By creative counting.
Why do you think "black" and "white" people are not called different species, when in animal kingdom similar difference would mean different species?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Noah's Ark
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Why do you think "black" and "white" people are not called different species, when in animal kingdom similar difference would mean different species?
If people can believe that from Noah's family we have the variety of people that we can see nowadays, why would it be difficult to accept that in animal families similar differentiation has happened?
The crucial thing is, in Biblical point of view, everything was good when it was created. Then it started to become corrupted, or degenerate. All that we can see in nature supports the idea of degeneration. And nothing supports the opposite, that things would develop, become more complex, as the evolution theory suggests.
If the evolution theory would be true, we should see things become more complex, single cell organisms evolving to organisms that have legs, eyes and other complex systems. All we can see is DNA getting more errors, "whales losing their legs"... ...this means, it could easily be that in the ark there was about 460 animal families and their offspring has deteriorated to this variety that we now can see. And the speed of deteriorating seems to be increasing.
It is a proposal that has no basis given the alleged duration since the alleged event.
Environmental impacts that require millions of years condensed down into a few thousand would be a catastrophe greater than that of the allegorical flood story.
It doesn't make any sense based on the evidence.
Tamino
Active Member
I really don't get how people can accept rapid diversification and speciation in some areas, and deny evolution as a whole.
Your "rapid multiplication and diversification from a single pair" is far less likely and plausible.
I don't think that raising bear cubs on cows milk while simultaneously caring for thousands of other animals is feasible. It appears to be a quite complex process: Bear Milk, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
If you want the bears to survive in the story, your god can just put them in an artificial hibernation state. I mean, why don't you just claim divine intervention and all the animals where teleported to the ark and put into a stasis during the flood? Because any other explanations I've heard of "how that worked" are naive and illogical.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Bamboo makes up 99% of the food they eat. Yes, they eat other things as well, but without bamboo they die
Were there no monophagous animals before the flood? How do animals go from being omnivorous to eating only one thing or else they die within the span of thousands of years? Do we have examples of this happening in the real world?
Laniakea
Not of this world
They could, but then the offspring wouldn't still be black or white as we still have today.
There are 3 main "races" of humans, and there were 3 sons of Noah.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No "races" arose after man left Africa. Dark skin protects against UV. But we also need Vitamin D. And dark skin interferes with that. So moving away from the equator meant that protection from skin cancer was not as important as making Vitamin D. We lost our dark pigmentation.
And did you read about cheetahs at all? I gave you a paper on them. If our population had ever been that small transplants would be easy. They are actually quite difficult.
All of the sciences tell us that there never was a flood. You know the silly claim that the sedimentary rocks are from the flood? We can endlessly show that to be wrong. I can show that to be wrong with a single picture:
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
Were Amphicyonidae the bear kind, or the dog kind?
Actually, by what I know, what one eats, can affect on the microbes one has, and it can influence to what one "could eat". If you would eat only one food, eventually it would be more difficult for you to start eating something else, because your microbe system would not be adapted to it.
I don't believe Pandas would die without bamboo.
For example change of color is very small diversification. I have no problem in believing that. If one would claim that one develops for example an eye, that would be a very different matter.
I think most of the animals would have survived easily without and care taking.
Good point, bears could hibernate, it does not require any magic.
Tamino
Active Member
And where would you draw that line between small diversification that you believe, and big changes you don't? Because no such line has been found in nature.
For 371 days in a small confined space, without harming any others? I find that unlikely.
Bears don't spontaneously hibernate for an entire year.
Audie
Veteran Member
Those to whom you keep showing
this photo do not have the capacity
to understand it.
I reckon he daisy-chained it, like the woman in the song who started out swallowing a fly, ‘cept it was the ark what done the ‘swallowing’. Gnat to spider to bird, all the way to seal/penguin (what do polar bears eat?) via fish and hey presto you’ve enticed a polar bear to the Fertile Crescent. Yes, that’s definitely how it happened.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Not sure how you can believe pandas wouldn't die without bamboo when they are currently dying out due primarily to their food source, bamboo forests, shrinking. Can you show me examples of pandas in captivity being fed anything besides bamboo for long periods of time and surviving? This is essentially what we are talking about in an ark scenario
You've keyed on pretty keenly to pandas though, but there are far more monophagous animals with much less ability to diversify their diets than pandas. So again I'd ask: Were there no monophagous animals before the flood? How do animals go from being omnivorous to eating only one thing or else they die within the span of thousands of years? Do we have examples of this happening in the real world?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Oh?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And worse yet they do not want to learn. Creationists are afraid to learn.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Dude, you're the one who showed the photo.
So you're claiming that it's you that does not want to learn.