|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution and the extinction of dinos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
All in Genesis?
I was merely questioning the target of the flood, only to find that god basically changes his mind at the last minute and selects one human family and a bunch of animals to survive. God commands Noah to take a pair of ALL flesh though ... so surely he meant Noah to take all those Dino. species with him too. Maybe the Ark wasn't big enough so Noah skipped a few and hoped no-one would notice. I ... I think I may have wandered off thread there -- sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I'll let wiki explain.
quote:Source Check out Genesis 6:19-20 and compare it to 7:2-3. Can this be the same story? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I see what you mean, although I think in the version I just looked chapter 7 says to take the clean animals in sevens (the male and his females) rather than seven pairs, but anyhow not exactly the same as chapter 6.
The same is true of genesis 1 & 2 BTW. Maybe it's like the radio news: they run through the highlights then go over the same stories again with a little more detail From my PoV it is perfectly acceptable to consider that he bible is an amalgamation of different stories handed down in different tribes before finally being written down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Peter writes: All in Genesis? I was merely questioning the target of the flood, only to find that god basically changes his mind at the last minute and selects one human family and a bunch of animals to survive. God commands Noah to take a pair of ALL flesh though ... so surely he meant Noah to take all those Dino. species with him too. Maybe the Ark wasn't big enough so Noah skipped a few and hoped no-one would notice. I ... I think I may have wandered off thread there -- sorry. Yes all creatures on the dry land were taken. The clean by seven pairs and the unclean by one pair. After the flood one of the pair of the clean were sacrificed.So the world was populated by the six clean and one unclean. A line of reasoning. Did this ratio represent the pre-flood world. Was the pre-flood world dominated by the clean animals or was it 50/50 or was it the opposite with a unclean domination. In fact this question could of been asked at any time in history. Therefore only the chance to examine the pre-flood world could answer this question. We can do that today. The fossil record shows from the flood, as we see it, that the pre-flood world was a unclean dominance. It included the dinos in this. After the flood it became a clean dominance. I'm presuming "mammals' are largely clean. In fact the reason for the ratio can be speculated to have included at least a design to make the post flood world very different in fauna. After the flood the unclean kinds didn't survive ,largely, on land or sea. Every fits fine with biblical creationist models.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Robert Byers writes:
Robert, I’m confused. Is your position that animal diversity can change the appearance of animals to the point they’re unrecognizable with their ancestors? If so, it would seem you’re some breed of Darwinian-creo?
Then it must be remembered that it was only post flood diversity that brought the modern type of creatures as is. before the flood there was no rabbits but simply the rabbit was of a kind that isn't recognized or found in the record. And so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Trae writes: Robert Byers writes:
Robert, I’m confused. Is your position that animal diversity can change the appearance of animals to the point they’re unrecognizable with their ancestors? If so, it would seem you’re some breed of Darwinian-creo? Then it must be remembered that it was only post flood diversity that brought the modern type of creatures as is. before the flood there was no rabbits but simply the rabbit was of a kind that isn't recognized or found in the record. And so on. The evidence is clear that creatures have changed from original looks.To us the original look was a kind. Yet at the fall the kinds changed greatly. The example in the bible is the snake. It lost its legs and probably was a tall beautiful creature. After the fall and the flood creatures can change to some extent but i guess would be recognizable if one knew the original look.For example i'm confident bats are only post flood rodent creatures that found a empty sky. They have wings but still look like rodents. I say seals are just bears. They look alike somewhat but there is a difference. Diversity is fine and welcome as long as it stays within kinds. Its possible one would not recognize anything in the world before the FALL however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Ok firstly what are kinds some definition please
Lets say cats are a kind do they include tigers, pumas, lions ... or only the small cats, does this kind incloude its distant cousin dogs or are they anoter kind. In the same respect are the human kind only humans or do they include apes too what about monkeys ?
I say seals are just bears. umm so this
belongs to the same kind as
umm what then are the boundaries of a kind ? Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Byres writes: I say seals are just bears. They look alike somewhat but there is a difference. That is the one of the most far out things I have heard in long time, one for the peanut gallery.Would you like to provide any evidence of this, what you think means absolutely nothing. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
frako writes:
umm what then are the boundaries of a kind ? The Bible lists a few animals as kinds. Other than that and the absolute prohibition against the man kind as including any thing non-man, there are no boundaries. Presumably that there are few enough kinds to fit on a big boat, but a large enough quantity of kinds to explain the current genetic diversity. I would not presume that Byers has any special ability to interpret the Bible. What he's good at is denying that evolution happens while some kind of goofy quick adaption (e.g., seal to bear) does happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Robert,
Thanks for the explanation. I was just surprised to see anyone use kind in a way that allowed the appearance of an animal to change to the point that it wouldn’t be recognizable in the fossil record. I don’t really have any other questions since it seems there really isn’t any framework that would be objective. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on?
If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more). Your post suggest you are happy with the fossil record as a source of chronology of species, in which case why are there no human remains alongside dinos if they co-existed? Some dinos were about man-sized so hydro-dynamic sorting won't wash there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Which is good or some would be looking for the fossil for:
Other than that and the absolute prohibition against the man kind as including any thing non-man, there are no boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
The research on boundaries would be a lot.
Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide. It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise. Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Peter writes: Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on? If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more). Your post suggest you are happy with the fossil record as a source of chronology of species, in which case why are there no human remains alongside dinos if they co-existed? Some dinos were about man-sized so hydro-dynamic sorting won't wash there. Nothing to do with kosher.The fossil record simply indicates the creatures living at the time that area with its sediment/life within was fossilized. The areas that have fossils need only be seen as special segments of the world at that time. so just the wilderness areas and not close to humans. likewise the humans lived in areas overcome and changed by the sediment loads or separation of the continents. I never expect or want to find humans living with these great assemblages of creatures. Dino fossils are from the wilderness areas on the old earth. For the record i don't accept there are dinos. Rather there are just kinds and some kinds had like features. they just define the creatures by the few like features. Just as their are no such groups as mammals or reptiles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Robert Byers writes: The research on boundaries would be a lot.Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide. It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise. Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in. The research on boundaries would be a lot. Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide. It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise. Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in. How would you like it if your physician's definition of disease was 'well it's sorta like smallpox and it's sorta like cholera so I will treat you for both or neither, your call.' How would you like it if some unknown engineer said 'well it's sorta like Newton but it's sorta like harmonically vibrating so it will be OK.' How would you like it if some preacher said 'well it's not actually in the Bible but you have to believe in it because it sounds good to you and my personal desires.' Well, perhaps it is time to tell the truth, to yourself as well as others. Edited by anglagard, : title misspeling The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024