Evidence for life on Mars

[Siaf__csf]

Does DNA research support the flooding? If every animal species today would have been created from just two animals it would show serious genetic damage due to inbreeding.

I'm curious how they managed to build a total animal population (planet wide, mind you) from just 2 base animals at the time when populations of 200 are considered to be hopelessly extinct due to constant inbreeding.

All land based animals all in one spot, majority of them predators to eachothers, carnivores would be eating eachothers like crazy with no available source for food.

Over half of the animals would have been eaten long before they hit shore. And we haven't even touched the issue of how the animals finally got into remote places like Australia etc.

Now which theory was more logical in the end?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Jackal1
I prefer to trust common sense and what I can see and understand with my own eyes.
Do you prefer to trust a theory, an unsubstaniatated theory, put together and added to by ones grasping at straws with maybe just a touch too much time on their hands and very vivid imaginations?

You forget the Bible is pretty vague about how things went down also

I woudlnt call either theory anywhere near unsubstantianted.

There is pleny of evidence of evolution. Certainly more then pure creationism other then the vague discription put forth in the bible. Which has been known to be mistranslated either through human error or arrogence.

[Siaf__csf]

I heard they actually want to teach creationism in some schools in the US. That's like stepping 200 years back in development.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by storch
of course no one within the scientific community interprets evidence in anything other than pure and true objectivity.

By definition if they don't they are not using "Science".

[Siaf__csf]

Oh I forgot.. If the Ark story is correct, all of human kind also died in the flood except the few specimen that made it in the ark.

Watch out who you call an inbred next time.

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Does DNA research support the flooding? If every animal species today would have been created from just two animals it would show serious genetic damage due to inbreeding.

I'm curious how they managed to build a total animal population (planet wide, mind you) from just 2 base animals at the time when populations of 200 are considered to be hopelessly extinct due to constant inbreeding.

All land based animals all in one spot, majority of them predators to eachothers, carnivores would be eating eachothers like crazy with no available source for food.

Over half of the animals would have been eaten long before they hit shore. And we haven't even touched the issue of how the animals finally got into remote places like Australia etc.

Now which theory was more logical in the end?

You look at it too simplistically
It could also show evolution as we know it.
This would also explain some of the physical appearance of early man.
Hmm how do zoo's manage to keep the carnivores from eating the non carnivores? Guess they might have to keep them separate huh? And Many of these carnivores can and do go for days without eating.
not to mention many of these carnivores could have been young thus reducng the risk and space needed to house them. Even a baby lion isnt much of a threat to a full grown gazele Also Many of the animals could have gone into a state of hibernation.
 I hear some animals like Bears are known to do that from time to time
Plus the vast majority of the remaining 63% of the ark would have undoubtedly been used to store food

As for the animals on other continents.
Remember it is widely believed that at one time all the continents were interconnected. But even throwing that aside I personally never claimed the entire world was covered in water but there is geological evidence the majority of it did experience a cataclysmic flooding event.
So there may have been some areas that were not flooded out. And in all probability that would be the case.
thisis a classic case of taking the wording of the bible too literally.
remember this was written a very long time ago and had to be put down in such a way that people might be able to comprehend what was being said. in their day they still beleived the world was flat and their concept of "world" was a bit different then we think of it today.
Animals naturally tend to head to higher ground as has been seen in the recent tsunami.
Now that would reduce the space needed on the ark even more.
And even that aside. They could have simply Swam there.
There are animals, polar bears for example that have been known to swim hundreds of miles at a time and birds that fly even father.
So its not like its outside the realm of possibility

[Siaf__csf]

Swim for either 40 days and 40 nights like the other version of the flood states or 150 days like the other? I'd like to see that land animal that does it.

Do you have any kind of grasp of how many insects there are on this planet? The ark would have been filled with different species of insects alone before any mammals could think to enter.

The animals in the zoo are indeed kept apart from eachothers and in captivity. I've never seen a zoo half smaller than a modern cruise ship, though.

When the animals were unloaded from the ark, someone would have had to keep them in captivity and nurture them for lets say, 200-300 years untill the populations grew enough to support natural breeding and resisitivity to predators. So for each pair of animals they would have had to buid containments, have maybe 3-4 persons doing full time job to feed and care the animals while at the same time of course do farming on a ground that was just days before swept with salt water. Afterall they couldn't eat _any_ of the animals they had onboard without putting them extinct immediately.

Animal gets sick? Bad luck, extinct. Leg broken? Same. A bug gets squashed by an elefant? Oops extinct.

The whole story defies reason.

[DREDIOCK]

lmao the only thing that defies reason is your line of reason. Mainly because your not using any.
You keep thinking in rather simplistic and narrow terms and refusing to look as a broader scope of possibilities.

Your also not giving the animals and their abilities and natural tendencies their due.

A Lion for example wont attack a herd of animals if its not hungry.
Animals also hibernate for long periods of time. Some species of frog have been known to hibernate for years
Animals in general have also shown the ability to reproduce rather quickly its usually only under human influence they develop problems.

The earth itself has shown its ability to rejuvenate itself faster then we humans had thought possible in spite of all sorts of things happening to it

I've put forth explanations.
By Swim I meant to other continents. Not that they could have swam for 40 days and nights etc.
And I've also stated that in all probability the ENTIRE earth probably wasn't flooded in spite of what the bible says. But even if it was
I've already put forth there was more then enough room to house all the animals that needed to be out of the water to survive. In fact there would have been enough room to house twice that many and still have room left over.
Insects have and still do survive rather well in extremely adverse conditions. Including extreme temperature and climate changes
So its safe to say the bugs could have taken care of themselves.

And Zoos usually have areas for the animals and people to roam around in.
The Ark wasn't built for roaming. It only had to house them.
why would they have needed people to nurture them for the populations to grow?
They had after all managed to reproduce and populate the earth rather well all on their own without human help before that. Why would they suddenly need our help afterwards. that line of thinking reeks of nothing more then human arrogance.
I've put forth other reasonable explanations as to how they could have been housed and cared for. Can you say hibernation? There I knew you could.
  And as stated before there was an abundance of space left over for stores of food not to mention what the sea could produce which if memory serves correct was a quite popular way of getting food back in those days.  So they didnt need to eat any of the animals on board.

Perhaps none got sick, broke a leg or was squashed.
Not out of the realm of reason.
But even if they had that's not to say none didn't go extinct. Animals go extinct every day.
Its obvious these haven't...yet.

Now Im not going to say that everything in the bible is 100% accurate in a literal sense.
It probably isnt and at best in alot of ways its as incomplete much as science is.

But I will say alot of what is in the bible is supported by science and vise versa
As well as if not probable certainly possible in both camps.

I dont see why one has to constantly be at odds with the other. Ive rarely ever witnessed anything that was black or white one way or the other. I dont think it that way either with the bible or science but probably somewhere inbetween

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Oh I forgot.. If the Ark story is correct, all of human kind also died in the flood except the few specimen that made it in the ark.

Watch out who you call an inbred next time.

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html

hate to burst your bubble of sarcasm but
Ummm  studies have shown that DNA certainly does trace all of mankind back to a common ancestor.
so yea we are all the product of inbreeding

no wait that  a lie. I enjoyed bursting it

[Siaf__csf]

Drediock that common ancestor was the first homo sapiens from which evolution started. One person altered the genetic pattern permanently as he/she mated with homo erectus or whatever the base population was at time.

During the ark human race already had civilization and technology. That's hundreds of thousands to millions years later.

[Siaf__csf]

I never believed a todays person could still believe in creation, I've been proven wrong.

That explains a lot of the cause and effect of religious fundamentalism today.

Drediock you say that a lion won't attack a herd of animals unless he's hungry. A simple question: What did the lions eat along with all the other animals and most importantly, who controlled and fed all the tens of thousands of species of animals?

15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,

16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him:

19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Noah had an interesting family - His family consisted of blacks, asians, caucasians, indians, aborigins.. Just to name a few. That doesn't even touch the logistical problems they would have had to collect all the species from all around the planet with no knowledge of even combustion engines, let alone jet aircraft. The animals would die of old age before they could be transported across continents (or a unified continent if the event supposedly happened that long ago, 300-500 million years ago, way before homo sapiens existed.)

One family controlling, feeding and raising several thousands of different animal species, many of which are inherently agressive to eachothers, not to mention dangerous to human with no crop, firewood, accomodation, help, training, medicine just to name a few.

Noah would get a pretty high-price job as a zoo-keeper for sure.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The animals would die of old age before they could be transported across continents...

Are you suggesting that animals are non-migrate-ory?
 

One family controlling, feeding and raising several thousands of different animal species, many of which are inherently agressive to eachothers, not to mention dangerous to human with no crop, firewood, accomodation, help, training, medicine just to name a few.

Noah would get a pretty high-price job as a zoo-keeper for sure.

He may have had some divine guidance and help...  Vegetarian species could eat the stores of feed, meat eaters could consume milk from cattle and fish gathered from the rising sea.  

At least that is how it was explained to me when I asked the same questions.

However using logic to argue faith is a fruitless endeavour.

[storch]

Originally posted by midnight Target
By definition if they don't they are not using "Science".

that is my very point, they don't and it's not.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Swim for either 40 days and 40 nights like the other version of the flood states or 150 days like the other? I'd like to see that land animal that does it.

There is a land animal that stays at sea for 40 days or better...

 

Its latin name is Ursus Maritimus (Sea Bear)

[storch]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Well let's turn it the other way. What kind of scientific evidence can you find that actually supports creationist outlook in any way? There are an abundance of evidence pointing to the opposite direction.

well let's go yet another 180 to the starting point.  origin.

Theorists have long held the belief that before big bang (BB) there was nothing.  this creates a problems for the evolutionary physicists, actually some fairly serious problems.

Let's look at one theory.  prior to BB the universe would have had an infinite density and temperature.  ponder that a bit.

another problem is that no known physics applies to the earliest moments of the universe.

but wait at last a solution.  there is a physicist (who's name escapes me but I'll look it up if anyone challenges me on this) with the european laboratory for particle physics proposing that the universe existed prior to BB in a state just large enough not to require infinite density or temperature.  He claims that the universe was about one millimeter across and existed in this condition for "a very long time".  he described this as being in it's "simplest state" which he calls "the state of triviality".

that pretty much sums up he and most of his colleagues to me.

the simple answer can be found in the book of genesis.