Flood and Ark
Flood and Ark
I read somewhere that there are 5 billion species. even if there are 50,000 species, thats 100k animals on that ark. Which makes me think the flood was local, but if it was, what about dinosaurs, especially aquatic dinosaurs. Its possible they became extinct because of predators, but any other ideas? Itd be appreciated
-
dad
Re: Flood and Ark
If things hyper adapted, or 'evoluted' then, just the one pair is needed, and all species come from that. For example. 30 something species of tigers all from one pair to start. All elephants, mamoths, etc, from one pair.Brigham wrote:I read somewhere that there are 5 billion species. even if there are 50,000 species, thats 100k animals on that ark. Which makes me think the flood was local, but if it was, what about dinosaurs, especially aquatic dinosaurs. Its possible they became extinct because of predators, but any other ideas? Itd be appreciated
How many animals needed to be brought aboard?
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)
But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.
The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
The following animals could have survived outside the ark (Whitcomb 1998, p.68):
25,000 species of fish
1,700 tunicates (mane chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas
600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins
107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters
10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids
4,000 species of sponges
31,000 protozoan, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
Noah would not have to be concerned with the aquatic mammals such as the dolphins, whales, porpoises, sea lions, and walrus. There are also many aquatic reptiles that could survive outside of the ark. These would include many types of snakes, alligators, crocodiles, and sea turtles. There are almost a million species of arthropods that would survive the flood. Animals such as the following: shrimps, crabs, lobsters, and many other crustaceans. All of the insects could survive outside the ark. Mote than 35,000 species of worms and nematodes would also survive the flood.
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."
How many animals did Noah's Ark carry?
Many writers on the subject of Noah's ark have different estimates for the amount of animals that the ark would have to carry. Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book, The Genesis Flood, estimate that approximately 35,000 animals were placed on board the ark. In another book written on the subject, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe states that only about 2,000 animals would have to be on the ark. Being rather conservative he continues his study with the assumption that 16,000 animals could easily be cared for on the ark.
Let's be conservative and use the figure of 40,000 animals. This allows for extra animals to represent those that have gone extinct and those animals that have not been properly cataloged. This figure of 40,000 animals is 5,000 more than largest previously mentioned numbers. Based on our present understanding of the number of animals this figure should satisfy even the most skeptical.
Animal Space Calculations
Most animals are not very large. The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage.
Dimension of the Ark: 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. If the cubit used is 18" then conversion gives us the following dimensions: 450 ft x 75 ft x 45 ft
Deck Area of the Ark: 450 ft x 75 ft x 3 decks = 101,250 ft2
Volume of the Ark: 450 ft x 75 ft x 45 ft = 1,518,750 ft3
Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family.
Based on railroad industry figures a railroad stockcar can hold 240 sheep and each stock car has a capacity of 2670 ft3. Therefore each sheep requires 11.125 ft3. Most authorities on rabbit husbandry give the dimensions for a rabbit hutch as 3.0 ft3per animal. If the average animal size is indeed the size of a small rabbit the calculations shown below could be reduced by a factor of three.
The following calculations show the amount of the ark space that would be required to carry the stated number of animals, based on the average size of a sheep.
40,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 445,000 ft3 OR 445,000 ft 3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 29% of the Ark's capacity
35,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 389,375 ft3 OR 389,375 ft3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 25% of the Ark's capacity
16,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 178,000 ft3 OR
(kind = genus taxon) 178,000 ft3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 11.7% of the Ark's capacity
2,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 22,250 ft3 OR
(kind = family taxon) 22,250 ft3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 1.4% of the Ark's capacity
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)
But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.
The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
The following animals could have survived outside the ark (Whitcomb 1998, p.68):
25,000 species of fish
1,700 tunicates (mane chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas
600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins
107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters
10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids
4,000 species of sponges
31,000 protozoan, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
Noah would not have to be concerned with the aquatic mammals such as the dolphins, whales, porpoises, sea lions, and walrus. There are also many aquatic reptiles that could survive outside of the ark. These would include many types of snakes, alligators, crocodiles, and sea turtles. There are almost a million species of arthropods that would survive the flood. Animals such as the following: shrimps, crabs, lobsters, and many other crustaceans. All of the insects could survive outside the ark. Mote than 35,000 species of worms and nematodes would also survive the flood.
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."
How many animals did Noah's Ark carry?
Many writers on the subject of Noah's ark have different estimates for the amount of animals that the ark would have to carry. Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book, The Genesis Flood, estimate that approximately 35,000 animals were placed on board the ark. In another book written on the subject, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe states that only about 2,000 animals would have to be on the ark. Being rather conservative he continues his study with the assumption that 16,000 animals could easily be cared for on the ark.
Let's be conservative and use the figure of 40,000 animals. This allows for extra animals to represent those that have gone extinct and those animals that have not been properly cataloged. This figure of 40,000 animals is 5,000 more than largest previously mentioned numbers. Based on our present understanding of the number of animals this figure should satisfy even the most skeptical.
Animal Space Calculations
Most animals are not very large. The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage.
Dimension of the Ark: 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. If the cubit used is 18" then conversion gives us the following dimensions: 450 ft x 75 ft x 45 ft
Deck Area of the Ark: 450 ft x 75 ft x 3 decks = 101,250 ft2
Volume of the Ark: 450 ft x 75 ft x 45 ft = 1,518,750 ft3
Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family.
Based on railroad industry figures a railroad stockcar can hold 240 sheep and each stock car has a capacity of 2670 ft3. Therefore each sheep requires 11.125 ft3. Most authorities on rabbit husbandry give the dimensions for a rabbit hutch as 3.0 ft3per animal. If the average animal size is indeed the size of a small rabbit the calculations shown below could be reduced by a factor of three.
The following calculations show the amount of the ark space that would be required to carry the stated number of animals, based on the average size of a sheep.
40,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 445,000 ft3 OR 445,000 ft 3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 29% of the Ark's capacity
35,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 389,375 ft3 OR 389,375 ft3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 25% of the Ark's capacity
16,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 178,000 ft3 OR
(kind = genus taxon) 178,000 ft3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 11.7% of the Ark's capacity
2,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 22,250 ft3 OR
(kind = family taxon) 22,250 ft3
1,518,750 ft3 נ100 = 1.4% of the Ark's capacity
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
-
numeral2_5
- Established Member
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:03 am
- Christian: No
- Location: NY State
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Saltwater/Freshwater Adaptation in Fish Today
Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water.
There is also evidence of post-flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in fresh water.
Many families[1] of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.
Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland,[2] suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind.
The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh water they increase their urine output 20 fold, and their blood urea concentration decreases to less than one-third.
Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly enough.
So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.
Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been better placed than many fish to survive the flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95 percent of the fossil record.[3] Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time. This is consistent with the Bible account of the flood beginning with the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (i.e., beginning in the sea; "the great deep" means the oceans).
There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.
Conclusion
There are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh and saltwater fish could have survived the flood. There is no reason to doubt the reality of the flood as described in the Bible.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/466
Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water.
There is also evidence of post-flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in fresh water.
Many families[1] of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.
Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland,[2] suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind.
The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh water they increase their urine output 20 fold, and their blood urea concentration decreases to less than one-third.
Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly enough.
So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.
Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been better placed than many fish to survive the flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95 percent of the fossil record.[3] Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time. This is consistent with the Bible account of the flood beginning with the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (i.e., beginning in the sea; "the great deep" means the oceans).
There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.
Conclusion
There are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh and saltwater fish could have survived the flood. There is no reason to doubt the reality of the flood as described in the Bible.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/466
-
thereal
- Established Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:40 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Carbondale, IL
Many, but not all or even a majority. What is your explanation for the presence of aquatic species today that are quite specialized to their local salinity, such that even small changes are intolerable?Jbuza wrote:Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.
So you can support natural selection as a mechanism for your argument here, while you previously stated:Jbuza wrote:Many families[1] of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.
Shame, shame...if you didn't believe in natural selection before, you can't use it as your supporting argument here!Jbuza wrote:The very fact that natural selection is a myth is what requires animals to be selectively bred.
I wouldn't suggest using trout to display the point you're trying to make here, as man has physically brought trout to just about anywhere in the world you can think of...it may be that they never actually "migrated" to the places they're being "discovered".Jbuza wrote:Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland,[2] suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind.
This happens in estuarine environments, but I know of no instance wherer this has happens in the open ocean as would be required for what you're proposing.Jbuza wrote:There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.
Even if I kid myself for a second and picture a scenario where dinosaurs and man coexisted...juveniles of many dinosaurs species were still as large or larger than elephants, and it's not like there were only a dozen species. We're talking thousands (based on fossil records) to millions (based on fact that not every species becomes a fossil) of species here. Also, how are the juveniles fed while on the ark, if their care-giving parents are absent? And back to the aquatic dinosaurs....again, we're talking thousands of species that disappeared, not just a few! And how were terrestrial bacteria, viruses, etc. maintained on the ark?Jbuza wrote:Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones.
Conclusion - What a stretch! For as much as everyone complains how evolution relies on too many "what ifs", I think this explanation of the flood takes the cake for reliance on "what ifs"!
thereal wrote
So you can support natural selection as a mechanism for your argument here, while you previously stated:
Shame, shame...if you didn't believe in natural selection before, you can't use it as your supporting argument here!
OK. Fair enough. I posted some information from a couple of sites that deal with issues surrounding the flood. I thought that some of the people posting on the flood might find those sights and that information interesting. I can see that I now have to give my own view of things, because I can see where you might think that I am in complete agreement with those sights because I posted them. First, I am not in complete agreement with them, but posted them because they do offer a possible explanation to the problems people were asking about. I continue to disagree with the extrapolations of natural selection, and find it to be nothing more than the observation that those who can reproduce will. I don't disagree with this at all; in fact I strongly agree that those who can reproduce will. I am the greatest proponent of natural selection; I just do not see it as a mechanism of change.
---------------------
thereal wrote
What is your explanation for the presence of aquatic species today that are quite specialized to their local salinity, such that even small changes are intolerable?
It has been proposed that it is possible that all areas in the waters of the flood were not of the same salt content. From that hypothesis the survival of fishes would be like a dog moving from a fire that is to hot, that is the fish would find an area that was comfortable. Second which species are you talking about? Third is it harder to cause the whole earth to be flooded, or to provide an environment for your creatures?
---------------------
thereal wrote
I wouldn't suggest using trout to display the point you're trying to make here, as man has physically brought trout to just about anywhere in the world you can think of...it may be that they never actually "migrated" to the places they're being "discovered".
I disagree; man has found trout in nearly every place he has gone. While it is true that man has created extraordinary pressure on wild trout populations that should have caused them to evolve a metal detector in their snout, they have also stocked these fish in many locations.
-----------------------
thereal wrote
This happens in estuarine environments, but I know of no instance wherer this has happens in the open ocean as would be required for what you're proposing.
Have you taken samples during many global floods?
----------------------
thereal wrote
Conclusion - What a stretch! For as much as everyone complains how evolution relies on too many "what ifs", I think this explanation of the flood takes the cake for reliance on "what ifs"!
OK perhaps if we boil it down to one. What if God wanted to destroy the world by a global flood and save a remnant. Could he?
----------------------
thereal wrote
Even if I kid myself for a second and picture a scenario where dinosaurs and man coexisted...juveniles of many dinosaurs species were still as large or larger than elephants, and it's not like there were only a dozen species. We're talking thousands (based on fossil records) to millions (based on fact that not every species becomes a fossil) of species here. Also, how are the juveniles fed while on the ark, if their care-giving parents are absent? And back to the aquatic dinosaurs....again, we're talking thousands of species that disappeared, not just a few! And how were terrestrial bacteria, viruses, etc. maintained on the ark?
OK a few comments
Really can you name say 500 dinos, or say 250?
Ever hear of dormancy and germination?
Also name 500 or 250 aquatic dinos.
Some have proposed and there is some evidence of vestigial hibernation abilities in many animals.
------------------------
edit. Are you asking me to argue against some extinctions? What has the extinction of some dinosaurs got to do wiht it?
So you can support natural selection as a mechanism for your argument here, while you previously stated:
Shame, shame...if you didn't believe in natural selection before, you can't use it as your supporting argument here!
OK. Fair enough. I posted some information from a couple of sites that deal with issues surrounding the flood. I thought that some of the people posting on the flood might find those sights and that information interesting. I can see that I now have to give my own view of things, because I can see where you might think that I am in complete agreement with those sights because I posted them. First, I am not in complete agreement with them, but posted them because they do offer a possible explanation to the problems people were asking about. I continue to disagree with the extrapolations of natural selection, and find it to be nothing more than the observation that those who can reproduce will. I don't disagree with this at all; in fact I strongly agree that those who can reproduce will. I am the greatest proponent of natural selection; I just do not see it as a mechanism of change.
---------------------
thereal wrote
What is your explanation for the presence of aquatic species today that are quite specialized to their local salinity, such that even small changes are intolerable?
It has been proposed that it is possible that all areas in the waters of the flood were not of the same salt content. From that hypothesis the survival of fishes would be like a dog moving from a fire that is to hot, that is the fish would find an area that was comfortable. Second which species are you talking about? Third is it harder to cause the whole earth to be flooded, or to provide an environment for your creatures?
---------------------
thereal wrote
I wouldn't suggest using trout to display the point you're trying to make here, as man has physically brought trout to just about anywhere in the world you can think of...it may be that they never actually "migrated" to the places they're being "discovered".
I disagree; man has found trout in nearly every place he has gone. While it is true that man has created extraordinary pressure on wild trout populations that should have caused them to evolve a metal detector in their snout, they have also stocked these fish in many locations.
-----------------------
thereal wrote
This happens in estuarine environments, but I know of no instance wherer this has happens in the open ocean as would be required for what you're proposing.
Have you taken samples during many global floods?
----------------------
thereal wrote
Conclusion - What a stretch! For as much as everyone complains how evolution relies on too many "what ifs", I think this explanation of the flood takes the cake for reliance on "what ifs"!
OK perhaps if we boil it down to one. What if God wanted to destroy the world by a global flood and save a remnant. Could he?
----------------------
thereal wrote
Even if I kid myself for a second and picture a scenario where dinosaurs and man coexisted...juveniles of many dinosaurs species were still as large or larger than elephants, and it's not like there were only a dozen species. We're talking thousands (based on fossil records) to millions (based on fact that not every species becomes a fossil) of species here. Also, how are the juveniles fed while on the ark, if their care-giving parents are absent? And back to the aquatic dinosaurs....again, we're talking thousands of species that disappeared, not just a few! And how were terrestrial bacteria, viruses, etc. maintained on the ark?
OK a few comments
Really can you name say 500 dinos, or say 250?
Ever hear of dormancy and germination?
Also name 500 or 250 aquatic dinos.
Some have proposed and there is some evidence of vestigial hibernation abilities in many animals.
------------------------
edit. Are you asking me to argue against some extinctions? What has the extinction of some dinosaurs got to do wiht it?
Revueltosaurus skeleton unearthed at Petrified Forest upsets dinosaur tale
June 24, 2005
The animal, one ofmany creatures from the Late Triassic known only from their teeth, was thought to be an ancestor of the plant-eating ornithischian dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Triceratops, which roamed the world millions of years later in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
The fact that this presumed dinosaur, Revueltosaurus callenderi, is instead a crocodile ancestor does not merely disappoint rockhounds, who sell the abundant teeth as “dinosaur teeth,” but it also throws into question the identity of other presumed dinosaur ancestors known only from teeth, which includes all Late Triassic ornithischians outside South America.
“Because the teeth look like those we know from herbivorous ornithischians, people assigned them to the dinosaurs,” said Randall Irmis, a graduate student in the Department of Integrative Biology and the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley. “We think we've shown that you can't rely on the dentition to determine what is an early dinosaur, which casts doubt on all the ornithischians from the Triassic of North America.”
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headline ... leID=20248
Q: What was the first dinosaur discovery? How and where was it found? What was its name? Was it a meat-eater? When did it become extinct?
A: The first dinosaur discovered and named was iguanodon in the 1820's in England, from a tooth brought to a medical doctor named Gideon Mantell. Iguanodon grew to more than 20 feet long and had a big spike on its thumb. But the first dinosaur scientists goofed and put the spike on its head. Iguanodon chewed plants. It lived about 120 million years ago or more in the early Cretaceous period. (Don Lessem)
Q: How many complete dinosaur bone sets have been found?
A: Good question, and I'll be darned if I know the exact answer. One scientist estimated there are only about 2,100 good skeletons of any dinosaur in museums around the world. But a complete skeleton is another thing. It's not like a model kit that comes with all the parts included. When we are lucky enough to find whole dinosaurs it is usually because sand from a stream bottom or a sand dune has covered over the dinosaur soon after it died. But even then, the little bones of the tail are often washed or blown away. For instance, we have about 15 good skeletons of T. rex now, including two that are nearly complete. That's a lot compared to most dinosaurs, which are only known from a single tooth or bone.But we still don't have a complete T. rex. (Don Lessem)
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researcht ... /bones.htm
And can we say hoaxes?
http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/noahark/na46.htm
June 24, 2005
The animal, one ofmany creatures from the Late Triassic known only from their teeth, was thought to be an ancestor of the plant-eating ornithischian dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Triceratops, which roamed the world millions of years later in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
The fact that this presumed dinosaur, Revueltosaurus callenderi, is instead a crocodile ancestor does not merely disappoint rockhounds, who sell the abundant teeth as “dinosaur teeth,” but it also throws into question the identity of other presumed dinosaur ancestors known only from teeth, which includes all Late Triassic ornithischians outside South America.
“Because the teeth look like those we know from herbivorous ornithischians, people assigned them to the dinosaurs,” said Randall Irmis, a graduate student in the Department of Integrative Biology and the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley. “We think we've shown that you can't rely on the dentition to determine what is an early dinosaur, which casts doubt on all the ornithischians from the Triassic of North America.”
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headline ... leID=20248
Q: What was the first dinosaur discovery? How and where was it found? What was its name? Was it a meat-eater? When did it become extinct?
A: The first dinosaur discovered and named was iguanodon in the 1820's in England, from a tooth brought to a medical doctor named Gideon Mantell. Iguanodon grew to more than 20 feet long and had a big spike on its thumb. But the first dinosaur scientists goofed and put the spike on its head. Iguanodon chewed plants. It lived about 120 million years ago or more in the early Cretaceous period. (Don Lessem)
Q: How many complete dinosaur bone sets have been found?
A: Good question, and I'll be darned if I know the exact answer. One scientist estimated there are only about 2,100 good skeletons of any dinosaur in museums around the world. But a complete skeleton is another thing. It's not like a model kit that comes with all the parts included. When we are lucky enough to find whole dinosaurs it is usually because sand from a stream bottom or a sand dune has covered over the dinosaur soon after it died. But even then, the little bones of the tail are often washed or blown away. For instance, we have about 15 good skeletons of T. rex now, including two that are nearly complete. That's a lot compared to most dinosaurs, which are only known from a single tooth or bone.But we still don't have a complete T. rex. (Don Lessem)
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researcht ... /bones.htm
And can we say hoaxes?
http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/noahark/na46.htm
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
African chiclids can tolerate high Ph levels, something which could not exist during the flood. Is their tolerance and seeming dependance be a result of natural selection?
In other words is it possible that a population of fish found themselves trapped in a lake in which the Ph levels rose gradually forcing it's inhabitants to adapt for perish over several generations?
Also why are there no sloths outside of South America?
Ths Fossils in the older layers of South America also contains no horses, elephants, or carnivores.
Yet they do contain ancient sloths.
Did sloths travel 18905 km by foot to the middle east get on the ark and then return to South America?
How did kangaroos get to the ark? And why did they make it back to Australia and camels did not?
In other words is it possible that a population of fish found themselves trapped in a lake in which the Ph levels rose gradually forcing it's inhabitants to adapt for perish over several generations?
Also why are there no sloths outside of South America?
Ths Fossils in the older layers of South America also contains no horses, elephants, or carnivores.
Yet they do contain ancient sloths.
Did sloths travel 18905 km by foot to the middle east get on the ark and then return to South America?
How did kangaroos get to the ark? And why did they make it back to Australia and camels did not?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson