command until after the Israelites left Egypt (Leviticus 18-21), second by showing that God honored Abraham's marriage to his half-sister by making her son the one through which God established the nation of Israel. John
-
The different sorts of "thought systems" people apply to try to understand the world around them has always fascinated me. I am also a proponent of the scientific explaination of things and believe current biologic/geologic theories to be far more satisfying intellectually than religious ones. However, I'm not sure I would want to live in a world devoid of religious faith, one relying only upon a soulless dependency upon the next scientific discovery for enlightenment. I don't believe I would very much enjoy living in a world without folks like John Fisher. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
Tony Blair and Mr Bush should take a leaf out of your diplomacy book :) Either that or you are John Fisher... hehe Actually you are right, if everyone agreed about evolution, women and the sock-monster then life would be rather dull. Imagine life without Linux zealots? Dull indeed. :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
-
Sorry about the confusion. This is just one of those areas where there's a lot of information in my head, and I happened to leave out some of the stuff that would have changed your post (at least a little). As far as the time scale is concerned, I don't claim that it all happened in 40 days and nights -- that's just how long the flood waters continued upward. The flood waters didn't abate until 115 days after it started according to Genesis 8:3. (Not that this number of days will really seem significant in comparison to the evolutionary time scale.) Also, the world hasn't been inactive since the flood. Volcanoes erupt and mountains form. It's been somewhere around 4000-5000 years since the flood, too. BTW, this link explains a little about the ice-age and has some side-issues which may help you understand where I'm coming from. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v11n2_iceage.asp There is a lot of other information I could give you, but I don't even know where to start. I guess specific questions are a good way to go, so please keep posting. John
John, I am afraid we will never be able to have any kind of meaningful debate! You sound so intelligent and well read, yet you accept entirely ridiculous statements without blinking an eye! The page you to link to : Suggests the ice age happened less that 4000 years ago; The last (first/only?) Ice Age lasted less that 1000 years; the world had pleasant topography and climate everywhere What - the entire world (a globe, set off axis and cicling the sun) had the same temperature and climate everywhere? No seasons ?? I'm afraid you chose to ignore hundreds of years of clear, careful work by many thousands of men and women, of many religions (including no religion), in order to promote the nonsense of a few so called academics who sift through the enormous body of scientific evidence to find any little contradiction or perceived failing, and then proclaim the entire thing must be wrong - and then offer nonsensical theories of "massive continental changes" that occur over time frames of a few hundred years. Well, we are SO FAR APART that we can't even begin to discuss this. And I must disagree with Stan's earlier post - despite any spiritual or faith-based experiences you bring to the planet, your ability to plainly look past clear, precise and overwhelming evidence and instead pursue childish and simplistic Creationist concepts means we'd be better of without you and your dogma. (and yes, that does sound a little harsh!) ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
However, mutations are almost always negative What? How does that work? A mutation is a change, and should have an equal chance of being good or bad...unless you consider that evolution has already brought us to the point where we have kept all the good mutations, and those with bad mutations didn't survive - which would then mean that mutations are more likely to be bad since we are the 'cream of the crop' so to speak in regards to collective random changes. Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew In the Hebrew that the bible was written in? I could have sworn I read a reference about there not being one, but after not being able to find it again I figured it may have been a furfy. much more genetic diversity than they expected, along with a healthy population. That's fruit fly. It's not the same for hippopotumuses. Take a look at the problems with endangered species: once the population gets below a certain point (I think my biologist friends once had a debate about this and mumbled the number '7' - though that could have been the number of lagers they'd had) there is no chance for the species to recover. Again - I'm no biologist so I'm happy to be proved wrong. Nothing conclusive, just a possibility to you non-believers. There are also volumes of work on evolution and the continual change in the genetic makeup of plants and animals. The possibility of entertaining ideas that go against one's own belief goes both ways ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Hey Chris, The reason mutations are "bad" is not because them merely make a change, but because they result in a loss of genetic information. Since genes are an informational structure, it works the same was as words in these posts. If I were to type, "Chris Maunder is an intrysting guy." You would know right away that the "mutated" word was wrong and needed to be fixed. Genes work the same way, since the collection is designed to accomplish a goal and an incorrect gene hampers the ability to accomplish that goal. As far as the genetic diversity problem with 2 of a kind producing the animals we now see goes; the problem is that you base your assumptions on the evolutionary model of upward progression from less information. The Bible model starts from perfect genes and then the effects of sin cause random mutations to slowly corrupt the gene pool. So, now it would be very difficult to find two of a species that could produce enough genetically diverse offspring in order to have a long-lasting and healty set of descendants. John John
-
However, mutations are almost always negative What? How does that work? A mutation is a change, and should have an equal chance of being good or bad...unless you consider that evolution has already brought us to the point where we have kept all the good mutations, and those with bad mutations didn't survive - which would then mean that mutations are more likely to be bad since we are the 'cream of the crop' so to speak in regards to collective random changes. Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew In the Hebrew that the bible was written in? I could have sworn I read a reference about there not being one, but after not being able to find it again I figured it may have been a furfy. much more genetic diversity than they expected, along with a healthy population. That's fruit fly. It's not the same for hippopotumuses. Take a look at the problems with endangered species: once the population gets below a certain point (I think my biologist friends once had a debate about this and mumbled the number '7' - though that could have been the number of lagers they'd had) there is no chance for the species to recover. Again - I'm no biologist so I'm happy to be proved wrong. Nothing conclusive, just a possibility to you non-believers. There are also volumes of work on evolution and the continual change in the genetic makeup of plants and animals. The possibility of entertaining ideas that go against one's own belief goes both ways ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
This is essentially an argument of assumptions. You assume that the world existed for billions of years. And based upon that assumption, you interpret the evidence that has been discovered concerning the past. I assume that the world was created by God, and so of course the same evidence that you find in favor of your argument, I find in favor of mine. For example, you say biologists say that a few animals cannot maintain the species. But you are talking about modern animals, and I would agree that modern animals genetic code is degraded to the point where that may be impossible. Also, the fact that animals are dying off at ever increasing rates shows, to me, that genetics are weakening. (Not all endangered and extinct species were made that way by men.) So, this particular line of argument is pointless. I will end this point with a shift to attack some of your old-earth assumptions: 1) There are galaxies that have been discovered at the edge of the known universe, some 14 billion light years away, and therefore (using your non-creation calculations) the light must be 14 billion years old, which is roughly the age of the universe calculated by Big-Bang theorists. However, a fully formed modern galaxy is thought to take tens of billions of years to form. Therefore, under your theory, there is not enough time since the creation to have made this galaxy that we see. There are other structures in the universe that scientists feel have not had enough time to generate also. 2) There is an abandoned gold mine in either Utah or Idaho that is only about 80 years old. The timbers used to shore up the mine shafts have completely petrified in the time since the mine shut down. That is a process that is supposed to take millions of years. There are also cave formations of stalactites and stalagmites that should take at least thousands of years that have also formed in the time since the mine was shut down. I don't have all of the technical answers to these questions because I am a computer programmer, and a hobbiest at evolution and history. However, I do know that for every crack-pot creationist out there there is both a credible, careful scientist gathering evidence for creation. There is also a crack-pot atheist out there telling us that aliens seeded the earth. So I'll rest in my assurance of salvation and continue to answer questions to the best of my ability. :-D "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will