LookingForAnswers Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2014 They were not on the ark, most likely. Remember that Noah only took two of each kind, not two of each species. Many species we know of today were probably not even in existence at that time. So it is likely that many of the animals we are familiar with today were not actually on the ark, but their ancestors were and it was from those ancestors that we have the many modern species alive today. What is the process that it would take for a flying bird in the middle east to become the flightless bird in the South Pole? Could you go through the steps that would be necessary for this to happen and how long each change would take? No, I can't explain that process. I don't need to, either. Micro-evolution shouldn't be a problem for you, as we know it takes place within a given kind/species. Yes, we know that micro evolution takes place. We have seen it. But from what we have observed, it would take more than a couple thousand years for such a change to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Is there a good explanation for how marine life fared in the flood conditions? Wouldn't saline water animals be devastated by an onslaught of fresh water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 From RTB... A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man. So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point. This is one of those times when knowing Hebrew is valuable. The article is wrong. The word "nephesh" doesn't appear in the flood account, not a single time. The word "basar" is used but in a general sense and refers to all living breathing things. God told Noah the end of all flesh (basar) had come before Him. There is no mention in the text of a division beween "nephesh" animals and "basar" animals. That is simply incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 Is there a good explanation for how marine life fared in the flood conditions? Wouldn't saline water animals be devastated by an onslaught of fresh water? Yes, the fountains of the GREAT DEEP.....the Minerals coming from the Earth's crust. However, I'm no Marine Biologist. We could ask George Costanza, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Just this...Remember that Heavy Homework we talked about on the other board? This applies here. I would like to assign you some homework as well, but I'll be specific. Please read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. I've read your book at least 2 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Yes, we know that micro evolution takes place. We have seen it. But from what we have observed, it would take more than a couple thousand years for such a change to take place. ~ Micro-Evolution (Valence In A Kind) Happens And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. Genesis 4:20 Every Time Bos indicus Sahiwal Cattle Are Crossbred With Exotic Bos taurus Cattle And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24 To Produce A Cow With Superior Milk Shakes And World-Class Steaks And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25 Yet Micro-Evolution Has Never Produced An Evolutionist And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Genesis 4:21 Or A Bible Believer So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 Hum Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 You'd Think With All Of Those Billions And Billions Of Years In The Past We Would See Just One Turnip Turn Into A Roasting Hen Or An Olympic Discus Thrower Turn Into An Orca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I would like to assign you some homework as well, but I'll be specific. Please read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. I've read your book at least 2 times. ~ Wow~! Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5 Nothing Fishy Here Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. Jeremiah 17:7 Secondly, Tiktaalik’s head, as in amphibians, is not connected to the shoulder girdle. In fish the head, shoulder girdle and circulatory system constitute a single mechanical unit. A change from this would require the head to become incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle with functional intermediates at every stage. None are known. Thirdly, paleontologists have placed the evolution of limbs connecting fish and reptiles in a proposed sequence which sounds impressive: Glyptolepis—Sauripterus—Eusthenopteron—Panderichthys—Tiktaalik—Acanthostega—Ichthyostega—Tulerpeton. But these extinct fossil creatures differ considerably among themselves and are not an obvious evolving sequence. Their order is doubtful. Panderichthys ‘dated’ earlier than its supposed predecessor Eusthenopteron. Acanthostega’s skull is more tetrapod-like than Ichthyostega’s while the latter’s shoulder and hips are more robust and land-animal-like than Acanthostega. Fourthly, all calculations of evolution depend on the assumption of a multi-million-year old Earth to allow time for it to work. But there is now increasing evidence of a much younger Earth. To summarize, Tiktaalik appears to be a unique creature which has both amphibian and fish-like features. It must have been one of a mosaic of fauna living in an area described by Shubin as ‘a shallow stream surrounded by large seasonal mud flats’ under warm conditions before the Flood. http://creation.com/review-neil-shubin-your-inner-fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2014 From RTB... A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man. So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point. This is one of those times when knowing Hebrew is valuable. The article is wrong. The word "nephesh" doesn't appear in the flood account, not a single time. The word "basar" is used but in a general sense and refers to all living breathing things. God told Noah the end of all flesh (basar) had come before Him. There is no mention in the text of a division beween "nephesh" animals and "basar" animals. That is simply incorrect. It is used in the flood account, it is used in Chapter 9 when God is speaking of the animals that were on the ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2014 Yes, we know that micro evolution takes place. We have seen it. But from what we have observed, it would take more than a couple thousand years for such a change to take place. ~ Micro-Evolution (Valence In A Kind) Happens And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. Genesis 4:20 Every Time Bos indicus Sahiwal Cattle Are Crossbred With Exotic Bos taurus Cattle And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24 To Produce A Cow With Superior Milk Shakes And World-Class Steaks And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25 Yet Micro-Evolution Has Never Produced An Evolutionist And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Genesis 4:21 Or A Bible Believer So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 Hum Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 You'd Think With All Of Those Billions And Billions Of Years In The Past We Would See Just One Turnip Turn Into A Roasting Hen Or An Olympic Discus Thrower Turn Into An Orca I am not looking for micro evolution to produce an evolutionist, I am looking for the process that would take a dove to a penguin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 From RTB... A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man. So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point. This is one of those times when knowing Hebrew is valuable. The article is wrong. The word "nephesh" doesn't appear in the flood account, not a single time. The word "basar" is used but in a general sense and refers to all living breathing things. God told Noah the end of all flesh (basar) had come before Him. There is no mention in the text of a division beween "nephesh" animals and "basar" animals. That is simply incorrect. It is used in the flood account, it is used in Chapter 9 when God is speaking of the animals that were on the ark. Genesis 9 is post flood, actually. But, whatever... It doesn't say that Noah took only "nephesh" animals on the ark. RTB makes a false dichotomy between nephesh and basar. Basar is not a separate kind of life from nephesh. Basar and nephesh are both general terms for all living breathing creatures including human beings. That is how both words are used in the text. Pretty sloppy theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts