The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[ironduck]

There's no mention of the ark picking up the animals in the various locations. Rather if I remember the story correctly the ark simply drifts about, not seeing any land. It only encounters land when the dove returns with the branch. So both getting the animals into the ark and back into their respective positions would seem equally problematic..

 

[sanabas]

There's no mention of the ark picking up the animals in the various locations. Rather if I remember the story correctly the ark simply drifts about, not seeing any land. It only encounters land when the dove returns with the branch. So both getting the animals into the ark and back into their respective positions would seem equally problematic..

Hmm, that presents a bit of a problem then. Lateral thinking presents at least one solution: Rocs and/or pterosaurs. They don't go on the ark, and so don't make the bible, but they can pick animals up and do ferry sevice to and from the ark.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's no solution, really, because getting pterosaurs to act that way would be a miracle. If miracles be allowed, Gunderscored could just as well simply magic the critters around.

 

[Che Guava]

WHat verses in the bible actually specify that it was indeed ALL animals? I mean, besides all the mammals, birds and reptile you would have to collect, what about non-flying insects? terrestrial plants? Soil invetebrates? (sorry, I'm a soil ecologist )

Is it possible that the biblical flood was only intended (and fashioned in a manner that) to wipe out humans? Were the verses about the animals referring to only domesticated animals, so that humanity would be able to continue agriculture after nearly everyone was wiped out?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Try Gen. 7:21-23.

Soil invertebrates would seem a minor problems next to parasites, tho. How did malaria survive? Intestinal worms?

 

[Che Guava]

Try Gen. 7:21-23.

Soil invertebrates would seem a minor problems next to parasites, tho. How did malaria survive? Intestinal worms?

DONT YOU EVER CALL SOIL INVETEBRATES MINOR!

heh heh. It's fun to take yourself too seriously....

back OT:

Well, if you do have lots of animals on that ark, I would imagine that malaria and intestinal worms would find thier way on too. A lot of those parasites are early instars of aquatic inverts anyhow, so I imagine they could survive at least awhile without a host.

Another question: what happens to all the freshwater fish when the oceans swell enough to cover the land....?

 

[sanabas]

Try Gen. 7:21-23.

Soil invertebrates would seem a minor problems next to parasites, tho. How did malaria survive? Intestinal worms?

AiG answers all. First on transporting animals: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp Haven't read this page yet, so it could say anything.

And on viruses and stuff: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/diseases.asp First option is that viruses have kinds too, and there was just one original protovirus that contained everything from HIV to the common cold. Another option is that Noah and family were superhuman when compared to us, and so were able to host all those viruses (and rickets too ) without suffering any ill effects. Also contains a paragraph that caused me to burst out laughing:

his is likely to be relevant for viruses in particular. Random changes (for example, mutations) have never been shown to generate significant amounts of new teleonomic (functional, project-oriented) information. Thus they do not create a new organism, or cause any true (uphill) ‘evolution’. However, it only takes an informationally insignificant accidental change in the protein coat of a virus to vary the way it is recognized by an immune system and cause a major shift in infectivity.

So an insignificant accidental change that causes a virus to get much,much better at replicating inside a host isn't actually any sort of improvement from the virus' POV.

AiG also appears to be publishing a brand spanking new magazine, called 'Answers'. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0509answers-mag.asp I want to read a copy.

 

[skadistic]

What about 'Phi' the constantly repeting patern in nature that equals 1.618? Surely that proves all of creation was created right?

 

[sanabas]

AiG's website is seriously entertaining to explore, and once again it has sucked me in. But after some reading, I have a question: WTH is evolutionary humanism? It is mentioned multiple times, including a direct quote from their president

The devastating effect that evolutionary humanism has had on society...

but nowhere on the site can I find a definition of just what it is. Is it just a buzzword for AiG speakers to babble in order to get their listeners to nod sagely? Does it actually mean something? One more quote, from a July 2001 daily article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0709gc.asp

Let's build the Creation Museum and scale the city of evolutionary humanism, and bring down its trusted strongholds to the glory of God and His Word.

If the term's been in use there for 5 years, why can't they give me a concise definition?

*edit*They were using the term in 1988. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i3/education.asp

At least two generations of our young people have been indoctrinated by an education system steeped in evolutionary humanism. Where has this led, and does the result matter?

And it makes you a commie too!

evolutionary humanism has now become—at least in the media and in academia—our quasi-official state religion. Our young people have been brainwashed in this system for at least two generations, and its bitter roots are now bearing the bitter fruits of widespread amorality, materialism, the drug culture, abortionism, pornography, social diseases and a host of other ills—not to mention communism and fascism

*/edit*

 

[skadistic]

evolutionary humanism has now become—at least in the media and in academia—our quasi-official state religion. Our young people have been brainwashed in this system for at least two generations, and its bitter roots are now bearing the bitter fruits of widespread amorality, materialism, the drug culture, abortionism, pornography, social diseases and a host of other ills—not to mention communism and fascism


I have no idea what evolutionary humanism is either but all the "bitter fruits" save maybe abortion have been around longer then christianity. Do these people ever stop and think about what they say or do they just shout from the hip and throw caution to wind? I quess with god on your side you don't need logic.

 

[ironduck]

Sanabas, don't you remember Zany? He was often going on about evil communist-evolutionist conspiracies

This is where the amusing loonyness of creationism becomes a worrisome political ideology.

 

[ironduck]

Another question: what happens to all the freshwater fish when the oceans swell enough to cover the land....?

We already went over this at least a dozen times, pay attention! The freshwater fish all lived at the bottom of the ocean because the water down there was not saline and it didn't bother them that it was cold and dark and there was too much pressure or any of that stuff. Alright?

 

[Che Guava]

We already went over this at least a dozen times, pay attention! The freshwater fish all lived at the bottom of the ocean because the water down there was not saline and it didn't bother them that it was cold and dark and there was too much pressure or any of that stuff. Alright?

Jeez! Sorry I haven't reviewed the entire thread just yet...!

After doing some work with fish some years ago, I really doubt that the bottom of the ocean would be a suitable habitat for freshwater fish, but since you've already discussed that 12 or so times, I'll let it go...

 

[ironduck]

Well, it wasn't it was in some of the other threads.. Zany's to be exact. And no, we never did find out how it worked, but I suppose it's a better proposition than giant acquariums on the ark.. that damn ark gets smaller every time we want to include a new animal group like fish or dinosaurs, we can't put them all in there.

 

[El_Machinae]

*edit*Actually, I think that's the much harder question to answer. The ark beached on Mt Ararat, yeah? How did all the animals get back to their current homes, without appearing elsewhere?*/edit*

For the same reason there are missing links. There aren't that many fossils preserverd. Only a couple generations would be required for the polar bears to migrate back to the North Pole, and it's just our bad luck that we can't find a few bones.

It's really not all that exceptional that there is no evidence for the return migration.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, if you do have lots of animals on that ark, I would imagine that malaria and intestinal worms would find thier way on too. A lot of those parasites are early instars of aquatic inverts anyhow, so I imagine they could survive at least awhile without a host.

Most parasites are fairly host-specific, some highly so, many require a number of different hosts thru their life-cycle, and while many parasites can live for considerable periods outside a host (requiring Noah et al. to shuffle around nematodes from gastropods to sheep et sim. in a huge number of combinations), only the very toughest can do so for the duration of the Flood (about a year).

Another question: what happens to all the freshwater fish when the oceans swell enough to cover the land....?

They die. Along with all other freshwater, estuarine, near-shore, shallow-shallow water benthic, and reef-based forms of aquatic life.

 

[warpus]

For the same reason there are missing links. There aren't that many fossils preserverd. Only a couple generations would be required for the polar bears to migrate back to the North Pole, and it's just our bad luck that we can't find a few bones.

It's really not all that exceptional that there is no evidence for the return migration.

Are you seriously suggesting that a group of Polar Bears made a journey from the Middle East to the Arctic - and survived?

 

[El_Machinae]

Goodness no. I'm doing a LOT of 'devils advocate' in this thread - as I do in many threads. If I have a counter-argument, even for a position I believe in, I will often present it. My opinion is that, eventually, someone will give that counter argument, so I get it out of the way. Actually, my bit about mtDNA was serious, because it seems to be an almost legitimate argument, and actually could use more data --- data that's likely available for both sides.

Plus, it didn't have to be a polar bear. It could have been an uber-bear family, that inbred (or devolved, or whatever you want to call losing information) to become polar bears.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Evolution simply doesn't happen at that speed.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, of course, but devolution certainly does. Or whatever the term is that allows my poodle to have descended from a wolf (there does not seem to be much 'information gain' in that type of instance)