Jump to content


New Zealand And The Flood


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

#1 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2007 - 04:14 PM

Hi. Let me introduce you to my beautiful country, New Zealand. It’s a long way from most of you I know, but I hope that you may have some interest in what our place in the Genesis flood story might be. Here is a link to some general background information:

http://en.wikipedia....Flora_and_fauna

You will see that the flora and fauna on New Zealand is largely indigenous – at least 40 unique genus – that’s whole categories of species by the way. Tragically much if it has disappeared due to man’s intervention over the last 500 – 700 years but more intensely in the last 150 years. The country was at least 80% temperate rain forest and it teemed with the most beautiful collection of native birds, including the moa, many varieties of kiwi, the biggest eagle known and extraordinary insects such as the giant weta.

So, God made it all, put it into ecological balance perfectly tuned to the various parts of the beautiful country it all lived in. Fine, well done God, - one of His best projects if you ask me.
So now, it’s time for a flood. Everything is going to go, it’s going to be a mess. There are no human inhabitants at this stage but something’s got to be done about the wildlife.
Get it to the Middle East and get on board the ark. Say what?
You heard me get cracking.
So off they all go. What? They all just get moving – several hundred species of birds – seven breeding pairs of each, tuataras, lizards, native snails (they’re going to slow things down a bit) Its a bit of a journey I should warn you, a fair bit of sea. Wait a minute; this is before the flood there’s land all the way there. There is? Yeah, never mind about how they swim, they walk. Come on you wetas, get cracking. Oh, alright then, but it’s going to take a while, what about my unique diet? Bring it along or learn to like other stuff. What about the forest. Don’t worry, it will spontaneously re-generate. All of it? Yup. Isn’t there a simpler solution, I mean can’t you just move us to higher ground for a while until it all blows over? Nup, the drink’s all the way to the top of Mt Cook and then some, like, total.

They make it no problem, bit of a journey but they make it in the end – meet quite a lot of the other animals and insects and birds on the way it’s too social if you ask me, but they value the company.

Cut to much later. It’s all over. They had a nice cruise, got fed by Noah’s family no complaints but it really, really would be nice to go home.
Not a problem.
You’re not going to make us walk all the way home are you? Oh, no no no, There’s sea now. The flood carved out the ocean between Australia and New Zealand. Also, the Pacific is pretty huge. Tell you what, we can drop you off on the way to Mt Ararat. Oh, whew, what a relief.
And so all the unique bio-mass is dropped of and the rest is history!

Before I pitch this idea to Katzenberg or John Lasiter, I would appreciate some feed back on the historical accuracy. I am filling in the gaps here so anyone with some first-hand knowledge – ok, - best guesses would be welcome.

#2 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2007 - 07:39 AM

Starhopper....you said a lot and as I read through your post answers to each of your "points" popped into my head.
First I have a few questions for you....

Who said Noahs Ark was in the Middle East?

Who says that prior to the flood the world wasn't "Pangea" like allowing the animals access to the ark?

Who says insects needed to have been on the ark?

In regards to Mt. Cook...they say it was formed by tectonic uplifting and pressure as the Pacific and Australia-Indian plates collide. If the mountain formed near the end or after the flood then your water over the mountain remark seems silly.
(Ps. 104:8) : "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down" As I have pointed out in other threads the recumbent folds in many of the mountains show a rapid formation rather then this slow process you have been indoctrinated into believing.

Special diets? Have any examples? If so I have answers.

#3 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2007 - 02:04 PM

1.) Only two of every (sort/kind) of animal came onto the ark. Gen 6:19 This doesn't mean every different species, since all creationist agree MicroEvolution does occur.
2.) Noah was instructed to gather all food that is eaten Gen 6:21
3.) Animals that are traveling don't need the protection of the rain forest when they have the protection of an almighty god.
4.) The oldest tree in the world is just over 4,000 years old (sorry no source right now) So YES, those entire rainforests have completely grew up since the flood.

I dunno your little story is mildly entertaining, but it doesn't at all address the creationist's story of Noah.

I don't understand what you are 'submitting' it for? Are you trying to publish that or something?

#4 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2007 - 05:59 PM

The reason I put this fantasy up is to see if there is really a creationist construct about New Zealand that has any logical consistency to it and so that creationists on this forum could actually fill in the gaps.
If there are ever to be creationist textbooks in New Zealand with a better account of the unique diversity of life that exists here, and creationists if think such books can sit alongside the existing science textbooks about New Zealand then it does no harm to find out what might be in them.
I am not doing this to further explain any position. I am looking for the story as told from the “creation science” viewpoint.

To your questions, remember I am not the one needing to supply evidence or support. I am looking for the story of how all of the wildlife in New Zealand made it to Noahs Ark – and back again.
I have the right to expect good evidence. I am grouping the two answers for simplicity but you know who you are.


Who said Noahs Ark was in the Middle East


Ok, then, Turkey –even further from home.

Who says that prior to the flood the world wasn't "Pangea" like allowing the animals access to the ark?


I allowed for that in my story. It’s going home that’s a problem.

Who says insects needed to have been on the ark?


The bible does. They can’t all swim.
, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD

(Ps. 104:8) : "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down" As I have pointed out in other threads the recumbent folds in many of the mountains show a rapid formation rather then this slow process you have been indoctrinated into believing.



Please don’t come back with a comment about whether I have been indoctrinated or not into anything. If you make a personal stab like that again I will not consider you a part of this discussion. Please stick to the topic. Anyway I am taking the angle of trying to build a consistent flood story. I haven’t said anything about slow.
The other responses……

2

.)Only two of every (sort/kind) of animal came onto the ark. Gen 6:19 This doesn't mean every different species, since all creationist agree MicroEvolution does occur.


No, seven birds plus mates.
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."


Micro evolution is not speciation. Macro evolution is. Perhaps you could help build this story by having a look at the number of species in the 40 or so New Zealand genus (no one knows what “kind” means) and tell me how many as a guess were on the arc. Then we would know how many would need to evolve since. Who believes in evolution anyway?

2.) Noah was instructed to gather all food that is eaten Gen 6:21


Not just flora but fauna food? Give me a picture here. How did he collect hu hu grubs from New Zealand?


3.) Animals that are traveling don't need the protection of the rain forest when they have the protection of an almighty god.


That’s fine, just appeal to that but how hid they travel? Show me how the snails got there? I need to ask this because a six year old kid in school is going to want to know. A 50 year old biologist is going to want to know.


4.) The oldest tree in the world is just over 4,000 years old (sorry no source right now) So YES, those entire rainforests have completely grew up since the flood.


So all the trees and vegetation will survive being underwater for that long? Proof?

4.)I dunno your little story is mildly entertaining, but it doesn't at all address the creationist's story of Noah.
I don't understand what you are 'submitting' it for? Are you trying to publish that or something?



My little story is mildly entertaining? I know. Lets make it sing. I want to know, not just guess. I want the very best of creationist knowledge as it pertains to New Zealand,
It’s the process that’s being described, not whether it happened I am not trying to defend evolution but to build a consistent story from the creationist perspective. I know you can do it....?

#5 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2007 - 06:14 PM

Let me address point 4.....considering it's the only point that might make sense.

PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the ark. The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later could have germinated and grown outside of the ark. It’s possible/probable that Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so he could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters receded.
Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water during the flood where after the water receded they could then germinate in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that fashion, yet some would. Floating vegetation rafts would have also provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters. As the flood waters uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the moist ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow. Still others seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the waters had left the surface of the continents. Some of the seeds buried deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a chance to germinate.
Trees like the olive or the locust can root just by sticking a branch into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they were buried or settled on the surface.
Ref, Noah’s Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe


Now that that has been cleared up...anything else?

#6 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2007 - 06:18 PM

Micro evolution is not speciation. Macro evolution is. Perhaps you could help build this story by having a look at the number of species in the 40 or so New Zealand genus (no one knows what “kind” means) and tell me how many as a guess were on the arc. Then we would know how many would need to evolve since. Who believes in evolution anyway?

There were about 16,000 animals on board the ark...want a list?




#7 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2007 - 06:20 PM

That’s fine, just appeal to that but how hid they travel? Show me how the snails got there?


The snail had 120 years to get there...is that a problem?


#8 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2007 - 06:54 PM

Let me address point 4.....considering it's the only point that might make sense.

PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the ark.  The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later could have germinated and grown outside of the ark.  It’s possible/probable that Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so he could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters receded.
Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water during the flood where after the water receded they could then germinate in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that fashion, yet some would.  Floating vegetation rafts would have also provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters.  As the flood waters  uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the moist ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow.  Still others seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the waters had left the surface  of the continents.  Some of the seeds buried deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a chance to germinate. 
Trees like the olive or the locust  can root just by sticking a branch into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they were buried or settled on the surface.
Ref, Noah’s Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe


Now that that has been cleared up...anything else?

View Post


Fine. Is there anything else? Yes, there's everything else?

#9 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2007 - 07:01 PM

There were about 16,000 animals on board the ark...want a list?


I am just talking about the New Zealand ones. But worldwide there are over a million species of animal.

#10 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2007 - 07:14 PM

The snail had 120 years to get there...is that a problem?


Fantastic! Now your'e thinking. Have you any idea of the variety of Native New Zealand snail? Have you also factored in rest stops?

It's getting back from the ark also...?

Remember this isn't about me having to prove anyone wrong, it's about a compelling, scientific, consistent account of the flood as it pertains to New Zealand

#11 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2007 - 07:20 PM

[b]There were about 16,000 animals on board the ark...want a list?

I meant to add, thats 40 genus not species the NZ species number in the thousands.

#12 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 28 June 2007 - 10:17 PM

I meant to add, thats 40 genus not species the NZ species number in the thousands.

View Post



I might, and rightly so, get slapped down for jumping in here but; the current number of a specie or kind is irrelevant. For simplicity I'll deal with just one animal, the dog. Noah only needed two, one male, one female.

Biblically, at the time of the flood there had been little time for genetic drift because only about 2000 years had past since the creation of Earth. Genetic mutation is unlikely before the flood because there would be little to cause it, the world was, although corrupted by the sin of Man, much more fertile and less hostile than today. The loss of the vapor canopy changed this and adaptation (misread as evolution) caused rapid and wide variations WITHIN species. Such adaptation is still occurring and can be seen in dogs today. Man has helped that along by breading. But no dog (Canine) today is any more "evolved" than the two Noah played fetch with.

As for the distance the individual animals needed to travel, it was likely very little. A literal reading of the Bible only counts one land mass before the flood. There is no record of the size. But all animals were with Adam and Eve in Eden so it is not a great leap of logic to surmise that there were representatives of all the animals in easy traveling range of the Ark, which was built in Adam's neighborhood.

Yes all this only works if the Bible is correct, that is the point.

Larry

#13 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2007 - 10:41 PM

I might, and rightly so, get slapped down for jumping in here but; the current number of a specie or kind is irrelevant. For simplicity I'll deal with just one animal, the dog.  Noah only needed two, one male, one female.


I won't slap you down. But will someone tell me one pair or seven

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."


Biblically, at the time of the flood there had been little time for genetic drift because only about 2000 years had past since the creation of Earth.  Genetic mutation is unlikely before the flood because there would be little to cause it, the world was, although corrupted by the sin of Man, much more fertile and less hostile than today.  The loss of the vapor canopy changed this and adaptation (misread as evolution) caused rapid and wide variations WITHIN species.  Such adaptation is still occurring and can be seen in dogs today.  Man has helped that along by breading.  But no dog (Canine) today is any more "evolved" than the two Noah played fetch with.


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?


As for the distance the individual animals needed to travel, it was likely very little.  A literal reading of the Bible only counts one land mass before the flood.


It doesn't count the land masses at all in Genesis.

There is no record of the size.  But all animals were with Adam and Eve in Eden so it is not a great leap of logic to surmise that there were representatives of all the animals in easy traveling range of the Ark, which was built in Adam's neighborhood.


So, in our story that's being built all the unique native species of New Zealand either had not evolved yet or were in the garden of eden.

Yes all this only works if the Bible is correct, that is the point.


Assume it is. What we are doing is building a picture of the processes, the What happened and how.

#14 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 28 June 2007 - 11:49 PM

I won't slap you down. But will someone tell me one pair or seven

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
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?
It doesn't count the land masses at all in Genesis.
So, in our story that's being built all the unique native species of New Zealand either had not evolved yet or were in the garden of eden.
Assume it is. What we are doing is building a picture of the processes, the What happened and how.

View Post


It has been a while and I have forgotten how to use the tools for reply and quote, I hope to get back into practice. 2 pair or 7; as written depended on clean or unclean. The terms are from the Old Testament and still used by Jews today and those who follow Biblical diets. Every living creature falls into one category or the other. Clean are those animals declared good for eating and / or sacrifice.

As for the number of species, as far as I know it is unknown and we may be talking about "kinds" not species. But again only two were needed. Yes there were seven pairs of some. The reason (I hope I recount this correctly) is that Noah would need clean animals for the sacrifice when the flood receded, so more than two were needed of the clean animals.

Yes evolution does have trouble explaining the wide variation, regardless of the amount of time involved. The literal Biblical explanation is that only two spiders (or any animal) were needed for the many we find today. After the flood the vapor canopy protecting Earth from solar radiation was gone. It provided some of the rain. The environment on Earth was directly and greatly changed by this loss. Of course all life on Earth is continuing to suffer the effects of this loss. Pre-flood, humans lived for centuries. Post-flood our life spans began to fall. Medical advances have helped in recent decades. Animals were also adversely affected. They mutated due to environmental hardships (radiation, heat, cold, lack of food, etc.) and adapted due to advantages of breeding. These bread-in advantages would recess and sometimes remove some genetic info though.

As for space on the Ark? Only land and air based animals count, water dwellers stayed where they were. Even if we assume 7 pairs of each animal were aboard there was more than enough space. Consider the actual size of most animals, I could house the required insect count in my 5' x 8' shed (many are already there). Most animals range from lions in size down. The number of large animals, horse and up, is comparatively small. Many studies have been completed of the text describing the Ark's construction and I am satisfied that (assuming the Bible is correct) the story is feasible.

Ge 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. All the water was in one place so all the land must have been one continent.

Hope I am not bursting a personal bubble here. Though New Zealand has some unique animals, they are merely variations of animals Noah cared for.

I hope I have helped build your picture and can help more. I don't like to through a bunch of tech jargin out. I have been on this study for a couple decades now and try to keep it simple.

Larry

#15 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2007 - 06:42 AM

So all the trees and vegetation will survive being underwater for that long? Proof?


What the heck are you talking about ?
The oldest tree in the world is just over 4000 years old.
Creationist believe that the flood happened over 4000 years ago.

Nothing survived the flood.
In your orginal post, you said you wanted to know how New Zealands trees all grew back after the flood.

Well the fact is that NONE of the trees in new zealand are older than the flood, so we are not responsible for explaining that.


My little story is mildly entertaining? I know. Lets make it sing.

View Post


How about NO. Your little story is nothing more than a little story and doesn't fit a creationist viewpoint or known facts at all.

If you are seriously wanting to know a creationist view of what happened after the flood (which you are making obvious, that you are not serious) Then let a creationist tell it.

You don't see me making some whack attempt at writing evolutional history, do you?


Bottom line is, the animals didn't come from new zealand, take a cruise with Noah and then pack their bags and head back home. That is a strawman theory that you are attempting to pin on creationist.

Noah got 7 pairs of KINDS of animals (like dogs, snails, frogs, etc.) Noah got food that they could eat. Noah went for a cruise. Noah landed and all the animals lived where they landed. As they multipled they spread out.

The world doesn't rotate around New Zealand.

#16 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2007 - 07:40 AM

Yes evolution does have trouble explaining the wide variation, regardless of the amount of time involved. The literal Biblical explanation is that only two spiders (or any animal) were needed for the many we find today. After the flood the vapor canopy protecting Earth from solar radiation was gone. It provided some of the rain. The environment on Earth was directly and greatly changed by this loss. Of course all life on Earth is continuing to suffer the effects of this loss. Pre-flood, humans lived for centuries. Post-flood our life spans began to fall. Medical advances have helped in recent decades. Animals were also adversely affected. They mutated due to environmental hardships (radiation, heat, cold, lack of food, etc.) and adapted due to advantages of breeding. These bread-in advantages would recess and sometimes remove some genetic info though.



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?


Ge 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. All the water was in one place so all the land must have been one continent.

Hope I am not bursting a personal bubble here. Though New Zealand has some unique animals, they are merely variations of animals Noah cared for.


What do you mean mere variations? They evolved since the flood? Have I got that right?

I hope I have helped build your picture and can help more. I don't like to through a bunch of tech jargin out. I have been on this study for a couple decades now and try to keep it simple.


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?

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?

#17 Guest_starhopper_*

Guest_starhopper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2007 - 07:47 AM

How about NO. Your little story is nothing more than a little story and doesn't fit a creationist viewpoint or known facts at all.


Again, it’s not my story I am wanting, it’s the creationist account. I am wanting the creationist known facts. How about more than a little creation story from you?

If you are seriously wanting to know a creationist view of what happened after the flood (which you are making obvious, that you are not serious) Then let a creationist tell it.


That's the point! Well, come on then…….tell it.

You don't see me making some whack attempt at writing evolutional history, do you?

You can’t even make a whack attempt at writing creation history. Give it a go.


Bottom line is, the animals didn't come from new zealand, take a cruise with Noah and then pack their bags and head back home. That is a strawman theory that you are attempting to pin on creationist.

Noah got 7 pairs of KINDS of animals (like dogs, snails, frogs, etc.) Noah got food that they could eat. Noah went for a cruise. Noah landed and all the animals lived where they landed. As they multipled they spread out.


I’m not attempting to pin anything. I am disappointed. I thought that there would be at least someone who can explain the facts with a scientific rationale. I am not attempting to disprove anything. There is absolutely no content yet to even discuss!

The world doesn't rotate around New Zealand.


A lot of sea does. Obviously I am using it as an example. If there is a viable alternative to the evolution account of New Zealand, then it would be worth telling. As I said earlier what is going to go into the textbooks?

#18 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2007 - 09:06 AM

Again, it’s not my story I am wanting, it’s the creationist account. I am wanting the creationist known facts. How about more than a little creation story from you?


Ok...

These videos are a good start, it's 17 hours, so sorry in advance for the length.

They are Kent H*vinds, He covers the flood and your questions.
I believe they are in one of the first two videos. I could be wrong though.

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

You can’t even make a whack attempt at writing creation history. Give it a go.


Why are you on this board telling us we have to write books to appease you?
We are not circus poodles. If you have a question, ask a question. If you want to know how creationist think the world came to be, LOOK for the explanations and then ask questions on those explanations.

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.

If you have a question, ask a question.

If you want to know more about why we believe what we believe, just ask for resources.

#19 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2007 - 10:40 AM

I am just talking about the New Zealand ones. But worldwide there are over a million species of animal.

View Post



I thought you knew that each species of animals did not need to be on the ark?

#20 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2007 - 10:43 AM

Fantastic! Now your'e thinking. Have you any idea of the variety of Native New Zealand snail? Have you also factored in rest stops?

It's getting back from the ark also...?

Remember this isn't about me having to prove anyone wrong, it's about a compelling, scientific, consistent account of the flood as it pertains to New Zealand

View Post



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?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users