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?
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.
Thats what I thought too! lol
His reply to my last post to him:
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.
We have had similar discussions. It is because Satan rules the earth now!
I wish I was joking :/
Fuck. I forgot about Satan.
Damn you Christians and your justifications for everything!!!
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.