Noah's Flood and Evolution (on steroids)

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Do you think that verse 22 is explicit enough to rule out any gas exchange that does not involved a diaphragm, lungs, and physical nostrils? Would it be plausible for spiracles to be considered nostrils? What about arachnid "book lungs"? And if insects were not included in the animal population of the ark, how would you explain their survival during a global flood?

Ancient Hebrew is certainly not my strong suit, but how do you interpret "nephesh chayyah" as something that requires blood? I'm not attempting to refute it, I'm just asking for knowledge.

 

Gen 7:22 mentions breath and nostrils. I think it is reasonable to assume "physical nostrils" (as opposed to allegorical nostrils). The nephesh are explicitly linked to blood in Gen 9:4 and Lev 17:11. Lev 17:11 explains that the shedding of blood/life is necessary for atonement. This is why the sacrifice of animals could provide temporary atonement for sin. Gen 2:19-20 define the nephesh chayah as cattle, birds and beasts of the field. Nephesh is not used of invertebrates (inc. insects) or plants.

It is therefore important in your analysis of the numbers, to determine if invertebrates were included in the Feasibility Study providing you with the 16,000 species number. Because if they reach the same conclusions as me, then you can't represent the claim as evolving 16,000 into 1-1.5 million species.

Apart from insects on the ark, they could have survived on floating debris, and possibly within small pockets of air inside sunken debris. Some small insects can live on the surface of water.

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think it is reasonable to assume "physical nostrils"

"Physical" was not the best word choice on my part. What I mean is, could this not also refer to insect spiracles? It would make sense that the ancient Hebrew concept of "nostril" would be different from our modern usage of the word.

 

20 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Apart from insects on the ark, they could have survived on floating debris, and possibly within small pockets of air inside sunken debris. Some small insects can live on the surface of water.

I'm not claiming all insects died, but certainly there must have been some extensive extinction. The global flood would have been extremely violent, no safe environment for water-striders.

[one.opinion]

Also, what criteria would you use to distinguish hemolymph from blood? Is it a closed circulatory system that defines "blood"? It seems as though there is a lot of interpretation that really isn't supported by the language of the Biblical passage.

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Also, what criteria would you use to distinguish hemolymph from blood? Is it a closed circulatory system that defines "blood"? It seems as though there is a lot of interpretation that really isn't supported by the language of the Biblical passage.

Well, I would consider characterising spiracles as nostrils and and haemolymph as blood to also be a stretch. The reality is, when it comes to claims about the past, I can't take you back in time to show you what really took place. Therefore you can't expect absolutes beyond the detail provided by scripture. That means, when you ask such a question about my position, you are asking me how I reconcile lines of argument/evidence with my position; in this case, can I reconcile a claim about 16,000 species on the ark with the 1 million plus extant species described today - given the rates of speciation required over the time period? Whilst the 16,000 claim is not really mine to reconcile, the answer is still yes, if the 16,000 species claim only included what is contained in the details of Genesis (i.e. excluded aquatic creatures and invertebrates). If that is the case, the rates of "evolutionary change" required isn't nearly as remarkable as the opening post suggests.

I have provided reasons, mainly based on scriptural use of terminology, why I wouldn't include insects in my estimates for what was on the ark. But I am only assuming the author of the Feasibility Study came to similar conclusions based on similar examination of the language. It would have been more convenient for this argument if more detail was provided in the original account, but I can only formulate an argument around the information I have. In this case, there is easily enough evidence in scripture to make a rational defense of my position.

Blood is not haemolymph and spiracles are not nostrils. I'm sure a google search could reveal the technical differences if you feel that is necessary for my case - I don't. Scripture, of course, doesn't talk about spiracles or haemolymph, and therefore makes no attempt to distinguish them from nostrils and blood. But you were never under any obligation to accept my views either way. And my only obligation was to provide a rational answer to the challenge of your question; i.e. to logically reconcile the challenge contained in your question, not to make you believe what I believe.

 

" I'm not claiming all insects died, but certainly there must have been some extensive extinction "

Billions of insects likely perished in the flood. Insects have a remarkable capacity for survival. The bible tells us that God preserved the broad "kinds" of animals on the ark, though many subgroups (i.e. what we would term species) likely went extinct. I suspect the same is true of insects - which is to say, I have no idea how "extensive" was the "extinction" rate of insects (though the death toll of individuals would have been enormous).

 

" The global flood would have been extremely violent, no safe environment for water-striders "

In such a stupendously massive system, I don't think you can assume homogeneity of conditions throughout. Nevertheless I provided, in my answer, a range of possibilities that could account for the survival of "water-striders".

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Well, I would consider characterising spiracles as nostrils and and haemolymph as blood to also be a stretch.

Oh certainly, I just don't know where the "cut-off" line would be for such things. Any sort of distinction could not accurately be attributed to Biblical teaching.

[Bonky]

21 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Now... drain the pool. 

A year later....yeah do that and see if you get a garden.

 

[Enoch2021]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You are making my point for me, but that's ok, I guess. You have zero intention of listening to a word I say. Referring to "change in allele frequency", I say it is easily observed. One post your response is:

I respond with:

And you somehow completely change your tune to:

You are so determined to refute everything I write that you refute yourself. I gave it a good shot, but you are just impossible to converse with when you set your mind to avoiding it.

What in the World is this ^^^^ ??  Goodness your position is Bankrupt.

 

Quote

You are making my point for me

Really...How so?  What was your point, save for the fallacies, specifically?

 

Quote

You have zero intention of listening to a word I say.

1.  Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy.

2.  Yes, that's why I'm quoting each of your trainwrecks and responding to each specifically and repeatedly. 

 

Quote

Referring to "change in allele frequency", I say it is easily observed.

And AGAIN:

one.opinion:  "The Young Earth Creationists that propose this rapidly expanding balloon of speciation are perfectly fine with this aspect of evolution, after all, it is easily observed."

As we can clearly see, you Incoherently Shoehorned in that Fairytale 'evolution'!!   ... As in this "Aspect of evolution... is EASILY OBSERVED".

That dog doesn't hunt here!  Change in Allele Frequency DOES NOT (and Never Will) = Fairytale 'evolution'.

 

Quote

And you somehow completely change your tune to:

I never "Changed My Tune"   Besides pointing out your Fallacious Arguments, it's been Change in Allele Frequency the entire time.

 

Quote

You are so determined to refute everything I write that you refute yourself.

It's really easy, as Explained and Illustrated...

Your entire argument "Dish" is a Main Course Fairytale ('evolution')...decorated with a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Rubber Ruler ('Species') Garnish.

 

Quote

I gave it a good shot

 

Quote

but you are just impossible to converse with when you set your mind to avoiding it.

What did I "AVOID", pray tell?

 

ps. This is now over 10 TIMES !!  ...

 

So how many times are you gonna WHOLESALE DODGE and 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' here...

'evolution' What's that...??  Define evolution...?  

a.  Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? 
b.  Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?
c.  Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?
d.  Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

You banking on me forgetting or something?   Fat Chance.

 

regards

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Oh certainly, I just don't know where the "cut-off" line would be for such things. Any sort of distinction could not accurately be attributed to Biblical teaching.

The Hebrew word "aph" literally means nose or nostril. It is sometimes applied more broadly/figuratively to the face/countenance. Its most common figurative use is for anger (as a shortened version of "anaph" which literally means to breathe heavily). I would suggest that any application beyond this established Biblical usage (e.g. nostrils = spiracles) "could not accurately be attributed to Biblical teaching".

But your criticism itself is spurious. The Bible does not provide an exhaustive list of scientific and etymological detail for every claim it makes. If it did, there would be no need for questions (and there wouldn't be enough trees on the planet to make a single printed copy). The best we can do when answering such questions is formulate arguments around the information that is provided in the Bible. That is what I have done.

You, on the other hand, have completely failed to justify your claim that my use of scripture was in any way "not accurate". You have simply used the fact that aspects of my argument are not exhaustively spelled-out in scripture to justify an arbitrary dismissal of my position. In order to answer your question, I have to fill in some of the knowledge gaps left by the Bible (since the Bible is not intended as an exhaustive thesis on every detail of reality). Now you are dismissive of my argument because the Bible doesn't exactly say every single thing my position claims.

But this is all irrelevant to the point of your original post. It doesn't matter whether I think insects should be included on any estimation of ark species. It only matters if the Feasibility Study includes insects in their estimations. Because if they don't, then you can't make any legitimate implications based on comparisons between their 16,000 figure and your 1-1.5 million figure.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Tristen said:

You have simply used the fact that aspects of my argument are not exhaustively spelled-out in scripture to justify an arbitrary dismissal of my position. In order to answer your question, I have to fill in some of the knowledge gaps left by the Bible (since the Bible is not intended as an exhaustive thesis on every detail of reality). Now you are dismissive of my argument because the Bible doesn't exactly say every single thing my position claims.

You're missing my point here. I'm not saying your Biblical support is inaccurate, I'm saying that any attempt to distinguish organisms by a nose versus "something-nose-like" based on scripture would be impossible. Sorry, I should have worded that better. In the end, we are left with the requirement to fill in those knowledge gaps you mentioned. And as we all know, we can make good guesses, but in the end, they are only guesses.

[Tristen]

22 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You're missing my point here. I'm not saying your Biblical support is inaccurate, I'm saying that any attempt to distinguish organisms by a nose versus "something-nose-like" based on scripture would be impossible. Sorry, I should have worded that better. In the end, we are left with the requirement to fill in those knowledge gaps you mentioned. And as we all know, we can make good guesses, but in the end, they are only guesses.

I agree that it is impossible to be certain that God distinguishes between noses and spiracles (whether they are "nose-like" is debatable). But there is evidence from context supporting my argument that noses aren't spiracles - such as the direct association with breath. I also suspect the people of the time had no concept of spiracles, and so would have assumed noses were noses (i.e. the 'intended audience' aspect of context). I have further demonstrated that the ark creatures were described as "nephesh" life - which the Bible directly associates with blood (i.e. the kind of blood that could be shed to atone for sin). So there are two main lines of evidence, derived from scripture, suggesting that insects were not among the creatures specifically gathered to the ark.

But again, your argument was about rates of "evolution". If the Feasibility Study included insects, I suspect the number would have been much larger than 16,000. In this context, whether God specifically gathered insects to the ark is irrelevant to the overall discussion.