You haven't read it yet, great.
How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Okay below are the key points contained in this article:
Point A
Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires.15
Point B
There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood–the earth simply could not support that many organisms.16,17
Point C
The young-earth model also assumes the animals on the ark were unique–they possessed special genetic coding that allowed them to quickly adapt to the post-Flood environment and produce new species. However, nowhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim. If modern species descended from common ancestors on the ark, we would expect to find evidence of intermediate forms. We would also expect to see thousands of new species arising today. However, nothing we observe suggests today’s species descended from common ancestors on the ark.24
Point D
If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?
Point E
Young-earth creationists admit this post-Flood migration would have taken many generations to complete.43 If true, we would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm.44 Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?45
Point F
Like punctuated equilibrium, the young-earth model would suffer from reduced fitness due to the expression of detrimental recessive mutations.
Point G
Point H
Young-earth creationists point to a host of seemingly distinct animals in a family that can produce hybrid progeny (e.g., horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, dolphins and whales, etc.) as evidence species are descended from the same created "kind."62 The problem with this approach is even though these species may, in some instances, interbreed in captivity, they generally do not do so in the wild. Crossbreeding animals in a zoo or laboratory proves nothing. For the young-earth claim to be true, every animal in a family would have to hybridize naturally. All of the changes observed in the laboratory or breeding pen are limited. What breeders accomplish is diversification with a given type. What is needed is the origin of new types.63 Biologists have not been able to observe the entire sequence of animal species fragmenting into two or more morphologically species. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation.64
I've separated the points by letters so you can pick a few to argue against.
Point A
Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires.15
Point B
There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood–the earth simply could not support that many organisms.16,17
Point C
The young-earth model also assumes the animals on the ark were unique–they possessed special genetic coding that allowed them to quickly adapt to the post-Flood environment and produce new species. However, nowhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim. If modern species descended from common ancestors on the ark, we would expect to find evidence of intermediate forms. We would also expect to see thousands of new species arising today. However, nothing we observe suggests today’s species descended from common ancestors on the ark.24
Point D
If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?
Point E
Young-earth creationists admit this post-Flood migration would have taken many generations to complete.43 If true, we would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm.44 Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?45
Point F
Like punctuated equilibrium, the young-earth model would suffer from reduced fitness due to the expression of detrimental recessive mutations.
Point G
Point H
Young-earth creationists point to a host of seemingly distinct animals in a family that can produce hybrid progeny (e.g., horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, dolphins and whales, etc.) as evidence species are descended from the same created "kind."62 The problem with this approach is even though these species may, in some instances, interbreed in captivity, they generally do not do so in the wild. Crossbreeding animals in a zoo or laboratory proves nothing. For the young-earth claim to be true, every animal in a family would have to hybridize naturally. All of the changes observed in the laboratory or breeding pen are limited. What breeders accomplish is diversification with a given type. What is needed is the origin of new types.63 Biologists have not been able to observe the entire sequence of animal species fragmenting into two or more morphologically species. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation.64
I've separated the points by letters so you can pick a few to argue against.
A) They don't based on radio isotope dating, but all those mountains should be long gone at current erosion rates.
B) The biota of the coal seams came from a world with 3x the vegetation, and 99% of fossils are marine creatures.
C) No "special genetic coding," just healthy representatives of the syngameons.
D) Huh?
E) Speculative.
F) Huh?
G) Syngameons baby, syngameons.
B) The biota of the coal seams came from a world with 3x the vegetation, and 99% of fossils are marine creatures.
C) No "special genetic coding," just healthy representatives of the syngameons.
D) Huh?
E) Speculative.
F) Huh?
G) Syngameons baby, syngameons.
Seafloor spreading is the residual from the Deluge runaway plate tectonics, and within volcanic rocks which took only days to cool are found magnetic reversals which indicate the reversals happened rapidly, during the Deluge, when oceanic crustal plates dove rapidly and deep into the mantle.
Here's an interesting find which would disprove your "young earth" theory:
What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
May 2006
Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik
So let's here. A mix between two syngameons. How is this possible if each syngameon can only breed with each other?
What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
May 2006
Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik
So let's here. A mix between two syngameons. How is this possible if each syngameon can only breed with each other?
Why do you say it's supposedly a mix between two syngameons?
Was that a fish supposedly turning into a reptile, or a reptile turning into a fish, how do you know?
It is a mix between the Crocodile syngameon and the fish syngameon. No "speciation" or "hydridization" could produce something half one syngameon, half the other.
"Working in rocks more than 375 million years old far above the Arctic Circle, paleontologists have discovered a remarkable new fossil species that represents the most compelling evidence yet of an intermediate stage between fish and early limbed animals.
The new species has a skull, neck, ribs, and parts of a fin that resemble the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods. But the creature also has fins and scales like a fish.
"This animal is both fish and tetrapod. We jokingly call it a fishapod," said Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago. He and paleontologists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University conducted the research. They report the finding in two papers published this week in the journal Nature."
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106807
Am I watching a religion in its death throes?
There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm starting to think the young-earth creationists are like a specially trained division, armed to the teeth and making a heroic last stand. The main thrust is to get their ideology into the schools. IAC and others are a mere diversionary tactic.
There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm starting to think the young-earth creationists are like a specially trained division, armed to the teeth and making a heroic last stand. The main thrust is to get their ideology into the schools. IAC and others are a mere diversionary tactic.
"Like punctuated equilibrium, the young-earth model would suffer from reduced fitness due to the expression of detrimental recessive mutations."
This argument is referring to the fact that if only one pair of each syngameon was brought on the boat, there would have been massive imbreeding (as with Adam and Eve's family). Therefore, due to this imbreeding, genetic mutations would result. And not for the better.
This argument is referring to the fact that if only one pair of each syngameon was brought on the boat, there would have been massive imbreeding (as with Adam and Eve's family). Therefore, due to this imbreeding, genetic mutations would result. And not for the better.
Oh yeh, I read where the argument doesn't hold water, I'll try to find it.
And Psycho, upon what have you been imbibing?
And Psycho, upon what have you been imbibing?
I find being sane intoxicating. You should try it.
Sanity is obviously an altered state for you.
*************
M*W: For the record, when do you estimate this great deluge occurred?
Abraham lived around 2000 B.C., so you do the math.
That is entirely speculative. The earth's magnetic field can't simply change back and forth that fast. And how do you know that oceanic crustal plates driving rapidly into the mantle could cause any shift in the earth's magnetic field?
Last edited:
Still haven't validated this claim either.