In another thread DA Morgan presented us with the following insight:

But is that true?
Does DA Morgan understand that "kinds" are not species?

Does DA Morgan understand that there was a need for only about 16,000 animals to have been on board the ark?

The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on the ark.

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe

If DA Morgan would do the math DA Morgan would see there is plenty of room on the ark for both the food and the animals.

OOPs, almost forgot...DA Morgan also asked why the T-Rex didn't eat the sheep. Ever hear of a cage? You know, put T-Rex in one cage and the sheep in another. Pretty simple solution.

Trilobyte wrote:
"But is that true?
Does DA Morgan understand that "kinds" are not species?"

No I don't since biological classification didn't exist then. But lets assume you are correct.

A cage for the T Rex?
A cage for the Brontosaurus?
Excuse me while I catch my breath.

Noah was in Mesopotamia.
How did he collect the North American bison?
And the Australian Koala bears?
And the Indonesian Orangutans?
And the Pacific Island dodo birds?

Oh I know ... yet another miracle.

Precisely how long does it take one family, without the benefit of modern equipment, to visit 7 continents, to identify, collect, and cage, 15,754 beasts of any description.

Oh I know ... yet another miracle.

So you don't believe in evolution, yet you think millions of species evolved from a few thousand "kinds" in 4,000 years? With mutation rates moving at such break-neck speeds, how come we don't see evolution occurring before our eyes? Did those mutation rates suddenly slow down?

Soilguy. Of course we do "see evolution occurring before our eyes". It's just that many people refuse to look at it.

Triloyte. So all 412 modern primate genera evolved from just one "kind" on Noah's ark? I presume you accept that humans spring from within that kind. Anyway, why did you feel it necessary to start another thread? Surely the Gilgamesh thread was the place for this information.

Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Trilobyte wrote:
"But is that true?
Does DA Morgan understand that "kinds" are not species?"

No I don't since biological classification didn't exist then. But lets assume you are correct.

Why would that matter?

A cage for the T Rex?
A cage for the Brontosaurus?
Excuse me while I catch my breath.

For starters no one said that the "Brontosaurus" was on the ark. The "Brontosaurus" was a member of a KIND of dinosaurs. A represenative of that particular dino-kind could have easily been selected rather than the "Brontosaurus".
Still, if the "Brontosaurus" was selected to be a represenative of that particular kind on the ark, a juvenile "Brontosaurus" would more than likely have been choosen. Much much smaller.

Noah was in Mesopotamia.

We have no idea where Noah was.

How did he collect the North American bison?
And the Australian Koala bears?
And the Indonesian Orangutans?
And the Pacific Island dodo birds?

Noah had 100 years to have the animals collected (provided God didn't send them to him).

Remember Pangea? Prior to the flood there was not 7 continents

Oh I know ... yet another miracle.

Perhaps

Precisely how long does it take one family, without the benefit of modern equipment, to visit 7 continents, to identify, collect, and cage, 15,754 beasts of any description.

As mentioned above, Noah had over 100 years and at that time there were not 7 continents.

Oh I know ... yet another miracle.

Once again, perhaps. The bible tells us God sent them. Still Noah would have had plenty of time to collect or even have them collected for him.

I trust you stand corrected.

The speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation.

But once again let me point out....no mutations were required.

Actually 206.
Hmans and primates are not the same kind.

As to this thread...it's not about Gilgamesh. It's about life on the ark.

Surely Trilobyte, if you believe that all ducks, geese and swans, for example, descend fron a single ancestor on Noah's ark you have no trouble with the idea humans and apes descend from a common ancestor. Your "kinds" are not the same as "genera". Scientists have a great deal of trouble deciding where to place the boundaries between genera in some groups of species. I could post some examples from dabbling ducks if I thought for a moment you'd read them. Surely this problem wouldn't exist if your "kinds" were as distinct as you imagine them to be.

As to the single continent Pangea. That was about 250 million years ago. But how do you account for the fact the Pangea was formed from the combination of previously existing land masses. An earlier gigantic flood perhaps?

Trilobyte. We seem to be posting at the same time. You said:
"But once again let me point out....no mutations were required." But if there were only two of each kind the maximum number of variations for each gene in four. This is surely not enough to give rise to the reqired number of species in each geneus. Mutations are required.

You also wrote:
"As to this thread...it's not about Gilgamesh. It's about life on the ark." I got the impression from the Gilgamesh post that most of us regarded them as deriving from the same event.

terrytnewzealand, who says ducks, geese and swans are all the same kind?

SWAN GENERA and SPECIES:
C. cygnus
C. buccinator
C. columbianus
C. bewickii
C. atratus
C. melancoryphus
C. olor
C. sumnerensis
Coscoroba Reichenbach 1853
C. coscoroba

DUCK SUBFAMILIES:
Dendrocygninae
Oxyurinae
Anatinae
Merginae

GOOSE GENERA:
Anser
Branta
Chen
Cereopsis
Cnemiornis

....kinds are kinda like genera..but not quite.

terrytnewzealand posted
"The maxium number of gene variation is four"

I don't see it quite like that. For example, if the lions were selected from the cat kind you might have a point.

But, but who said two lions represented the cat kind?

Perhaps a lion like and a tiger like animal represented the cat kind...they both can breed together with all kinds of traits.

Trilobyte you are positively breathtaking in the scope of your ability to create explanations.

The problem here is that your explanations conflict directly with those of the Jewish a Christian and Islamic faiths whose religious texts are the source of your inspiration.

Why aren't you teaching in a school of divinity. There are so many rabbi's, bishops, cardinals, priests, ministers, and imams who must feel cheated not understanding how god works.

Then on the other hand you seem perfectly comfortable with the word "perhaps" so "perhaps" you are in desparate need of adult guidance. Might I suggest you seek out an adult who can help you get past your Sunday school coloring book explanations.

PS: Trilobyte ... precisely how is it that the koala bears got back to Australia.

Please quote the biblical passage on which you base your answer.

ROFLOL!

How did the koala bears got back to Australia?

For starters. if they were actually on the ark as your strawman suggest...they might have been taken.

"For starters. if they were actually on the ark as your strawman suggest...they might have been taken."

Yea, they probably hopped on greyhound bound straight for Botany Bay.

Torres Strait land bridge.

I agree with Dan.

Whatever way you cut it, either this was a miraculous event with the miracle being not only the coming of the rains but also the gathering of the animals and their survival and redistribution - or it simply never happened. (I know which one Dan chooses).

It seems pointless to argue the feasibility of this one, or attempt to give it any basis in science. And why would you - either we believe in a God who is big enough to do it or we don't. Why employ psuedo-science to make it more reasonable - when in fact it is unreasonable on every single level?

THE STORY OF THE ARK IS IMPOSSIBLE ON EVERY LEVEL UNLESS A DIVINE CHARACTER MADE IT HAPPEN.

Blacknad.

One could also say the EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE ON EVERY LEVEL UNLESS A DIVINE CHARACTER MADE IT HAPPEN.

Then again, scripture clearly tells us that God didn't use evolution.

But still, I'm waiting to hear why the ark is impossible on every level.
So far the questions have been answered.

Got any more?

How much variation can there be in the gene pool of a population of two? To make it a little more simple, consider a single gene in a population of two individuals. What is the maximum number of different alleles that can exist in that population?

Answer that question for yourself, and you will have to reconsider your "no mutations required," statement.

That question was addressed 10 post ago.

Hey don't be too harsh on him IFF. I've read "they might have" numerous times as explanations of the most sacred theologies. ;-)

ROFL!

Trilobyte wrote:
"Then again, scripture clearly tells us that God didn't use evolution."

One of your biggest weaknesses TB is that you really don't know scripture.

Please quote chapter and verse. I'll be waiting with a scalpel to dissect your response.

Soilguy ... TB doesn't even know what an allele is. He is, at most, a high school student trying to imitate an adult.

I hate to admit that I am guilty of trying to communicate with him. But I think he is at least a decade away from that being possible.

I would also be very interested to know where scripture tells us anything about the method of creation. Everything I have seen so far from the Anti-Evolutionists is inconclusive and is used to back up a position that has been formed centuries ago and has not moved one inch despite any evidence to the contrary.

It's a good thing that scripture doesn't contain anything that could be interpreted as telling us the earth is flat or hollow with demons inside, because there would be whole Christian ministries devoted to defending the position.

If the Bible, without doubt, told us that God created the earth and all life in six actual periods of 24 hours and we clearly knew it wasn't allegory or parable then I would have more respect for those who push the ideas.

Trilobyte, can you show me without any doubt that scripture says God did not use an evolutionary mechanism to create life on earth?

Blacknad.

The other thing Trilobyte, is that you take the anti-evolution position from a faith position and then go from there to rationalise your position by critiquing the science (which you obviously don't understand).

This is dishonest. Just say you don't accept evolution because you believe God created without it.

It is far too complex a discipline for you to come to an honest conclusion without being an expert in the field. You are no expert I am sure.

You seem to think you are defending the Christian position - but in fact you are bringing Christianity into disrepute by displaying a narrow minded ignorance and attempting to talk conclusively about matters you clearly have no real understanding of.

You could stop embarrassing Christianity further by just having one iota of humility and admitting there is room for doubt in your position, and also stop insulting people with derogatory terms like 'YOU EVOS'.

Blacknad.

Well said Blacknad. No doubt we can discusss this and the state of affairs in Lebanon in November.

GEN 2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

GEN 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

GEN 2:23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

...now that sure doesn't sound like evolutionISM does it Morgan?

I just did...read the above post.

Unfortunatly the evos who post here seem to lack an education, especially when it pertains to the religion of evolutionISM.

Their lack of a scientific reply to questions and the use of ad-hom attacks is a very, very clear indication.

Trilobyte posted:
...now that sure doesn't sound like evolutionISM does it Morgan?

Repost your statement in an adult manner, using real words, and I will reply.

"Their lack of a scientific reply to questions and the use of ad-hom attacks is a very, very clear indication."
You don't know the first thing about science.

Trilobyte. You suggested the koalas got back to Australia via the Torres Strait landbridge. Unfortunately for your argument this would merely help them to move between New Guinea and Australia. If the ark finished up anywhere else they could not have got to Ozzie.

Your duck ideas. What you have called "subfamilies" are a mixture of subfamilies and tribes. More to the point though do you mean to say that ducks as different as shelducks, diving ducks, dabbling ducks, pochards, perching ducks, eiders, etc. all evolved from just one pair of birds with a maximum possible genetic variation of just four genes for each characteristic, no mutations involved?

Sorry, another one. Trilobyte wrote:

"Perhaps a lion like and a tiger like animal represented the cat kind...they both can breed together with all kinds of traits."

This solves nothing. Hybrids between lions and tigers are infertile, no chance of offspring. Also no matter how different the two parents there is still a maximum variation of just four for any given gene. Of course that is assuming both parents are heterozygous for that gene.

If you don't understand even high-school level genetics you pretty much have TB's understanding of biology.

Every bit of evidence we have is that he is a caucasian male roughly 13-15 years of age. I think it is time to just ignore him until he becomes an adult. Both chronologically and emotionally. I hope, from now on, my responses will reflect this fact.

Trilobyte,

There is no hard and fast or universally accepted understanding of these verses. You just happen to take an unswerving literal view.

The Catholic Church's present understanding rests upon the 'Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June 1909 On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis'.

Where you will find the following paragraph:

"...that not each and every word and phrase in these chapters need necessarily be interpreted "in a proper literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used figuratively, that is, metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the proper sense" (DS 3516); e) that, since it was the intention of the sacred author of the first chapter of Genesis " to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adapted to the senses and to man's intelligence," we are not strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters, " to seek for scientific exactitude of expression (scientifici sermonis proprietas)".

Now I will wager that the 'Pontifical Biblical Commission' were far better versed in scripture than you are.

All you need to do is admit that there are grey areas and that you might not be the ultimate purveyor of the truth, then we shall all be happier. When people are as entrenched in their opinion as you are, we call it fanaticism - and fanatics are at the root of many ills.

Scripture does not tell us that God did not use evolution.

Blacknad.

So how literal do you want to get, Trilobyte?

Let's talk about how you 'literally' make a woman out of one rib.

Because that's literally what it says. It doesn't say that God added anything, or that he used, amongst other things, a rib. It says he made her out of a rib.

Of course Eve was four inches tall. Adam and his little rib-sized woman.

Where do YOU wish to depart from a literal understanding of the text?

Blacknad.

And lets add an additional layer of complexity to your well thought out posting Blacknad.

Literal interpretation in 2006 English based on the translation into the King James from Greek which came from 2000+ year old Hebrew which came from Aramaic which likely came from Sumerian is meaningless.

If you don't have the original text you are just guessing, or praying, that those that came before you got it right in terms of meaning.

What TB is doing is a zero-synapse literal explanation of something for which he can not verify the providence.

If the police evertreated a crime scene so sloppily no one would ever be convicted of any crime. Surely we should demand of a theological text at least the level of proof we demand of a prosecutor presenting evidence at a murder trial.
After all ... people's lives depend on the outcome.

Translation...trilobyte just spanked me on this issue.

Good day Morgan!!!!!!!

Notice I said a lion like and a tiger like animal...not what we know today as a tiger and a lion.

Please get it right next time.

Translation....I can't defend my faith in evolutionISM so I must try to win with ad-hom remarks.

Sorry Morg, your indoctrination methods don't work on the intelligent.

Blacknads, you need to try a bit harder than that.

Forming a woman from a rib isn't evolutionISM..that is quite clear.

As to being literal...even the Gospels claim a literal Adam:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.

Perhaps you could point out from the llist above where the list went from real people to make believe people....or you could simply retract your anti-bible opinion and announce that you were wrong.

TB wrote:
"Perhaps you could point out from the llist above where the list went from real people to make believe people"

Actually he shouldn't. What should happen is that the moderators should realize that your post, has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with origins, and delete it, and many of us sincerely hope they will.

Perhaps due to your youth you are unable to appreciate this fact but it is, indeed, a fact.
This is SCIENCEAGOGO.COM not PROSLETYZEMYCHRISTIANTHEOLOGY.COM.

If you are totally incapable of talking science.
If you are totally incapable of learning rather than parroting.
If you are totally incapable of using real words.
Please excuse yourself from the table until you can come back and act like an adult.
Thank you.

Trilobyte, you don't do any real homework.

You came in here calling evolution, evo-babblers, demonstrating that you don't know anything about evolution or about statistics.

The Bible is not a scientific source. If you want to pretend your religion is supported by science, go somewhere else and do it.

trilobyte:
Posting pedigrees and quoting scripture is neither appropriate nor scientific. If you can't post on topic, please refrain from posting. This is a Science forum, it is not a place to go proselytising. Have some respect for Science and those who come here to read and post Science and Science related topics. Any more off topic garbage from you and I will delete it. You do not understand Science and are making no effort to do so. Your disruption and ignorance are on display here for all to see. Please take your ignorance elsewhere.

Amaranth
Moderator

Ah! Trilobyte. I see you accept that Tane and Hine-Nui-Te-Po were real, historical people. Many Maori claim them as ancestors. Some even claim descent from a particular tree or rock. It's good to see you are so accepting of other cultures! Perhaps if the US and British governments were as accepting we would not have the trouble in the Muddle East we do.

Your logic fails you. To say that the scriptural picture of creation may not be literal is not the same as saying there is no person referred to as Adam. Some theologists think that Adam was the first person to evolve a full capacity for moral comprehension. Also the genealogy uses a convention where only significant characters were named. There may be thousands of generations missing, yet YECs use this to date the earth. How utterly absurd.

I would love evolution to be false and leave us with no recourse but to see God's creative act. But I am reasonable enough to accept that things don't always turn out as I want.

Will you stop bringing the Bible into what is essentially a scientific matter?

If you really understood genetics and had real and solid doubts that mutation cannot lead to complex systems then people here would respect that.

But we all know that you are driven by your interpretation of the Bible.


Can't you understand that people here can only see this in terms of wanton ignorance and intellectual dishonesty?

Blacknad.

Blacknad posted:
Your logic fails you. To say that the scriptural picture of creation may not be literal is not the same as saying there is no person referred to as Adam. Some theologists think that Adam was the first person to evolve a full capacity for moral comprehension. Also the genealogy uses a convention where only significant characters were named. There may be thousands of generations missing, yet YECs use this to date the earth. How utterly absurd.

It's obvious those theologist are incorrect as they try to twist scripture to form a view supporting the religion of evolutionism.

Besides those two verses, you know....Eve being formed from Adams rin and the geneology...there is more that tells us Genesis is literal.

1CO 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1CO 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

and then....

1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

There's even a few more verses that present a literal Genesis.

Once again, the bible denies evolutionism.

Oh, BTW, you said "There may be thousands of generations missing"...care to back up that "may be' statement?

Trilobyte. You introduce a whole new set of problems with this statemet:

"Notice I said a lion like and a tiger like animal...not what we know today as a tiger and a lion.

Please get it right next time."

OK, do lions and tigers descend from the same lion and tiger like animal? If so how has it come about that they are no longer able to form fertile offspring? On the other hand perhaps you believe they descend from separate creations? This means many more species were taken onto the ark than you listed previously.

Nothing in your last post proved anything. It is a question of perception. You see it one way and assume that is the only way it can be seen and have therefore probably labelled me as 'hellbound liberal'.

Regarding your last statement - the point I'm making here is 'we just don't know' and to try to form a chronology for the earth from a genealogy that is incomplete is foolish.

See:

http://nabataea.net/eden7.html


I will now bow out of this particular discussion and give you the last word. This is a science forum and not a place to have lengthy debates on Christian scripture. And bsides, I know how this goes:

You say something.
I counter.
You counter.
I counter.
You counter...Ad infinitum.

I'm saying that things are just not that black and white and you're saying they are. From experience I feel that the gulf between us will not be bridged.

There is an Arabic saying, 'You are standing in a valley to the West, and I am standing in a valley to the East.' This applies to you and me - to you and science - and to you and anyone who isn't a hardline conservative fundamentalist. Never the twain shall meet.

Blacknad.

It sounds like Trilo is now accepting a little evolution to produce millions of species from the few "kinds" that were on the Ark.

So what is it, TB? Does evolution exist, complete with mutations adding up, to get you from the Ark to the present day? Or is evolution impossible, and the Ark wasn't large enough to handle the numbers of species we have today?

You are claiming, probably without knowing it, that evolution proceeded at break-neck speeds since the Noachian flood.

Ah, I know this one. You don't need two animals here- just the one.

It's called a Liger. It's real and is the favourite animal of Napoleon Dynamite. They can do mad magic and have loads of skills. I heard the other day that they can give birth to a litter of both Lions and Tigers or just stick with having another Liger. So they were ideal for the ark and are very friendly with Ele-potamuses and Giraf-odiles, so no fighting.

I hope this clarifies things.

Blacknad.

As a bonobosapiens I appreciate the clarification.