HomeContentSubmit
Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
16 Comments - 30129 Views
Submitted By Ellman on 09/06/06
FreeHovind, Ellman, Creation and Evolution 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

I just want everyone who watches this clip to think it through and tell exactly what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50

I know you might not take my word for it, but as a molecular biologist i know what he says is right. This also brings up a few questions about Adam and Eve and how inbreed their offspring would be.

A REAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE! Compare it with an ICR article and see all the problems with them.
http://www.bioweb.uncc.edu/Biol4111/Fall/cheetah%201985%20.pdf

>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/06 - 17:15 GMT
(In Reply to Item)
"This also brings up a few questions about Adam and Eve and how inbreed their offspring would be."
 
more inbred then we are already.
that AND our genes would have had to mutatle at lighting speed to get to this level of diversisty.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/08 - 16:01 GMT
(In Reply to Item)
Nice video. I agreed with him until the part where he began to try and expliain why creationists are stupid and noah's ark isn't feesible.
 
I like the part where he said, "about 10'000 years ago, cheetah's went through a population bottle neck to about 7 individuals". Well, he is catching on, actually, biblical Creationists believe about 4,400 years ago, cheetah's went through a population bottle neck to about 7 individuals. Where they were partioned on a massive boat, with possibly hundreds of other baramins of animals, obviously as babies, where they were later released into the wild. So forth and so on.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
"Well, he is catching on, actually, biblical Creationists believe about 4,400 years ago, cheetah's went through a population bottle neck to about 7 individuals"
 
first of all IT WAS 2 INDUVIDUALs.
 
second of all, THAT IS THE ENTIRE ABSURDITY.
the changes we fidn CAN NOT HAVE ACCORRED IN 4400 years ago from 2 OR 7 induviduals....
HOW THE HELL DID YOU MISS THAT POINT?!
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/09 - 4:45 GMT << In Reply to
Genesis 7:2
 
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
stop it 9tails ur twisting facts to make them look like you're right.

It doesn't change the fact that ONLY the cheetahs show this and not any other animal given on that "boat". Having 7 baby cheetahs wouldn't work since the babies wouldn't survive. The cheetha is an animal that, like humans, put much energy in few offspring.

And you said it yourself, creationists BELIEVE that happend 4,400 years ago. Still off by about 5600 years. Have you read the paper on this study that he links as well?
 
There is no way in hell you can fit all animals on a boat and a flood happening. There are historical and archealogical evidence for that the rivers tigris and eufrat had a huge flood and that a lot of people died and a king made a boat with all his livestock and possesions and floated down the river when the water level got to high and he landed on a hill. (this is from a number of other cultural sources)  There was a local flood in this area and not the whole world. The whole world as they saw it! If you're taking the bible literally you're missing the point of the bible. If genesis is true then you have to be killed for working during the sabbath or whatever. It's a guideline for how you should live your life. A number of stories to take moral from. Nothing more, nothing less.

Still no evidence for creation.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/09 - 5:02 GMT << In Reply to
"stop it 9tails ur twisting facts to make them look like you're right."
 
-No.
 
"It doesn't change the fact that ONLY the cheetahs show this and not any other animal given on that "boat". Having 7 baby cheetahs wouldn't work since the babies wouldn't survive. The cheetha is an animal that, like humans, put much energy in few offspring."
 
-Actually, I believe all animals show this same pattern. Some have been found out, some have not been discovered. And, generations of cheetahs can transpire every 2 years, that would likely encompass many cat baramin ancestors, from the majestic tiger to the useless house cat. I still think it's a fitting, wonderful theory.
 
"And you said it yourself, creationists BELIEVE that happend 4,400 years ago. Still off by about 5600 years. Have you read the paper on this study that he links as well?"
 
That is the creationist concensus, yes. Interesting you disconsider the evolutionist concensus is to BELIEVE an entire theory based on sole imagination and lies. Of course, that is exempt, as that is "ACTUAL SCIENCE", boys and girls. It only becomes non-science if you believe a conservative god is behind the scenes.
 
"There is no way in hell you can fit all animals on a boat and a flood happening. There are historical and archealogical evidence for that the rivers tigris and eufrat had a huge flood and that a lot of people died and a king made a boat with all his livestock and possesions and floated down the river when the water level got to high and he landed on a hill. (this is from a number of other cultural sources)  There was a local flood in this area and not the whole world. The whole world as they saw it! If you're taking the bible literally you're missing the point of the bible. If genesis is true then you have to be killed for working during the sabbath or whatever. It's a guideline for how you should live your life. A number of stories to take moral from. Nothing more, nothing less."
 
Sure you can (put animals on the boat). No. A boat large enough, as the bible describes, would contain ample space to house hundreds of animals. And no, the genesis account was reviewed, and reviewed, and reviewed, and reviewed, and reviewed. No part of the bible has EVER been proven wrong, on any aspect. There are many points that have been proven historically sound, but never the latter. I don't mean someone hasn't believed the accounts, I mean no account has ever been PROVEN wrong.
 
"Still no evidence for creation."
 
I disagree.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
first of all. how do you know cheetas where clean animals? did they also have 7 elephans on there?
 
" I believe all animals show this same pattern."
 
you might believe that, but no, only cheetas.
or do you want to argue agaisnt ALL those biologist studying different animals? and any find s we make of mammels that have NOT had this happen immeiately disporve your ark hypothesis.
 
 
 
"And, generations of cheetahs can transpire every 2 years,"
 
actually, no. the gestation period is 9 monthis and the maturing mperiod is 20-24 months for females.

 
"that would likely encompass many cat baramin ancestors,"
 
again DEFINE BARAMIN.
and tiger and house cats have ENTIRELY differen reproductive cycles.
 
"I still think it's a fitting, wonderful theory."
 
and i say it's full of crap for reasons A and B.
 
"That is the creationist concensus, yes."
 
which doesn't conform to the facts...
 
"Interesting you disconsider the evolutionist concensus is to BELIEVE an entire theory based on sole imagination and lies."
 
no matter how many times you say this, it doesn't make genenome sequencing and all of biology andy less true.
 
" Of course, that is exempt, as that is "ACTUAL SCIENCE", boys and girls."
 
please do not talk about "ACTUAL SCIENCE" you don't even have an comprehensive idea of how the methodology works or ANY understandign WHATSOEVER of biology...
 
"It only becomes non-science if you believe a conservative god is behind the scenes."
 
it does when you propose that as mechanism.
 
" would contain ample space to house hundreds of animals.'
 
do you have ANY idea HOW many spiecies/genus/families  naoh would have to put on the ark?
and what about all the food and water?
or all the waste?
or disease?
or predation?
 
"No part of the bible has EVER been proven wrong, on any aspect."
 
so the ewarht is still a flat dics and the sun revolves around us?
DO NOT, be blind to the facts.
the bible is a methaphorical story book, nothing more.
 
" There are many points that have been proven historically sound"
 
like the dead rising? or jezus walkign on water? or jezus ressurecting?
nope, we don't have any conteporary historions reporting on that...

" I mean no account has ever been PROVEN wrong."
you cannot assume them true when all you have is the bible, and nothing else to back it up outside of that.
 
"I disagree."
 
and is disagree with you, the only difference is i can literally bury you in actual scientific articles that support my view.
and you got? apologetics and bible quotes.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/09 - 22:53 GMT
(In Reply to Item)
Cats are not clean animals.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
"God states that cud-chewing animals with split hooves can be eaten (Leviticus 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:6). These specifically include the cattle, sheep, goat, deer and gazelle families (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). He also lists such animals as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8). He later lists such "creeping things" as moles, mice and lizards as unfit to eat (verses 29-31), as well as four-footed animals with paws (cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers, etc.) as unclean (verse 27)."
 
dam....ur right...
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/09 - 23:05 GMT
(In Reply to Item)
I know far more about the Bible than a sane man should.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
"I know far more about the Bible than a sane man should."'
 
does it condone slavery, cannibalism, rape, incest and genocide?
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
2009/06/11 - 4:15 GMT
(In Reply to Item)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
 
Every kind of animal has progressively shown to have suffered a population bottleneck, except for the ones they have not found out. They don't know about the ones they don't know about. I theorize that every kind of animal has suffered a population bottleneck, supposing about 4,400 years ago.
 
Even in humans, the mitochondrial eve points to a transcient bottleneck in humanities anatomy. Speaking of the mitochondrial eve, it also suggests that all humans derived from, you guessed it, one woman, not transitional hybrid, half-breeds.
 
http://www.icr.org/article/mitochondrial-eve-consensus-sequence/
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
"Every kind of animal has progressively shown to have suffered a population bottleneck, except for the ones they have not found out."
 
nooo, it's good that u source wiki, but " supposing about 4,400 years ago."
 
is BS, we should be able to find that in the diversity of the DNA, AND WE DO NOT.
either you're gonna keep pulling shit out of your ass, or you're gonan stop and accept that the flodd story holds no water..at all..
 
"Even in humans, the mitochondrial eve points to a transcient bottleneck in humanities anatomy. Speaking of the mitochondrial eve, it also suggests that all humans derived from, you guessed it, one woman, not transitional hybrid, half-breeds."
 
lets see what your WIKI HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.
 
"

Human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[2]

However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[3] Research on many (but not necessarily most) genes find different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 0 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e. a single breeding pair).[4][5]

This is consistent with the Toba catastrophe theory which suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to c.15,000 individuals[5] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change, and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[6] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[5]

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age[8]"

oh w8.....NO 6000 YEARS AGO?!

gj at auto flaiming yourself.

not only that, they traced the genome to one ancestor, they didn't test ALL the genomes out there for starters, and this doesn't say anythign about the ENTIRE population, EG: they other pairs' ofspring could have died out during the course of history.

and now lets have some fun with your source...

". On average, the individuals in our dataset differed from the Eve consensus by 21.6 nucleotides."

"Given the high mutation rate within mitochondria"

"Uniparental inheritance leads to little opportunity for genetic recombination between different lineages of mitochondria, although a single mitochondrion can contain 2–10 copies of its DNA.[46] For this reason, mitochondrial DNA usually is thought to reproduce by binary fission. What recombination does take place maintains genetic integrity rather than maintaining diversity. However, there are studies showing evidence of recombination in mitochondrial DNA. It is clear that the enzymes necessary for recombination are present in mammalian cells.[66] Further, evidence suggests that animal mitochondria can undergo recombination.[67] The data are a bit more controversial in humans, although indirect evidence of recombination exists.[68][69] If recombination does not occur, the whole mitochondrial DNA sequence represents a single haplotype, which makes it useful for studying the evolutionary history of populations."

k to ANY1 with an understandign of biology, you can see that the mutation rate of mDNA is...quite low.UNlike what IRC here claims.

"

The near-absence of genetic recombination in mitochondrial DNA makes it a useful source of information for scientists involved in population genetics and evolutionary biology.[70] Because all the mitochondrial DNA is inherited as a single unit, or haplotype, the relationships between mitochondrial DNA from different individuals can be represented as a gene tree. Patterns in these gene trees can be used to infer the evolutionary history of populations. The classic example of this is in human evolutionary genetics, where the molecular clock can be used to provide a recent date for mitochondrial Eve.[71][72] This is often interpreted as strong support for a recent modern human expansion out of Africa.[73] Another human example is the sequencing of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bones. The relatively-large evolutionary distance between the mitochondrial DNA sequences of Neanderthals and living humans has been interpreted as evidence for lack of interbreeding between Neanderthals and anatomically-modern humans.[74]

However, mitochondrial DNA reflects the history of only females in a population and so may not represent the history of the population as a whole. This can be partially overcome by the use of paternal genetic sequences, such as the non-recombining region of the Y-chromosome.[73] In a broader sense, only studies that also include nuclear DNA can provide a comprehensive evolutionary history of a population.[75]"

ahw well....swing and a miss 9tails..

or swing and a fail.

>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
why? ... why 325?! :(
Now i have nothing to add of any value.

*thread end in creation loss*
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
"why? ... why 325?! :(
Now i have nothing to add of any value."
 
 
because im a lolcat stealing ur caek.
>> Reply
Array Re: why noahs ark doesn't work to good.
You bastard! I was gonna feed it to my fish!


GenTime: 0.0345 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff