Does The Flood Add up?

Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You might make more sense replying to someone to whom your argument might pertain. You see, I haven't said squat about hay and its density. But, since you've shot this reply at me, I will stick out an answer as best I can.I really think this all goes down to what the animals ate on the ark. If you are a traveller on a ship and you want to bring hay to the place where you will land, then bringing along just the seeds is fine. However, if you need the hay on your voyage to feed some animals, then it's not going to work to have it all in the form of seeds. I mean, unless Noah was planting and harvesting the stuff in a LARGE garden (field) somewhere on the deck of the ship.And even if he did transport it all as just grains, then we still have to tackle the problem of what the animals ate whilst they were on the boat for so long. Even if Noah was going stingy on the food (once/3 days, maybe), that is still a LOT of food to be dishing out to all those animals. Where did he store it? Also, how can he feed thos animals? The moment he would've finished finally giving food to the last of the animals, the first ones he fed would've died from starvation--it having been so long (from the time it takes to feed an entire planet's worth of animals) since that first animal ate.The topic is: Does the flood add up?The answer is: NO!Jon

Rapid geographic and reproductive isolation of migrating offspring. I don't know why this is problematic. You can breed in very dramatic changes in some animals -- dogs -- in a very few generations. All it takes is reproductive isolation.

I've hardly even looked in on this thread. What good questions that haven't been answered a hundred times over already? A lot of silly stuff on this last page or so.Never mind, I'm reading the thing now, so if I find these "good questions" and answer them that should take care of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Amazing, I just got done asking why fundies won’t answer the good questions and the obvious mental handicap they must posses and look what gets posted.What does a pile of seeds have to do with IMPOSIBLE super evolution?Either they evolved at this absurd rate . or their was approximately 1.5 million species on board . I don’t care if the boat was 100 football fields long and wide, it’s just bullshit.

The OP basically takes scientific dates as truth, and YECs challenge those dates so what really is there for us to answer here?Hinduism is one of the pagan religions that arose among Noah's descendants. Native Americans are a group of Noah's descendants that migrated across the landbridge way less than 10,000 years ago.Yes, there is really no problem with the idea that human populations grew very quickly. A little basic math can show how many in a short time, and when groups get isolated they develop their own unique characteristics in not-so-many generations -- 20 generations is quite a few for that purpose. Nothing too mysterious about any of this really. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

An absence of mention does not prove they didn't exist and weren't noticed. However, why is this such a problem? It is possible they (micro)evolved from an earlier parent type that was on the ark, after locating themselves in a particular geographic environment that then split from the original unified land mass and became Australia. Or maybe both were on the ark and migrated to that portion of the land mass. It's all a guess. There is no reason to assume that insects were taken on the ark the way the animals were. I would suppose it likely that koalas did not exist at the time of the ark but (micro)evolved from a parent type that was on the ark, becoming reproductively isolated at some point, and specialized as noted.

Why is this a problem? From the Bible believing point of view, ALL human beings living today are descendants of Noah and his sons. that includes the Aborigines. We assume that the time spans attributed to various human groups that predate Noah are simply erroneous exaggerations.

This is no doubt simply the usual straw man misrepresentation based on today's count of species. Certainly there are who-knows-how-many more species living today than were taken on the ark, "species" being variations on the original that naturally (micro)evolved in many many directions after the flood from the original pair of each kind saved on the ark.

It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.

What's silly is this imposition of today's knowledge on the past.
The Flood story didn't require any particular knowledge about the extent of the earth by the people of the time. It was God who told Noah it would cover the whole earth. Revelation. Not human imagination or experience.The Americas did not exist before the Flood. The continents split some time after the flood. Then the Americas were apparently populated by migration across the Bering strait landbridge.

quote:

---

The continents split some time after the flood.

---

Let me get this straight - the earth is about 4,500 years old and we had time for a flood and then some time after the continents split?Honestly?

If you really assume that the ark story is true, none of this should pose a problem for you. How long do you think it would take to form an ethnic group or any genetically sharply defined group? Hardly any time at all. A few generations of geographic and reproductive isolation will do it just fine. Both natural selection and migration of people into regions where their genetic capacities could handle the environment can explain all of this. Give it all a mere few hundred years and you'll have genetically and ethnically very distinct groups. By creationist assumptions there was far greater genetic richness the farther back you go. Many repeated splittings and migrations, all processes of selection and migration and reproductive isolation and so on, reduce this richness a great deal over many incidents of same, and that is what makes in-breeding a problem. NOW if you separated out say a dozen people at random to live in isolation you would breed in a horrible number of diseases in a few generations.

Yes.

Assume great genetic potential in the originals of all living things, that is gradually reduced over the generations, and especially reduced by population splits and reproductive isolation of many groups that migrate off into their own geographic locations. We assume great genetic potential still existed in Noah and his family -- they were still living hundreds of years in those days, demonstrating great health and vigor still strong in the human race. So that the beginning of all human beings from that point, from those few people, was not a problem. It becomes a problem hundreds of years later though, and is very much a problem now, as diseases have multiplied greatly since then.

You don't have to assume great differences among the sons of Noah and their wives, though there could have been, since genetic diversity in any couple would have been much greater in those days, leading to much more variety in offspring. We assume far greater genetic potential so that all those varieties would have been expressed simply in the processes of migration and reproductive/genetic isolation of the different groups.