Devastating to Evolution theory?

[dittohead not!]

The discussion was not about Adam's son's wives, it's about Noah's offspring and whether there would be enough people to build the tower of Babel. Do you want to concede that point and move on? If not then moving on accomplishes what?

Then, you have no answer to the question of minimum breeding population or the one about Adam's son's wives. How about this one: How did two kangaroos hop all the way back to Austrialia and repopulate that island continent? Wasn't there an ocean in the way?

[sub_zer0]

The little question of Adam's sons still remains: Just where did their wives come from?

From Adams daughters.

[steveksux]

From Adams daughters.So we're way beyond just minimum breeding populations and into incest? The absolute minimalist of minimal breeding population.

Any biblical references to support Adams daughters?

Randy

[neo of the mind]

So we're way beyond just minimum breeding populations and into incest? The absolute minimalist of minimal breeding population.

Any biblical references to support Adams daughters?

Randy

Gen 5:4


The question raised was about the people and time frame from between after the flood and the tower of babel.

[sub_zer0]

So we're way beyond just minimum breeding populations and into incest? The absolute minimalist of minimal breeding population.

Any biblical references to support Adams daughters?

Randy

Even though this is completely off-topic, how do you think Cain got a wife? Genesis 4:16.

Explination of Cains wife HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Tools/cains_wife.asp)

[dittohead not!]

Even though this is completely off-topic, how do you think Cain got a wife? Genesis 4:16.

Explination of Cains wife HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Tools/cains_wife.asp)

Genesis 4:16: 4:16 So Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod,41 east of Eden.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/gen4.htm

[neo of the mind]

Genesis 4:16:

http://www.bible.org/netbible/gen4.htm

sub's link gave an explanation for that as well.

[Dangerrmouse]

sub's link gave an explanation for that as well.

This is not explanation, but rationalisation.

[sub_zer0]

This is not explanation, but rationalisation.

An explanation requires rationalisation. Anyhow, what is stated on AiG makes perfect sense, how else would it work?

[JoeR]

Our brains have suffered from 6,000 years (since Adam) of the Curse. We are greatly degenerated compared with people many generations ago. We may be nowhere near as intelligent or inventive as Adam and Eve’s children.

That's very rich.

[neo of the mind]

This is not explanation, but rationalisation.

Gen 3:24 -Adam driven out of the Garden.-
then
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife ; and she conceived, and bare Cain

compared to:

Gen 4:16 -Cain driven out of the area that Adam and Eve lived.-

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife ; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:

Seems pretty similar, so based on how you are reading the scriptures, Eve was non-existent until Adam was driven out of the garden.

[neo of the mind]

That's very rich.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html

[sub_zer0]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html

Great site! The first line is perfect: "It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms."

Not only that but they have to ADD to existing DNA not scramble it, which is exactly what mutations do.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Great site! The first line is perfect: "It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms."

Wow, they manage to get it wrong in their very first line. :)
Evolutionist believe mutations are simply a change - not necessarily positive or negative.

[sub_zer0]

Wow, they manage to get it wrong in their very first line. :)
Evolutionist believe mutations are simply a change - not necessarily positive or negative.

Then they will never end up in evolutionism, only change within a specie which is creationism.

Which is why I said, "Not only that but they have to ADD to existing DNA not scramble it, which is exactly what mutations do."

Tell me where a mutation has led from an ape to man. Or from a Hawthorne fly to anything else, or when a mutation has changed the nylon eating bacterium into anything other than what it was originally classified as. Until those changes have been observed, only creation has been observed.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Then they will never end up in evolutionism, only change within a specie which is creationism.

Which is why I said, "Not only that but they have to ADD to existing DNA not scramble it, which is exactly what mutations do."

Tell me where a mutation has led from an ape to man. Or from a Hawthorne fly to anything else, or when a mutation has changed the nylon eating bacterium into anything other than what it was originally classified as. Until those changes have been observed, only creation has been observed.
You still haven't learned any of this stuff yet, have you? You're still waiting for new gentic codes to spring up. BTW, the link you point to even mentions mutations that add to the DNA length.
:lol:

[sub_zer0]

You still haven't learned any of this stuff yet, have you? You're still waiting for new gentic codes to spring up. BTW, the link you point to even mentions mutations that add to the DNA length.
:lol:

I am waiting to see an example of a scientifically observed process that adds to existing DNA which is required for evolution, yes.

All we have scientifically observed is just change within a holobarmin. There is a vast amount of information in living things and many combinations are possible.

[dittohead not!]

Posted by Alvin T Grey, and roundly ignored by the Genesis as literal fact side:
That article sets the minimum breeding population at 300. How many survived the great flood? - 6? 8?. - Heck they only brought two of each kind of animal abord in the first place.

How could humans have recovered their numbers from a breeding population of 8?

How could every other organism have recovered with a breeding population of 2?

And you still haven't explained my question about the kangaroos, so I'll throw in one more:

What did the carnivores eat while the herbivores were rebuilding their numbers? Purina Carnivore Chow?

maybe this little bit quoted by Joe R explains it:

Our brains have suffered from 6,000 years (since Adam) of the Curse. We are greatly degenerated compared with people many generations ago. We may be nowhere near as intelligent or inventive as Adam and Eve’s children.

Are our brains just too degenerated now to be able to answer questions like the ones you keep ignoring?

Or maybe, just maybe, The Noah story is meant to be taken as allegory?

Ahhhh!!! Heresy! Heresy! Believe that, and God will smite you with a curse!

[sub_zer0]

Posted by Alvin T Grey, and roundly ignored by the Genesis as literal fact side:


How could humans have recovered their numbers from a breeding population of 8?

I believe neo already said something on this:

Let's see, if I take a conservative growth rate of 1% a year, starting with 8 people, after 150 years you would have 12,941,742 people, which I think would be sufficient. Just think, Rome at it's height of grandeur and a little over a million people and The Colosseum was built in only 8 years. The population after the flood would reach over a million at 132 years...so plenty of time left to build a tower and enough people to do it.


How could every other organism have recovered with a breeding population of 2?

Not all had to recover or actually recovered from the drastic enviromental effects of the post-flood. Dino's died and others that are extinct didn't make it. The ones recovered are the ones we see today.

And you still haven't explained my question about the kangaroos, so I'll throw in one more:

What did the carnivores eat while the herbivores were rebuilding their numbers? Purina Carnivore Chow?

I'm not sure, do some research, good question though.

Try researching these websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.htm

Or maybe, just maybe, The Noah story is meant to be taken as allegory?

Ahhhh!!! Heresy! Heresy! Believe that, and God will smite you with a curse!

There is no reason to suggest that Noah's story was allegory, Jesus taught from it as a literal event, so that is good enough for me.

Nowhere does it say in the Bible that God will smite you with a curse because you believe the Noah story is allegory, quit misrepresenting Christianity.

Although you will be ultimately judged by Him as all will be, so perhaps you will have a realization why you are wrong then.

[dittohead not!]

I believe neo already said something on this:

Originally Posted by neo of the mind
Let's see, if I take a conservative growth rate of 1% a year, starting with 8 people, after 150 years you would have 12,941,742 people, which I think would be sufficient. Just think, Rome at it's height of grandeur and a little over a million people and The Colosseum was built in only 8 years. The population after the flood would reach over a million at 132 years...so plenty of time left to build a tower and enough people to do it.

Which, of course, says nothing of the minimum breeding population your own link gave at around 300 (see Alvin Grey's post)



Not all recovered, dino's died and others that are extinct didn't make it. The ones recovered are the ones we see today.

All of the organisms we see today lived and repopulated from a breeding population of 2, or else the Noah story is allegory. Such a repopulation isn't possible, so the only conclusion must be??? you fill in the blank. ;)


I'm not sure, do some research, good question though.

Not only a good question, but one that points out the impossibility of the Noah story as literal fact.

Try researching these websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.htm

Answers in Genesis is full of hooey.

There is no reason to suggest that Noah's story was allegory, Jesus taught from it as a literal event, so that is good enough for me.

Jesus frequently spoke in allegories.

Nowhere does it say in the Bible that God will smite you with a curse because you believe the Noah story is allegory. Although you will be ultimately judged by Him as all will be, so perhaps you will have a realization why you are wrong then.


No, I extrapolated that from the fact that you seem to think that admitting to observed facts somehow compromises belief in God, which is another extrapolation of mine from your insistence in believing the impossible.

This little discussion is an interesting glimpse into the convoluted reasoning of the "young earth" believers. As such, I find it interesting, but hardly convincing.

[sub_zer0]

All of the organisms we see today lived and repopulated from a breeding population of 2, or else the Noah story is allegory. Such a repopulation isn't possible, so the only conclusion must be??? you fill in the blank. ;)

It isn't a breeding popluation of just two animals that needs to make all of the organisms we see today, it is two of every kind of organism that was on the Ark that were alive at the time, and ultimately resulted in what we see today.

To know what a "kind" is, re-read some of my posts, it is in detail. But to show where in the text it states what was brought onto the Ark, I refer you to:

Genesis 6:19–20:
19"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20"Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.

#2 A.J. Jones, ‘How many animals on the Ark?’ Creation Research Society Quarterly 10(2):16–18, 1973.
#3 It is high time that certain atheistic skeptics showed some intellectual integrity and actually read the Bible. Then they would stop making ridiculous comments about whales flopping up gang–planks and fish–tanks on the Ark.

[neo of the mind]

Which, of course, says nothing of the minimum breeding population your own link gave at around 300 (see Alvin Grey's post)

dittohead not! - It was a joke. The article is about Bigfoot. I don't take any stock in any data they present.

[dittohead not!]

Which, of course, says nothing of the minimum breeding population your own link gave at around 300 (see Alvin Grey's post)

dittohead not! - It was a joke. The article is about Bigfoot. I don't take any stock in any data they present.


Oh, so you don't believe in Bigfoot. Well, that's a plus.

Do you believe that a species needs a minimum breeding population in order to rebuild its numbers, or have you thrown out that bit of science along with evolution?

Let's see... questions you ignore:

How did those kangaroos hop all the way across the ocean and repopulate Austrialia?

What did the carnivores eat while the herbivores repopulated?

Hmmm.. It seems like I've asked some other questions as well, but maybe they all related to the minimum breeding population. Well, here's another one:

How did all of the plant life survive being flooded for so long? Sure, a few species of willow and the like can recover from extended flooding, but most cannot.

That's three. Maybe I can think of some more while you're ignoring those. :D

[sub_zer0]

How did all of the plant life survive being flooded for so long? Sure, a few species of willow and the like can recover from extended flooding, but most cannot.

That's three. Maybe I can think of some more while you're ignoring those. :D

How many times here, now this being the second. I have given you sources that answer most of those questions.

Instead of saying "AiG is hooey" like a five year old, realize that they answer you questions.

Try researching these websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.htm

[dittohead not!]

How many times here, now this being the second. I have given you sources that answer most of those questions.

Instead of saying "AiG is hooey" like a five year old, realize that they answer you questions.

Try researching these websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.htm


OK, AIG is hooey, as any 5 year old can see. How's that?

You'll have to do better than provide links to questionable sources to answer the questions I'm asking. I think my answers to them all are correct:

Kangaroos can't hop across the ocean.
Two of a species, or even of a "kind" can't repopulate.
The carnivores need to eat, too.
Most plants can't survive prolonged flooding.
Most salt water species can't survive prolonged exposure to fresh water (no, I hadn't asked that one as yet.

Here's my answer:

The Noah story is an allegory based most likely on the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was written to encourage people to (1) be prepared for disaster (that one is timely) and (2) trust in God. It was never meant to be taken literally.

If you have a better answer, then let's see something other than links to hooey.

[sub_zer0]

The Noah story is an allegory based most likely on the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was written to encourage people to (1) be prepared for disaster (that one is timely) and (2) trust in God. It was never meant to be taken literally.

If you have a better answer, then let's see something other than links to hooey.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is taken from the Noah story and all others as well.

1) Indeed be prepared for disaster, the coming flood as God explicitly states to get ready for. They built an Ark for petes sake.
2) Indeed trust in God, but if Jesus is the son of God, I will trust Him just as I trust God meant it is a literal story.

[dittohead not!]

The Epic of Gilgamesh is taken from the Noah story and all others as well.

1) Indeed be prepared for disaster, the coming flood as God explicitly states to get ready for. They built an Ark for petes sake.
2) Indeed trust in God, but if Jesus is the son of God, I will trust Him just as I trust God meant it is a literal story.

Did God tell you he meant it as a lilteral story?

[neo of the mind]

Oh, so you don't believe in Bigfoot. Well, that's a plus.

Do you believe that a species needs a minimum breeding population in order to rebuild its numbers, or have you thrown out that bit of science along with evolution?

Let's see... questions you ignore:

How did those kangaroos hop all the way across the ocean and repopulate Austrialia?

What did the carnivores eat while the herbivores repopulated?

Hmmm.. It seems like I've asked some other questions as well, but maybe they all related to the minimum breeding population. Well, here's another one:

How did all of the plant life survive being flooded for so long? Sure, a few species of willow and the like can recover from extended flooding, but most cannot.

That's three. Maybe I can think of some more while you're ignoring those. :D

I'm not ignoring them. I don't interpret the scriptures or the physical world that shows there was a Young Earth or that Noah's flood was world-wide. So your questions are not a problem for me. I'm leaving the questions up for others to answer..if it appears you don't get an answer than I will weigh in, but to do so now will take the thread into even more directions and I think we should try to focus on only a couple of things at a time. My opinion anyway.

[neo of the mind]

Did God tell you he meant it as a lilteral story?


The Bible shows what is literal and what is abstract, such as what Ezekiel saw and what Revelations states. (Some things can not be put to words in our limited comprehesion, especially what they described.) It's all about context. There are also, like any other language, "figures of speach" in Hebrew and Greek. There are plenty of different types of figures of speach. The commentator of the "Companion Bible" has in that work all different types of figures of speech utilized in the Bible with examples. I will post some or find a link that contains them later.

[sub_zer0]

Did God tell you he meant it as a lilteral story?

No, actually Christ teaching it as a literal story told me that.

[dittohead not!]

No, actually Christ teaching it as a literal story told me that.

He told me that it was a parable through His God given gift of reason.

[sub_zer0]

He told me that it was a parable through His God given gift of reason.

I guess if you read the Bible, the NT specifically you would realize that when Christ spoke in parables it was clearly identified as so.

[heel31ok]

Oh, so you don't believe in Bigfoot. Well, that's a plus.

Do you believe that a species needs a minimum breeding population in order to rebuild its numbers, or have you thrown out that bit of science along with evolution?

Let's see... questions you ignore:

How did those kangaroos hop all the way across the ocean and repopulate Austrialia?

What did the carnivores eat while the herbivores repopulated?

Hmmm.. It seems like I've asked some other questions as well, but maybe they all related to the minimum breeding population. Well, here's another one:

How did all of the plant life survive being flooded for so long? Sure, a few species of willow and the like can recover from extended flooding, but most cannot.

That's three. Maybe I can think of some more while you're ignoring those. :D
I have seen bigfoot, He played for the Pistons

[dittohead not!]

I have seen bigfoot, He played for the Pistons

That wasn't bigfoot. It was a Neanderthal. :D

[heel31ok]

That wasn't bigfoot. It was a Neanderthal. :D
No he played for the Knicks. ;)