Jump to content


New Zealand And The Flood


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#21 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 29 June 2007 - 10:47 AM

starhopper posted:

So, how many species on the ark? There are over one million on earth. If there were 16,000 on the ark that's a heck of a lot of speciation! Far more than that allowed by evolution. Can you fill in the gaps for me here?


Here is a list...enjoy.
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

#22 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 29 June 2007 - 10:59 AM

starhopper asked:

How did such an extraordinary amount of evolution occur in only 4000 years and not millions?


First you must understand that the evolution was micro-evolution.

As an example there probably wasn't a tiger or a lion on the ark. Why? because they are the same "kind".
Instead there was more than likely a tiger like and a lion like species on board the ark.
The tiger like animal could have had parents each with genes for several kinds of cats. same with the lion like parents.

After the tiger like animal got off the ark it mated with the lion like animal and the litter could easily have had many of the traits from its ancestors.
These traits could have then been realized and seperated...speciation...depending upon their biome and seperation from each other.

#23 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 29 June 2007 - 11:03 AM

Micro evolution doesn't take millions of years. heck look at how many different breeds of dogs we have and how many we can trace back to just a couple hundred years ago.

granted that is a very controlled microevolution. However I don't find any reason to doubt that normal microevolution could occur in 4,000+ years.

#24 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 29 June 2007 - 12:29 PM

So, from 16,000 KINDS (that is completely unexplained as a term by the way) we get over one million species. Let’s assume we know what species means. It’s not just varieties like breeds of dogs. To get that amount of evolution in 4000 years is amazing

(my bold)
Yes evolution does have trouble explaining the wide variation, regardless of the amount of time involved.

But there is no problem in the creation story getting the wide variation in an incredibly short amount of time?
What do you mean mere variations? They evolved since the flood? Have I got that right?
I would love you to help but there is more needed. Such as:

How did such an extraordinary amount of evolution occur in only 4000 years and not millions?


OK, looks like the term I wanted was "Family". Thank you for pointing out my improper use. Kind is a term a science teacher instilled me with years ago but does not seem to be used today. To get get an increase in the Genuses or Genusi (?) (Labrador or Retriever) of any Family (such as dog or canine) does not take many years. Check the many new variations in just the last decade. Every time two variations (Gensus) mate they begin a new variation. Mutation from the environment and disease, plus adaptation by selective breading (domination of advantageous / strong) mates caused new stronger and weaker Genus. The weaker Genus do not go away though. They also adapt to their environment and bread for advantage. The math has been done by fellows with more time than I. There is more than enough time to get the variations WITHIN Families we find today. TOE needs millions of years because the attempt is to make new Families. Creation only needs to change fur, color, size, shape, strength, etc. to make change within a Genus. That happens everyday, to billions of variations. New variations occur much slower today because the Families are very well adapted to their environment and (except within or caused by humanity) rarely bread outside of Genus.

If Pangaea (one land mass) was together before the flood, how quickly did the land masses reach their current positions?
(So far we have evolution and continental drift on steroids!)

How did the animals reach New Zealand after the flood? Why are they unique to the islands? What were their ancestors? Why no snakes in NZ? Why so many native bird varieties?

View Post



How quickly? Within a year the gross reformation was complete. The flood was covered the Earth for about nine months. During this time it was not just rainy, in fact the rain as a continuing down poor was only 40 days. But during those 40 days there was also teraforming on a planetary scale. Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah`s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. The "fountains" of the deep are accepted to be volcanoes as well as sources of water. The windows of heaven is the release of the vapor canopy. Not only was the original land mass broken, enlarged, submerged or destroyed but others were formed.

Impossible? What would happen if Earth were covered with water so that the highest mountains were not even reefs, submerged entirely and every volcano erupted continuously for forty days and the climate was thrown into chaos by the loss of the equilibrium provided by the vapor canopy? Also the massive currents of the water covering Earth would be causing huge deposits of sediment, and as they receded great rifts would form across these deposits (Grand Canyon).

#25 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2007 - 04:27 PM

Well that is a huge response and it will be very hard to try to address every question raised. But I will still try to ask some questions. After that any further information about New Zealand’s evolution would be welcome because from the creation story there is as yet no hard evidence, nothing that can make a confident prediction about our wildlife.
I put it into the context of the story because I made the mistake of thinking there were some evolutionists who had an imagination and would grab a chance to piece together a picture.
My efforts to have the evolution of 16000 animals (is that kinds by the way, or 16000 pairs or 8000 pairs because there are the 7 of kinds of the clean etc...must not forget the sacrifices, nothing like the smell of blood the morning after a big flood.)
I have seen the Kemp Huvand video, read Jam Morris, nothing, no material that has any explanatory power that is testable regarding New Zealand.

If I quote here I will use bold type..

Making a thread telling us to write the whole thing down for you is coming off as pretty rude. And your little story in the first post is just confusing.

Just a few paragraphs, that’s all. I sense a lot of anger from this. Listen, creationists are making huge, extraordinary claims. I should expect some spectacular proof and a logical, convincing account of why things look the way they do, that’s all. You should be able to do that without straining yourselves and without the need to disprove anything else.

I am being told that the varieties or “kinds” on the ark were uses to breed into to many hundred thousand species we have to day. As if “kind” was a family, like different kinds of dogs. Dogs are one species!

Speciation is far more distinct. The actual physical and genetic change is too great to be accounted for in the short time-span. There really is no distinction between micro-evolution and macro (no known mechanism to create a “cut-off” as the distinction is arbitrary). But the accepted meaning of macro-evolution is speciation. One species into another! Not just new breed of dog.
Evolutionists are fond of saying “No one has seen evolution, it can’t be observed no species has transformed into another species” yet the flood account has this occurring on a scale far beyond what the evolutionists can accept. And not only the speciation am I talking about, it is the adaptation. Why this astonishing incredulity at evolution if it is needed in a super speed version for creation? Species are distinct. So are environments. As for how they are grouped into “kind” or any other sort of categories is a matter of how scientists choose to classify them.


But a few questions have not been addressed (I have been asked for questions but there have been no answers to some important ones).

At what stage did the New Zealand animals make their way down there?
Was the country in it’s present position when they settled in?
Was it still attached to the supercontinent?
Was the Tasman Sea in place immediately after the flood subsided?
Were the animals already there? When the sea formed?
Was the volcanism of the Pacific rim formed at the same time as New Zealand got to its present position?
How long did New Zealand take to arrive in position?


Because the species found there are not found anywhere else (many common species are found across wider scattered countries but not anything from New Zealand) How long did New Zealand take to get to where it is?
If it made it in 4000 years than there will be compelling geological evidence for it.
There is a need for supporting evidence across all the fields not just retrospective leaps of faith to try to make it fit a preconceived bible story.
Once again, I am not criticizing any evidence of creationism. I just have not been given any yet. It’s not evidence to say “you can’t prove this didn’t happen”. You need really good evidence for something to have happened and not only that, but expect that it can be falsified If it’s science the evidence will be physical – and I used New Zealand as a test case because there is no existing evidence being presented by creationists.
If it is religion then there’s the bible and that’s not admissible as scientific evidence. It is religion and dogma.
I am not trying to change anyone’s viewpoint, I would not be on this forum if I thought that.
I simply want to know what creation account is. Whether you actually have a story. It’s not up me to ask questions of creationism, it’s up to the creationist!

#26 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2007 - 05:07 PM

How quickly? Within a year the gross reformation was complete. The flood was covered the Earth for about nine months. During this time it was not just rainy, in fact the rain as a continuing down poor was only 40 days. But during those 40 days there was also teraforming on a planetary scale. Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah`s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
The "fountains" of the deep are accepted to be volcanoes as well as sources of water. The windows of heaven is the release of the vapor canopy.
Not only was the original land mass broken, enlarged, submerged or destroyed but others were formed.


Impossible? What would happen if Earth were covered with water so that the highest mountains were not even reefs, submerged entirely and every volcano erupted continuously for forty days and the climate was thrown into chaos by the loss of the equilibrium provided by the vapor canopy? Also the massive currents of the water covering Earth would be causing huge deposits of sediment, and as they receded great rifts would form across these deposits (Grand Canyon).


And the great thing is, all those incects that don’t need to be on the ark have a great view of this chaos from their “vetetation mats”......

Maybe you can tell us why the snail is a problem?
Then again I don't really think the snail needed to have been on the ark. It could have easily survived on a floating vegatation mat.....You have heard of vegatation mats? Right?



“Hello snail.”

“Oh, hi weta”.

“I think we’re going to die snail, the world is teraforming”

“Thank heavens for these floating vegetation mats”

“No, heavens where all this water came from…”

“Shall we give that raptor a lift?”

“Let him choke, we don’t want his kind where we’re going”

"Where are we going again?”

“New Zealand, it’s too noisy around here…too many fountains”

#27 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 June 2007 - 06:41 AM

starhopper,
I noticed you asked a bunch of new questions in post 25.
Am I to assume that the explaination of the 16,000 animals on the ark and the speciation after the flood has been adequately answered for you?

#28 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2007 - 04:00 PM

Not really at all. But if you wish to answer any question thats fine.

I was wanting to see if there is an adequate model that would apply to a case study - in this instance New Zealand (and that upset someone).

In the answers I was recieving it was apparent people just want to be asked the right stock questions so that they can come back with their stock answers. In creating a specific example - and New Zealand is a really good one because of its geographical isolation - my questions were far from stock and they force one to actually think about the logistics and in the "how" rather than just fall back of the bible and K*nt.

So, yes I would love to have a creationist model of this case. KH does not address it. There does not seem to be any creation science content that would be able to exist in a textbook in a New Zealand classroom.

In a weird way what the creationist requirement here is a "science of the gaps".

#29 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 June 2007 - 04:56 PM

Her are a few articles for you to check out.
here , and here

#30 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2007 - 03:59 PM

That’s good! Thanks for taking the effort to find that. It will be a distraction to go into those on this thread but it seems seem to be showing how young certain NZ volcanoes are. That’s pretty accepted, they are recent. Potassium-Argon dating showed Rangitito was over a million years old! But when checked with carbon 14 it was proved to be closer to 350 years.

I am not trying to pull apart YEC but just to try to build a picture of New Zealand’s geographic and biological history in YEC terms.
Just a broad picture, but a considered one.

Let’s assume for the purposes of this exercise that the world is 6000 years old.

I have asked some pertinent questions previously about the “how” (not answered as yet but I am not rushing it) but just considering the geography for a moment:….
New Zealand is “made” as part of the original supercontinent. There is a massive flood, and various catastrophic upheavals that changed the landscape. This also resulted in the animals being destroyed. Correct me if I am wrong.
Did this action start the continental drift into the present configuration? Or did it throw everything into the present configuration during the flood?
Did the animals all migrate to NZ while the land was still attached so to speak?
Another thing is, it is pretty well accepted by TOE and YEC that volcanism comes from deep within the earth’s mantle. As the continental plates move over this mantle the volcanism breaks through the crust in the correlating spot. As the crust moves on a new spurt of activity will then be in a different location on the crust. This is demonstrated graphically with New Zealand’s White Island and the Hawaiian Islands.
The question being: Did New Zealand bring it’s volcanism with it from the super-continent, or did the volcanism occur once it had reached its present position on the globe?
For the ancestors of New Zealand’s wildlife to “hop on board” (my quote) the New Zealand land mass, was it still attached to the super-continent at that stage?
If so, then the land masses would not have been torn apart until the migration had finished. Otherwise the unique species of NZ wildlife would have “evolved” on other parts before reaching here.

Sorry, there’s a bit of guesswork here. Not a lot of science to go by but I hope you see that I am sincere in my efforts to find a YEC “timeline” case study.

#31 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 01 July 2007 - 04:19 PM

Concerning New Zealand, you might want to visit this site.
From there you can choose from the many creationist web sites listed and then do a search on New Zealand.
The info you are looking for may be there.

#32 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 July 2007 - 11:55 PM

I have deleted all posts that seemed offensive so that the subject of the thread can continue.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users