Discussion about THE FLOOD
So, this guy is a young earth creationist. Does not believe in evolution. Believes Noah's Ark is a real story, scientifically accurate. Did I mention he doesn't believe in evolution?
So, wondering how millions of animals could fit on to the ark, he says the animals where toddler aged, some hibernated, and they could breathe easy because the inside of the ark was warm. He also claims they could have had different diets back then. Also, there were no more than 16000 animals on the ark (kinds not species went, I guess). He then sends me to this site. And this is part of what it says:
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
Sounds like evolution to me! So I tell him so, and he asks how? So I write: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
Is any of this wrong? Do I need a correction?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Moria Jackson on
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Montville D.D. on -
No that's fairly right. The problem with debating about science with these people is that they don't understand even basic concepts of science. Evolution is really a very detailed and horribly complex idea to explain which is even more mind-numbing once you admit that these people really don't have the background to start to understand it.
If someone doesn't understand what a theory is within its scientific connotations then how can you possibly discuss the intricacies of various theories?
I try not to get too into debating science too much because not only is it frustrating but, although I understand the concepts myself, I cannot do them justice with my explanations. I was an humanities student who got an arts degree. I can talk forever on literature or complex social theories but I simply lack the background in hard science to give reliable answers to all of the questions that would arise if talked about at length.
-
Permalink Reply by Moria Jackson on
-
I tried to keep it away from here, but he insists on bringing it in to every discussion. So, I just try my best.
-
Permalink Reply by Moria Jackson on
-
Thats what I thought too! lol
His reply to my last post to him:
hahaha wow that was a great laugh. evolution is not breeding 2 kinds of animals to get a 3rd kind. haha funny stuff right there. evolution is one kind evolving into something else.
i am all for cross breeding. my wife and I have mixed ...kids. they are not from evolution happening, they are from my wife being african american and myself being caucasion. and our kids which happens to be a bi product of that.
but if that is evolution taking a chow dog and breeding it with a pit bull and getting a mixed dog called whatever then sure i am all for evolution. but it is not the case. evolution is over time a ape became man. over time a dog became a wolf. etc.
-
Permalink Reply by M on -
Long-term breeding of dogs is a good example of evolution. He accepts that evolution happens but refuses to accept that it's actually evolution. That's frustrating. Talking to him must be much like banging your head repeatedly on a brick wall. Good luck with that!
-
Permalink Reply by Dustin on -
So basically the guy has never read the bible and analyzed what the bible actually says about the topic. But really , all a christian has to claim is that God put all these new species on the planet after the flood. Why? Because God enjoys creating animals so they can tear each other into bloody shreds. Either way you can always come back and show that God is horrifically inhumane to allow animal suffering.
Also ask the guy if God created animals , why wouldn't God simply program them to never harm a human being? Why does God allow a human baby to get eaten by a lost animal? Do animals have free will? He wont be able to answer any of those questions.
-
Permalink Reply by Moria Jackson on
-
We have had similar discussions. It is because Satan rules the earth now!
I wish I was joking :/
-
Permalink Reply by Dustin on
-
Fuck. I forgot about Satan.
Damn you Christians and your justifications for everything!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on -
I have a theory for the dinosaurs' extinction:
Noah was a wise man, and although his Ark was big, he realized it still wasn't big enough to accomodate for the huge saurians, as well as the food required to satiate their gargantuan appetites. So he embarked dinosaurs eggs instead of full-grown individuals. Problem solved.
Unfortunately Noah's wife wasn't aware of this, and the fate of the dinosaurs was sealed the day she wrote 'omelette' on the crew's menu.
-
Permalink Reply by Moria Jackson on
-
LOL nice
-
Permalink Reply by Lara Kearns on -
Hilarious!!
What's new today
Forum
Friend doesn't believe in dinosaurs.
Started by Redlilly Pond in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Strega 1 minute ago. 12 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
...and now I wait to die.
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 23, 2013 at 4:03pm 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
