reply to post by halfoldman
All of these flightless birds are related. It's feasible that they developed as unique species after some event parted them.
Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!, page 1
privacy
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 02:58 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by Clearskies
Could be - although he mentions "young earth creationists" who believe this all happened withing the last 6000 years. Accordingly such "hyper-evolution" would have had to be super fast.
Could be - although he mentions "young earth creationists" who believe this all happened withing the last 6000 years. Accordingly such "hyper-evolution" would have had to be super fast.
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 03:30 AM by trailertrash
reply to post by halfoldman
I've asked the Christians about that sort of thing and what I usually get for an answer is a moment of silence during which they appear to be thinking of an answer then:
"Oh God brought all those animals to us so we could put them on the ark".
I guess that settles it.
And these are the people who say "evolution is only a theory" !!!!!!
I've asked the Christians about that sort of thing and what I usually get for an answer is a moment of silence during which they appear to be thinking of an answer then:
"Oh God brought all those animals to us so we could put them on the ark".
I guess that settles it.
And these are the people who say "evolution is only a theory" !!!!!!
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 03:34 AM by backinblack
reply to post by halfoldman
I read that the great flood only affected "their world" not the true world..
Their world was their known region..
I read that the great flood only affected "their world" not the true world..
Their world was their known region..
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 04:28 AM by pshea38
reply to post by ArgentumAquila
''So, just to restate stuff, every kind of creature, though I do assume that some of them did change and alter over the years to give us other types of birds and animals that were not there in the beginning.''
Hang on. That means you accept a form of evolution. But creationism asserts that God created each and every species seperately and to be immutable. We can't have it both ways, can we?
''So, just to restate stuff, every kind of creature, though I do assume that some of them did change and alter over the years to give us other types of birds and animals that were not there in the beginning.''
Hang on. That means you accept a form of evolution. But creationism asserts that God created each and every species seperately and to be immutable. We can't have it both ways, can we?
edit on 14-3-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 05:26 AM by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by halfoldman
First of all, no one said the earth was made 6000 years ago. That is a biased assumption on your behalf.
My stance is this....no one knows the age of the earth.
I agree with this
www.bibletruths.net...
First of all, no one said the earth was made 6000 years ago. That is a biased assumption on your behalf.
My stance is this....no one knows the age of the earth.
I agree with this
The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).
The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.
There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old.
www.bibletruths.net...
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 05:34 AM by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by halfoldman
No contradiction here.
The clean beasts entered by sevens and unclean went by twos. Genesis 6:19 indicates Noah was to take two of every sort. Then four verses later is a supplemental verse informing Noah in a more detailed manner to take MORE clean animals. This was necessary because Noah was to built and altar to the Lord and offer burnt offerings (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing, he would have driven various kinds of animals into extinction.
Seriously, try harder. You're not very good at trolling. My apologetics are rusty but this is still the same ole stuff I always encounter.
A2D
How many of each animal did Noah take?
Depends, the narrative comes from at least two older sources. there is also a dispute as to how long it lasted, 40 days, or 150 days (Genesis 8:3).
Some verses say a male and a female of every sort.
However, Genesis 7: 1-4 deviates from the Sunday School assumptions: a pair of unclean beasts, but seven pairs of clean beasts, and seven of each kind of "fowl of the air" (not sure whether that includes flightless birds like the Moa or Ostrich).
No contradiction here.
The clean beasts entered by sevens and unclean went by twos. Genesis 6:19 indicates Noah was to take two of every sort. Then four verses later is a supplemental verse informing Noah in a more detailed manner to take MORE clean animals. This was necessary because Noah was to built and altar to the Lord and offer burnt offerings (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing, he would have driven various kinds of animals into extinction.
Seriously, try harder. You're not very good at trolling. My apologetics are rusty but this is still the same ole stuff I always encounter.
A2D
edit on 14-3-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 06:12 AM by tinfoilman
reply to post by halfoldman
He didn't need to bring every species of animal. The word species isn't in the Bible and isn't used in the Bible. He just needed to bring some animals for religious and farming reasons and different "kinds" of animals, not species.
Gensis 6:20 "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." God can command the animals as well.
We don't know exactly what the Bible means by "kinds". But we're almost certain it's not the same as species. For example, 1000 different species of birds could be the same kind of bird. So he would of only had to bring 2 birds to represent all those species and not 2000 different birds.
Some people have studied it and put the number of animals as low as 2,000 animals, but found that the Ark could of have at least 20,000 animals on it. The Ark story is actually told twice in the Bible though. Actually just about everything dealing with creation is listed twice in Genesis.
the first version says every animal and people latch on to that, but the first telling may just be a summary. In the second telling he just has to bring animals found on the clean and unclean animal list. Animal List <- not the best source, but close enough to see what we're dealing with. And the Ark wouldn't have sea animals on it. I'm sure they'd be fine, what with all the water and all.
Also. we know new species can form in as little as 10 to 20 years when they're geographically separated from each other or when other conditions arrive. Like when mating with hybrids or other animals of the same species, but from other geographical locations. Like when they're all put on a boat together.
After the flood the animals could have spread out and started evolving again to their new environments pretty quickly when compared to traditional evolution. When the environment changes, evolution tends to speed up. For example, given a different environment, bacteria can evolve into a new species in a month or so, and viruses can evolve in a matter of hours. After a world wide flood. You could have been looking at the biggest evolution party ever thrown. Water in places there wasn't water before. Deserts in places there wasn't deserts before. Stuff like that.
Many species we have now may have just come from the animals on the ark.
Now, to address the video you posted. The person in the video is actually asking the question backwards! The question isn't how the flightless bird got to the ark. The question is, how did it get to New Zealand if it's flightless?
The answer is simple. First off all the bird was going extinct. That was the last place that the bird was found before it went extinct. But that's not fair to claim that's the only location it inhabited during the specie's entire life span. When the Ark was being built, perhaps the animal could be found in other locations as well.
Also, another explination is obviously since the bird is wingless, it must have evolved from some winged bird at some point. Perhaps the winged bird it evolved from came from the Ark. If you study the fossil record you will indeed see that the Moa evolved from a winged bird.
But, I don't really believe in the Ark story anyway. The flood story or Deluge story is older than the Bible. Going back to here Sumerian Flood story and then many other flood stories. Flood myths and going back further before written language actually. The flood story existed long before we even knew how to write stuff down. So, we don't know where it started. There's probably a cave drawing of it done by some neanderthal somewhere if all were known.
Most flood stories are probably rewrites of some original flood story. Before writing stuff down, it was told verbally from person to person. What I can gather is there was probably some sort of flood. Some guy took some supplies he needed to survive on a boat with him. Got off and after seeing the destruction had thought the whole world was destroyed. Told a story about it, and somehow along the way we ended up with Noah's Ark as the final draft.
However, the interesting thing is this. If you study geology and the fossil record you'll find something interesting. New Zealand is believed to be a land mass that broke off Antarctica and is believed to have been totally or almost totally submerged some millions of years ago. After it dried off, Moa fossils start to show up. Right after the flood! Of course that was millions of years ago, but kinda makes one think considering the topic at hand.
Anyway, Genesis is messed up. If you read it carefully you'll see it's almost like two separate books by two different authors were put together. Everything is written twice, but written two different ways with two different sets of facts. It's almost like the book was put together by committee and not any kind of word of God. In one part he needs every kind of animal. In another he only needs the animals off the clean and unclean list. In one version he needs to bring two of each animal. All of a sudden, turn the page and then it says he needs to bring 7 of each animal. WTF?
I'm not sure it really belongs in the Bible. I think what it's trying to tell us, strangely enough, is not actually what it says. Like there's some underlying encoded meaning behind Genesis or parts of Genesis. Maybe something that could help us understand other parts of the Bible, but not anything to really be taken literally.
And I'm not a creationist and also don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Mainly because in certain spots I don't even understand what it's saying. I have some ideas, but in the end how can you agree or disagree with a literal interpretation of something you don't understand? That just wouldn't make sense.
I'm just pointing out details on the topic that people usually skip over. Like how did he get every animal on the boat? Well maybe he didn't have to. It's a pretty complicated topic since we're missing information we need to make a decision. Like what exactly is a "kind"? Dunno, couldn't tell ya. All we know is it's not the same as species, but that's about it. So why argue about it?
He didn't need to bring every species of animal. The word species isn't in the Bible and isn't used in the Bible. He just needed to bring some animals for religious and farming reasons and different "kinds" of animals, not species.
Gensis 6:20 "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." God can command the animals as well.
We don't know exactly what the Bible means by "kinds". But we're almost certain it's not the same as species. For example, 1000 different species of birds could be the same kind of bird. So he would of only had to bring 2 birds to represent all those species and not 2000 different birds.
Some people have studied it and put the number of animals as low as 2,000 animals, but found that the Ark could of have at least 20,000 animals on it. The Ark story is actually told twice in the Bible though. Actually just about everything dealing with creation is listed twice in Genesis.
the first version says every animal and people latch on to that, but the first telling may just be a summary. In the second telling he just has to bring animals found on the clean and unclean animal list. Animal List <- not the best source, but close enough to see what we're dealing with. And the Ark wouldn't have sea animals on it. I'm sure they'd be fine, what with all the water and all.
Also. we know new species can form in as little as 10 to 20 years when they're geographically separated from each other or when other conditions arrive. Like when mating with hybrids or other animals of the same species, but from other geographical locations. Like when they're all put on a boat together.
After the flood the animals could have spread out and started evolving again to their new environments pretty quickly when compared to traditional evolution. When the environment changes, evolution tends to speed up. For example, given a different environment, bacteria can evolve into a new species in a month or so, and viruses can evolve in a matter of hours. After a world wide flood. You could have been looking at the biggest evolution party ever thrown. Water in places there wasn't water before. Deserts in places there wasn't deserts before. Stuff like that.
Many species we have now may have just come from the animals on the ark.
Now, to address the video you posted. The person in the video is actually asking the question backwards! The question isn't how the flightless bird got to the ark. The question is, how did it get to New Zealand if it's flightless?
The answer is simple. First off all the bird was going extinct. That was the last place that the bird was found before it went extinct. But that's not fair to claim that's the only location it inhabited during the specie's entire life span. When the Ark was being built, perhaps the animal could be found in other locations as well.
Also, another explination is obviously since the bird is wingless, it must have evolved from some winged bird at some point. Perhaps the winged bird it evolved from came from the Ark. If you study the fossil record you will indeed see that the Moa evolved from a winged bird.
But, I don't really believe in the Ark story anyway. The flood story or Deluge story is older than the Bible. Going back to here Sumerian Flood story and then many other flood stories. Flood myths and going back further before written language actually. The flood story existed long before we even knew how to write stuff down. So, we don't know where it started. There's probably a cave drawing of it done by some neanderthal somewhere if all were known.
Most flood stories are probably rewrites of some original flood story. Before writing stuff down, it was told verbally from person to person. What I can gather is there was probably some sort of flood. Some guy took some supplies he needed to survive on a boat with him. Got off and after seeing the destruction had thought the whole world was destroyed. Told a story about it, and somehow along the way we ended up with Noah's Ark as the final draft.
However, the interesting thing is this. If you study geology and the fossil record you'll find something interesting. New Zealand is believed to be a land mass that broke off Antarctica and is believed to have been totally or almost totally submerged some millions of years ago. After it dried off, Moa fossils start to show up. Right after the flood! Of course that was millions of years ago, but kinda makes one think considering the topic at hand.
Anyway, Genesis is messed up. If you read it carefully you'll see it's almost like two separate books by two different authors were put together. Everything is written twice, but written two different ways with two different sets of facts. It's almost like the book was put together by committee and not any kind of word of God. In one part he needs every kind of animal. In another he only needs the animals off the clean and unclean list. In one version he needs to bring two of each animal. All of a sudden, turn the page and then it says he needs to bring 7 of each animal. WTF?
I'm not sure it really belongs in the Bible. I think what it's trying to tell us, strangely enough, is not actually what it says. Like there's some underlying encoded meaning behind Genesis or parts of Genesis. Maybe something that could help us understand other parts of the Bible, but not anything to really be taken literally.
And I'm not a creationist and also don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Mainly because in certain spots I don't even understand what it's saying. I have some ideas, but in the end how can you agree or disagree with a literal interpretation of something you don't understand? That just wouldn't make sense.
I'm just pointing out details on the topic that people usually skip over. Like how did he get every animal on the boat? Well maybe he didn't have to. It's a pretty complicated topic since we're missing information we need to make a decision. Like what exactly is a "kind"? Dunno, couldn't tell ya. All we know is it's not the same as species, but that's about it. So why argue about it?
edit on 14-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason
given)
edit on 14-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 06:18 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
How exactly am I trolling?
I don't know why you felt it necessary to throw a personal insult into an otherwise solid point and opinion.
Pity.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's trolling.
Jeez, apologies that "my assumption" on the earth being 6000 years old according to young earth creationists (based on watching Christian programs, like Carl Baugh) was out by 1000 years, according to your own quote:
How exactly am I trolling?
I don't know why you felt it necessary to throw a personal insult into an otherwise solid point and opinion.
Pity.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's trolling.
Jeez, apologies that "my assumption" on the earth being 6000 years old according to young earth creationists (based on watching Christian programs, like Carl Baugh) was out by 1000 years, according to your own quote:
here are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old.
edit on 14-3-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 14-3-2011 @ 06:36 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by Slipdig1
No, I think that's quite plausible, and many myths refer to such a localized flood.
However, I'm not sure the Biblical literalists would agree.
They have their own form of "archeology", and argue they have proof of people living with dinosaurs in the Americas and elsewhere before the flood.
It figures that God flooded the whole earth because the wicked humans were everywhere.
But yeah, for me personally that's OK.
No, I think that's quite plausible, and many myths refer to such a localized flood.
However, I'm not sure the Biblical literalists would agree.
They have their own form of "archeology", and argue they have proof of people living with dinosaurs in the Americas and elsewhere before the flood.
It figures that God flooded the whole earth because the wicked humans were everywhere.
But yeah, for me personally that's OK.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Man enters court Tony Blair hearing screaming "War criminal and JP Morgan paid him to go to war"
Breaking Political News: 12 minutes ago
Breaking Political News: 12 minutes ago
Fallout food; Food that WON'T kill us!!! Food that's NOT poisoned!!!
General Conspiracies: 16 minutes ago
General Conspiracies: 16 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Was Jesus a Greek-Phoenician Philosopher? A hidden book, revealed…
Conspiracies in Religions: 15 hours ago, 23 flags
Conspiracies in Religions: 15 hours ago, 23 flags
Illinois illegally seizes bees resistant to Roundup; kills remaining queens
Fragile Earth: 7 hours ago, 21 flags
Fragile Earth: 7 hours ago, 21 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Spirit Animal Guides Mine is Raven, what is yours?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 6 hours ago, 66 replies
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 6 hours ago, 66 replies
How long would a footprint stay visible on the surface of the moon?
Space Exploration: 16 hours ago, 65 replies
Space Exploration: 16 hours ago, 65 replies
German elite are discussing various scenarios involving the use of force to ensure control over Gree
Global Meltdown: 15 hours ago, 64 replies
Global Meltdown: 15 hours ago, 64 replies
Was Jesus a Greek-Phoenician Philosopher? A hidden book, revealed…
Conspiracies in Religions: 15 hours ago, 49 replies
Conspiracies in Religions: 15 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.287 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.287 seconds
