Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?

From Conservapedia

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

It seems to me that this is a compelling argument against what people interpret as literal in the bible. Surely every animal born of the first set of animals didn't have to copulate with it's own brother or sister, and if so, that's messed up man... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paddyduffy (talk)

Based on that statement, man, explain the status of the North American plains bison at 1905, and again at 2007. Karajou 16:41, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Well, I'm not an expert, but it seems like they took small numbers of the animal and gradually built substantial herds. There seems to have been more scope for genetic diversity than 2 animals though. I mean, does the whole incest thing not seem weird, even for animals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paddyduffy (talk)

I'm no expert in genetics, either; the whole RNA/DNA thing still mystifies me. But I do know that the plains bison was on the brink of extiction due to over-hunting; by about 1900 there were less than 100 animals left alive, and some authorities state the number was as low as 17. That by and of itself is a very small gene pool. Today, there are around 35,000-40,000 bison in managed herds throughout the continent. Karajou 07:35, 23 December 2007 (EST)

The Bible does not specifically prohibit "incest" among animals (the term specifically refers to humans as it is), and most creationists believe that God allowed incest at the very beginning of human existence to allow the human race to grow - note that the Bible didn't ban it specifically until Moses came around. [1] DanH 18:41, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"Incest" did not exist until God said it did. Also what is actually known about the genetic outcome of a certain sized "gene pool" after some number of generations with various breeding scenarios among the history of its members? Qwestor 19:53, 22 December 2007 (EST)

There's two potential problems with breeding among small populations. One is the problem known as incest when it's referring to humans, that the offspring of two closely-related animals (or people) are far more likely than otherwise to inherit the same genetic defect from both parents. If the parents are not closely related, there's a far better chance that for every genetic defect inherited from one parent, they will get a non-defective gene from the other parent (remember that almost all genes come in pairs, one from each parent). So the good genes will be used preferentially over the defective genes. But the same defective genes from both parents can cause problems, ranging from minor to fatal.

The other problem is the amount of genetic variability found in small populations. I'll illustrate with a simplified example. If two dogs each have a gene for short fur and a gene for long fur, then they'll have medium-length fur. When they mate and have pups, the pups will get one gene from each parent. On average, one pup in four will get a short-fur gene from each parent, so have two short-fur genes, and have short fur. One pup in four will get a long-fur gene from each parent, so will have two long-fur genes and have long fur. Two pups in four will get a short-fur gene from one parent and a long-fur gene from the other parent, so end up with medium-length fur. If the climate becomes cold, natural selection will favour the dogs with long hair, and the dogs with short and medium fur will die off. What has happened is that the short-fur gene has been eliminated from the population. (And because there is only a loss of genetic information, this is not evidence for goo-to-you evolution. It is in fact evidence against it.) Now if the climate becomes much warmer, so that long fur is a problem, the population as a whole no longer has the variability to adapt to the warmer conditions.

Now genes, such as the short-fur genes, might simply be lost by chance. If you toss a coin 1000 times, then it will land heads-up about 500 times. But if you toss a coin ten times, there is a small but real chance that you might get heads all ten times. The point being that the statistical average is more certain with higher numbers. So genes won't be lost from a large population unless there is selective pressure on those genes, but they might be lost from a small population simply by chance (refer to the pups above born with only short-fur genes). This is what is known as a 'genetic bottleneck'.

But note the following two points: Two closely-related animals mating will only be a problem if there are genetic defects. The further back you go, the fewer genetic defects there were. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were none. At the time of the flood, there would be relatively few. Second, the genetic bottleneck problem is only a problem if, by chance, the small population has lost some of the genetic information. If all the genetic information is retained in the small population, then there is no problem.

Now consider this: The animals that went on the ark were brought to Noah by God. That is, God selected the animals. God, Who after all created the genetic system and therefore would be an expert on it, could easily have selected specimens with the fewest genetic defects (and ensured that the same defects did not exist in both parents), and with the greatest genetic diversity.

Philip J. Rayment 21:20, 22 December 2007 (EST)

On another point, Mr. Rayment, if each species of animal came from a single mother, would the mitochondrial DNA of every animal of that species not be the same? I believe this to be so because while the sperm and egg nuclei fuse to form a diploid zygote, the DNA contained in cell organelles of the comes exclusively from the mother's side. If all animals of a single species could be proven to have the same mitochondrial DNA, then your side of the argument stands strong and this is evidence that perhaps the bible should be read literally. If this is not the case though, and I believe it is not, then surely all animals did not come from a single mother unless the laws of genetics have changed radically in the last 6000 years. Thank you for participating in this debate by the way. Paddyduffy

All domestic Syrian/Golden hamsters in the world today are bred from one original captive pair, beginning in 1930. Mitochondrial DNA testing has confirmed this. With regard to your question "if each species of animal came from a single mother, would the mitochondrial DNA of every animal of that species not be the same?", you are missing the point. mtDNA points only to the most recent common ancestor, and scientists are often very quick to point out that the existence of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y Chromosomal Adam" cannot be used to scientifically prove the existence of the Biblical Adam and Eve. It cuts both ways, I guess: no cake and eating it. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Paddyduffy, if evolution is true, does it propose that each species of animal came from more than one mother? Did two or more females (and two or more males) each independently evolve the same differences to create a new species? My point, of course, being that if this is a problem for creationists, it's also a problem for evolutionists. Indeed, as Fox said, evolutionists propose that all women are descended from a single woman, whom they've dubbed 'mitochondrial Eve'. So "if all animals of a single species could be proved to have the same mitochondrial DNA", why would evolutionists consider that support for creationism, and that the Bible should be read literally?

Creationists don't propose, by the way, that DNA never changes. They accept that mutations exist, which change the DNA. What they reject (partly on the basis of scientific observation) is that mutations produce new genetic information. So changes in the mitochondrial DNA are not evidence for evolution. And such changes have been shown to occur more rapidly than previously believed.[2]

Philip J. Rayment 05:58, 25 December 2007 (EST)

OK I'm not gonna get drawn into an argument here, I do not know enough theories etc. I would like to ask a question though. Surely the fact that part of DNA mutates would lead to new genetic material? If there are 4 letters of DNA which combine in strings that are massively long, then would not the changing of one letter in the string lead to a whole raft of potential changes to the animal? Gradually of course, but while it would close off some genetic possibilities, others would open up, thus leading to the gradual evolution of animals. Of course I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but I thought I might as well ask. Bolly 9:28, 26 December 2007

Ok, I'm on the verge of conceding this debate because I have neither made my side of the argument particularily clear nor offered compelling or particularily insightful evidence. I accept the above points as pretty valid, though I do believe that genetic mutations do lead to new genetic material, and that this is the driving force behind changes in existing species leading to the emergence of new ones. One of the first things they teach you in genetics is that, contrary to common belief, sexual reproduction serves in reality to homogenize a given population rather than produce new genetic features, and that the stream of 'innovations' that emerge in a population are principally due to genetic mutations that go by unchecked in the interphase of cell division (the G1 phase). I would be interested to hear anything else anyone has to say on this topic though, in favour of either side. Oh, and Merry Christmas! Paddyduffy

Both Bolly and Paddyduffy mention new genetic material. The point is that DNA is not just genetic material, but genetic information (<-- read that article). Nobody has ever observed mutations generate new information. Put it this way. A "simple" single-celled creature has no genetic information for hair, eyes, skin, blood, wings, feathers, legs, and so on. So to go from a single-celled creature to reptiles, birds, horses, and humans, evolution must add heaps and heaps of new genetic information. Mutations do not do this any more than pressing the wrong key when typing improves the sentence. That is, the mutation, in order to produce new information, must not just be a random change, but a change that produces something with meaning. In theory, this might occur extremely rarely. According to evolution, this had to have occurred very often. In practice, we've yet to find one example. Philip J. Rayment 19:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Philip, there is an example of this occurring in HIV. HIV-M gained a gated ion channel, this is pretty substantial due to the complexity associated with the proteins involved. Dr. Behe, on his amazon blog, was corrected about this about a month ago after the release of Edge of Evolution. He made the claim of no new information without the loss of function but was shown, and admitted, to be wrong.--Able806 19:50, 25 December 2007 (EST)

As I said, it might occur occasionally, but evolution requires that it has occurred very often. So even if the claim is true, it doesn't offer any real support for evolution. But could you provide a link so that I can check it out further? It wouldn't be the first time that something like this has been claimed, but turned out later to be wrong. Philip J. Rayment 20:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Philip, here is a list of research articles that show the VPU in subtype M HIV-1. I am sorry about the delay but I have been visiting family for the past week.

I know that sometimes these articles can be difficult to read due to the technical terms used but they show the evidence and proof of the Vpu having formed from a previous clade of HIV and that it is a complex structure with beneficial attributes for the virus.--Able806 09:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)

They are difficult to read also because all that is at those links (possibly due to my lack of membership or something) are abstracts. From what I can see and understand, most if not all of those references talk about what the protein can do, not about it being new genetic information. Behe admitted that there was a new protein-binding site. I can't see any admission of the generation of new genetic information. Anyway, I've e-mailed someone I know to find out more about this. Hopefully he will have the time to investigate and give me an answer. Philip J. Rayment 05:06, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I e-mailed someone I know at Creation Ministries International, and they are going to publish a reply on their web-site as part of their feedback section in just over a week's time. I'll post a link here when it appears. Philip J. Rayment 08:55, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks, I would be interested in what they have to say about it considering the amount of empirical evidence to support it. I do hope, though, they have a virologist on staff that can do a comprehensive review.--Able806 09:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Here is the reply. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

That is great and all Philip but they did not address the point of the refences, the gated ion Vpu. HIV has has Vpus and that is known, hence reference 9. The point is a specific gated ion channel. That was the whole point of the articles. Creation on the web did not even address that with their reply.--Able806 09:12, 9 February 2008 (EST)

But what if the step from single celled to multi celled animals was not only possible but probable? For example, say that part of a bacteria's DNA sequence runs like this: ABD CAD BAA CAD DDB. And say that for a multi-celled organism to exist then the third part of the sequence must begin with an A: AAA, ABD, ADA etc, as that change would effect the next three hundred letters down the sequence. And say that the letter that must change has a high rate of mutation, and then remember that the Earth was more susceptible to cosmic mutating rays. And then one day, it mutated into the A. Ta-dah multi celled organisms. Of course its only a hypothesis but what is wrong with it? Bolly 9:23, 27 December 2007

And what if I could wave a magic wand? Sure, we can speculate and fantasize as much as we like, but what we need is a reasonable argument.

I don't actually follow precisely what change you are proposing in your example. You talk about a letter changing, but the reference to this affecting the next three hundred letters suggests an addition, that results in a "frame shift". Regardless, what is wrong with your hypothesis is that it's like proposing that a manual for a bicycle could be changed into a manual for a motorbike, by changing (or adding and frame-shifting) one letter. This is clearly nonsense, and the only possible way for this to work is if the bicycle manual (or DNA for the single-celled creature) was extremely cleverly designed to be so transformable by the change of a single letter. But did you notice that reference to design in there?

The problem is one of information as much as anything. A random change to a message (DNA instructions, bicycle manual, or this sentence) is not going to produce new information. Rather, if it's going to do anything, it's going to destroy information. As an example, I've put three sentences below. The first is one written by an intelligent being (me). The second is the same sentence with a random letter substitution (after making a copy of the sentence, I put the cursor at the start of the sentence, closed my eyes, held down the right-arrow key for a second, then, still with my eyes closed, pressed a random key on the keyboard in overtype mode). With the third, I did the same thing, except that it wasn't in overtype mode, and I then did a "frame shift", by moving all the spaces back one position.

This is a sentence that I have typed in order to illustrate a random change such as a mutation might produce.
This is a senthnce that I have typed in order to illustrate a random change such as a mutation might produce.
This is a sgentenc etha t Ihav etype di norde rt oillustrat e arando mchang esuc ha s amutatio nmigh tproduc e.

See how sentence 2 has no new information, and in fact is now corrupted. And see how sentence 3 has been turned into gibberish? The point is, you are not dealing here with random letters (DNA or English), but with information, that is, something with meaning. You don't produce new meaning from random changes. Further, the only observed source of information is an intelligent being. Yet humans could not have been the source of the DNA information, so where does that leave you?

Just one further point. If evolution is true, this sort of change in information that you propose must have happened not just once to go from single-cell creatures to multi-celled creatures, but millions of times, that is, for each "step" of evolution. Yet when asked to provide one example, Richard Dawkins could offer none!

Philip J. Rayment 20:55, 26 December 2007 (EST)

There is a difference between DNA sequences and sentences. All the DNA interacts to affect the embryonic developent of the organism(or how bacteria split etc). Changing one letter in a sentence and then frame shifting does create meaningless gibberish. But with DNA changing a letter and then doing something similar to a frame shift would simply create a new combination of genes that would then affect the organism. There is no such thing as a meaningless stretch of DNA, all of it has an affect. Natural selection ensures that only organisms whose DNA gives them slight advantages pass on their genetics. Its like a computer program. You could create a computer program to randomly generate a sequence of 29 letters and spaces then see how long it takes for it to form the sentence "Darrell Lea Christmas Candies" (there's a box of them sitting on my desk). It simply wouldn't happen. On the other hand if you randomly generated a sequence, then instead made the computer randomly alter 1-5 letters, keeping whichever of the changed letters are closer to the desired sentence and repeating, the sentence will form after approximately 50-100 "generations". This analogy is better because even though nature does not work towards an ideal animal, the force of natural selection works towards a better animal and prunes away all the mutations that do not go towards that. I must away now, and I won't be able to respond for up to 3 weeks, so happy holidays and apologies for not finishing my argument properly. Bolly 12:31, 28 December 2007

There is a slight difference, but not one that affects the validity of the analogy. With English (and other languages), letters combine into words of almost arbitrary length, words combine into phrases, phrases combine into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, and so on. With DNA, letters combine into 3-letter "words", the words code for an amino acid, the amino acids combine into proteins, the proteins into ... well, I'm not quite sure of all the steps, but you get the idea. With English words, you can have 676 (26²) two-letter words, 17576 (26³) three-letter words, and so on. But only a small fraction of those words have meanings attached. With DNA, you have only 64 (4³) words, so a much smaller number. And, consequently, all 64 "words" have meaning. That is, they all translate into amino acids. So in that sense you are correct that the analogy is not perfect. However, that's where the differences end. It's not true that all combinations of amino acids make meaningful proteins, and that all combinations of proteins make meaningful organs, or whatever. So the analogy at this level is quite valid. in other words, a random change does mean that you're likely to get gibberish. Sure, because there is some redundancy in the 64 DNA "words", changing one letter can mean that you get the same amino acid, so in that case you do not get gibberish (although I'm sure that I could think of a few similar examples from English if I tried). But if you get a different amino acid, then you no longer get the protein that you were getting, and the new protein (compare to phrase) will probably not mean anything at least in the greater context (organ/sentence).

So adding a DNA letter and doing a frame shift will almost not result in something meaningful, just as doing so in English doesn't.

"There is no such thing as a meaningless stretch of DNA, all of it has an affect.": There's no such thing as a meaningless sentence on this page (I hope; I haven't checked!), but that doesn't mean that every possible combination of letters, words, phrases, and sentences have meaning. It just means that both (the sentences and the DNA) were intelligently designed! But aside from that, what you said is simply untrue. There are parts of the DNA that have mutations that have rendered them meaningless (in the sense that they don't do anything useful). And that's ignoring the fact that many scientists have long believed that most of the DNA is "junk", i.e. meaningless. This idea is now being shown to be wrong (as creationists would expect), but the point is that most geneticists had no problem with the idea of meaningless DNA.

Your computer simulation example is incorrect, because evolution requires that natural selection select for something that is better at each step. Your simulation selects for something that is closer to a predetermined target at each step, but not something that is better (has greater survival value) at each step. You did indicate that the analogy was not perfect, but the point is that the information in the final sentence is not the result of random changes, but the result of the intelligent being doing the selecting. That is, random changes do not produce information. The random changes produced letters, but the information already existed in the mind of the selector, who, instead of writing the letters down, simply selected them from a series of computer-generated strings. In both cases, however, the information was formed in the mind of the intelligent being.

Philip J. Rayment 02:26, 28 December 2007 (EST)

P.S. Happy holidays to you too! Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I think one of the main problems here is that there is a disagreement in the length of time it is believed these events occured. If a creationist says the world is around 6000 years old, then it would be near impossible to expect that all life as we know it on earth came about by a series of small, random changes to genetic codes. However, if we accept what all mainstream science believes by saying the earh is 4.54 billion years old, it is certainly more probable that anything with a small probability (the formation of life, for example) will eventually come about by chance. Intelligent design is a philosophy, not science, and thus attempts at scientific explanation of it are inherently flawed. Arguments I have seen against carbon dating seem to rely on the laws of physics changing significantly over time. Thus, if this is not the case it can easily be proven that the earth is older than 6000 years, as the half-life of carbon 14 is known and its quantity in a specimin can be ascertained. I mean, I find it hard to believe that all of mainstream science has been completely misled over the past several hundred years. As for the theory of all animals being originally created as vegetarians... I don't know man, talk to any biologist. Paddyduffy

No, the main problem is not the time, but whether or not goo-to-you evolution is even possible. If it's not possible (as claimed by creationists), then the amount of time is not going to make any difference. You refer to a "small probability", but the probability is actually negative. In nature, life is destroyed all the time. We do not see it generated. So even if, hypothetically, life did start, the odds are that it would die out before it got very far. But the odds are actually working against it even before that, and the Miller/Urey experiment showed that. The amino acids that were formed in that experiment had to be artificially trapped out, because the same conditions that formed them also destroyed them.

I would argue that evolution is a philosophy, not science, and that ID is more scientific than evolution.

Argument against carbon and other dating methods do not involve changes in the laws of physics. In summary, the arguments are (off the top of my head):

Radiometric dating is based on untestable assumptions, which may or may not be correct.
Radiometric dating results are contradictory often enough that the methods cannot be considered reliable.
Radiometric dating results on rocks (we're not talking carbon dating in this case) of known age are usually wrong, so why trust the results on rocks of unknown age?
Radiometric dating, carbon dating in particular, assumes that the biblical history is wrong. If this assumption is wrong, then the dates will be wrong. This means, of course, that you therefore can't use carbon dating to reject the biblical timescale, because the method is based on a rejection of the biblical history.

"I find it hard to believe that all of mainstream science has been completely misled over the past several hundred years": "Mainstream science" has only believed evolution for about 150 years, and long ages for about 200 years (and I'm probably being a bit generous there). For about three hundred years before that, it accepted creation and a young Earth. Presumably you would consider that "mainstream science [was] completely misled" for that time, yet you find it hard to believe that it could be misled for the (shorter) time since?

"As for the theory of all animals being originally created as vegetarians... I don't know man, talk to any biologist.": I personally know at least three biologists who agree with that, have met others, and know of yet more.

Philip J. Rayment 05:33, 30 December 2007 (EST)

You speak of 'negative probability', but this is a theoretical term that cannot be applied to real life, like the idea of owning 'minus three apples'- it doesn't make sense. The probability for an event occurring is assigned a value between 1 and 0, where the 1 value happens every time and the 0 value never happens. As life as we know it exists, we can say that life has a non-zero probability of occurring . I think what you're refering to is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy, and thus disorganisation, of the universe tends to increase over time. Therefore our highly-organised bodies would seem to be at odds with this. Yet this does not imply that life cannot exist in such a system, just that it is quite improbable that it can. From the simplest cell to ourselves, to live at all takes a large investment of energy, and a huge number of complex and intricate systems of regulation (homeostasis). Yet in the end all living things DO succumb to the 2nd law- 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust' ect- and thus reproduction is such a vital characteristic of all living things. Nature is constantly trying to break down our bodies. With an investment of energy we can overcome this for a finite time. Eventually we can no longer overcome it. In reference to mainstream science I was refering moreso to the scientific method, which ID seems to completely ignore, as there can be no possible way to disprove intelligent design. I will form a more elegant argument against ID in a few days. Let me just say I have no problem with people believing it, but I do have a problem with having it taught as science. I believe religion and science look to answer different questions about life.

My use of "negative probability" was probably not mathematically accurate, but to illustrate my point, just suppose that a train is travelling from B towards C. What's the probability that it will actually reach C? That depends, of course, on how far C is, how much fuel it has, etc. But what if the train was travelling from B towards A (i.e. in the opposite direction to C)? What's the probability that it will reach C? That's what I was getting at, that the change is in the wrong direction. It's not a positive change with the question being the size of the change, but a negative change, hence my (inaccurate) use of the term "negative probability".

"With an investment of energy we can overcome this for a finite time": No, it takes more than "an investment of energy". Sitting out in the sun (i.e. receiving energy) will actually cause our bodies to break down faster if anything. The energy has to be directed energy, according to a plan and with the appropriate machinery to use that energy. Energy by itself is not sufficient.

"I was refering moreso to the scientific method, which ID seems to completely ignore.: No more so than evolution, which even some evolutionists have admitted is not testable.

"...as there can be no possible way to disprove intelligent design.": I have the same criticism of evolution (<-- read that one).

"Let me just say I have no problem with people believing it, but I do have a problem with having it taught as science.": Do you also have a problem with archaeology being taught as science? It uses the same principle of trying to determine if an artifact was made by an intelligent being or the forces of nature.

"I believe religion and science look to answer different questions about life.": Then you believe wrong. The Bible gives us answers to when God created the world, what general order things were created in, how man was created, etc. Science, at least as practiced by evolutionists, attempts to answer those same questions.

Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Another question

So, if there was 2 of each kind after the great flood, wouldn't it be bit nasty that every time when some predator animal hunted it killed a whole species? Well, atleast they got diffrent meal every day. HeikkiL 21:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Sure - it would derail the plan of God - at least in part - every time it happened. Do you know that it happened or is it just a hypothetical? If all you are willing to contemplate is a strictly unguided naturalistic process model of subsequent events, then I suppose this is an issue for you, since it is for that particular model. It isn't particularly for process models which have resources beyond those of a strictly unguided naturalistic processes. In all frankness, do you really think these kinds of questions are all that weighty? Qwestor 09:45, 02 January 2008 (EST)

All carnivorous animals were originally created to be vegetarian, and only became carnivorous later. There may be some evidence that at least some of this was before the flood; I don't recall, but all carnivores are able to survive on a vegetarian diet. The occupants of the ark, who would most likely have been fed a vegetarian diet on the ark (and thus be used to it) didn't disembark until there was vegetation regrowing on the Earth. It would have been easier, I expect, for the carnivores to find vegetation to eat than to resort to killing some of the other now-quite-rare animals. Philip J. Rayment 02:33, 28 December 2007 (EST)

How would you suppose snakes survived on a vegetarian diet? Just went out and chomped on some old grass did they? That makes a pretty story but like most creationist stories it’s a bit far fetched. The snake’s digestive system is not made for plants; they wouldn’t be able to digest grass or leaves. You would notice that the snake like most other carnivores has no molars, a piece of necessary equipment when you are herbivore. FrameShift 10:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Creationists believe in adaptation, as long as it's within the range of designed-in genetic variability. So it's not out of the question that they have, for example, lost the genetic information for molars (i.e. perhaps they once had them).

Alternatively, while grass might be a problem, but what about fruit?

"...like most creationist stories it’s a bit far fetched.": Unlike so many evolutionary stories? How about the Big Bang: Nothing exploded and became everything. Now I'd all that "far fetched"!

Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 31 December 2007 (EST)

FrameShift is forgetting that the world was perfect when created, and there was no sin at all until Adam decided to bite into that which he wasn't allowed to do. The Bible records plenty of murder and meyhem from the time of the expulsion from Eden until God closed the door of the Ark, so it's entirely logical that snakes went after rats and rabbits as well. Karajou 10:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)

all 2 rabbits and rats?, also Phillip, what would happen if a molar wielding snake slept with a normal snake? and im pretty sure that any snake wouldn't be able to eat fruit (they might though i'm not sure), and even if they did, why wouldn't their be any fruit eating snakes leftGreenmeanie 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure if Karajou meant that the snakes on the ark ate rabbits and rats, or whether he was talking about before the flood.

I don't know; what would happen if a molar-wielding snake slept with a normal snake?

You don't seem to be able to make up your mind about them being able to eat fruit: "im pretty sure", "i'm not sure".

"why wouldn't their be any fruit eating snakes left"? Because they became extinct?

I did find a reference(http://ezinerticles.com/?What-Do-Snakes-Eat&id=339666) to some snakes eating aquatic plants. Although it doesn't think it too likely, this source (page 102) doesn't rule out that snake venom was originally used to soften fruit.

Philip J. Rayment 07:11, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

How did he do it?

Before we spend time discussing inbreeding we need an explaination of how Noah gathered all these animals. How he kept them from eating each other? Or Noah himself? How did he manage to find all the different insects - tens of thousands? And how did he find them in forty days spread all over the world as they probably must have been at that time like they are today? Did he go to Spitzbergen for icebears? Australia for kangaroos? And so on.

So before the inbred-question comes up these other questions need to be answered.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smek (talk)

Before you ask those questions, it might be a good idea to actually familiarise yourself with the story. Blatantly-obvious errors are:

Noah didn't gather the animals; God brought them to Noah.
Forty days was the time that it rained once the flood started, not the time for preparation. Noah apparently had 120 years to prepare.
The ark had rooms, or compartments, or cages, which would have prevented animals eating each other if nothing else did.

Less-obvious errors:

Insects did not need to be on the boat, as they could survive on floating mats of vegetation.
The Bible indicates a single super-continent at creation, which almost certainly split up during the flood. Therefore, there were no places such as Australia before the flood, and there's no reason to think that representatives of all the animals might not have already been in the vicinity prior to the flood.

Philip J. Rayment 21:30, 20 February 2008 (EST)

If we completely ignore the ages of rocks and the fact that Australia is one of the oldest continents if not the oldest. Personally I believe in Jesus but all the creation and Noah's ark story are symbolic and closer to fantasy than fact. --Helps 22:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Who is "ignoring" the ages of the rocks? I'm not. I'm rejecting the ages claimed by people who reject the biblical record, and their consequent claim that Australia is one of the oldest continents. If you believe in Jesus, why don't you believe what He said? He clearly accepted Moses' accounts of creation and Noah's ark as actual history, even going so far as to say, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Luke 16:31 Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Another Question on from this is how did noah achieve the spread of species around the globe and why base them as he did with only certain species in certain areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gymsox (talk)

That was not Noah's doing. Animals naturally spread out. The detailed explanation of how this happened has yet to be worked out. Philip J. Rayment 09:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?

From Conservapedia

Another question

How did he do it?

Views

Personal tools

Search

Popular Links

Help

World History

edit console