What people are quick to forget is Pangea, is referenced in the Bible (Genesis 1: 9-10; 10:25). So when Noah built the Ark he had less animals to worry about then today. Evolution is part of creation. It's within every animal to adapt and to change to their surroundings. How fast will they adapt or evolve? Man can't say because we don't know.
And the number of creatures you had posted is the collective number if species of the earth not just the animals found on land but the species found in the water and oceans. Noah was commanded to focus on the land animals and his family.
Noah didn't have to focus on the animals he didn't know about.
Before he started collecting the animals he was commanded to store food for him and his family, as well as for the creatures he was commanded to collect.
But there's also creatures like insects who can hibernate for several years.
Then you have Nidarians, flat worms, nematodes, and other parasitic life forms, that can last for years in water or dirt, without hatching from their eggs or cocoons.
Noah didn't spend forty days and forty nights on the Ark. That was how long it rained and flooded. He didn't just take 2 of every kind. That's how they went into the Ark.
But I have some questions for you too.

Why don't we have all of the books that are mentioned in the Bible? Why don't we have the records of Japheth and Ham? Why don't we have the records of all of God's dealings with His children on the Earth?
You do know we had other books that predate Genesis right? Why don't we have those books?
Why did the Catholic Church take out 14 books from the Bible?
Why aren't people pondering and praying to God for the answers, to know the truth for themselves?
If we did have all of the books from the time of Father Adam, there would be no doubt if what we are doing is wrong.

The reason why we don't have all of the books, it's because of unbelief and the wicked traditions of our fathers.
Until we find the strength to rise up on our knees and ask God the Eternal Father, the questions we have burning in our minds, we will not receive it.

Bruh. You seriously believe that all the continents were together to form Pangea in 3000 BCE during noahs' flood? We know that continents (Specifically referencing North American and European plates) move approximately an inch per year. Meaning with that logic I should be able to travel from the east coast of the US to the west coast of Europe with just a short Kayaking excursion. Pangea was last together about 200 million years ago do some research and you'll be happy to find out how ludicrous the bible is.

>You seriously believe that all the continents were together to form Pangea in 3000 BCE during noahs' flood?

a) It would be at least 4k years ago (at a minimum).
b) the Flood could have taken place far earlier than what we are being told and the story has been truncated. One Egyptian pharaoh called another his father and yet we know that there was 1,000 years between the two.

Love the proof you offered. Then when one actually reads and studies it, we find that where the facts can be examined, the Bible has always been found to be true and the critics have ALWAYS failed. If the critics had anything going for them, their track record should be at least as good as the weatherman's.

>"No evidence, I've asked numerous geologists, and studied the subject myself." -- And what would that evidence be?

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

>"You are brainwashed with religion" -- LOL! I've been to grad school on the subject and I read quite widely.

>" I could show you books full of evidence and you still wouldn't believe it" -- The absence of evidence, even when requested speaks very loudly.

>"so I know how fundamentalists are, there is no convincing you." -- I'm not a fundamentalist, why lie ab't me like that?

BTW, I posted a long response to your previous post and it didn't get posted.

1) You missed the part where I said: "where the facts can be examined".
2) "No evidence, I've asked numerous geologists, and studied the subject myself." -- And what evidence would that be? Especially after a MINIMUM of 4k years of wind and WATER erosion?
3) "There are two contradictory creation stories in the first chapter of genesis." -- Changing the subject and disproven by K.A. Kitchen back in '62--you are WAY behind in your reading. See http://www.thefishersofmenm...
4) "God murdering people in the old testament" -- Another attempt at deflection. People were clearly told that the wages of sin is death; if they didn't like it they could have left the area.
5) "No genetic proof that we descended from a single pair of humans." -- You need to read more. See https://www.livescience.com...
6) "No evidence for people living 900+ years." -- And yet you accept the other Semitic sources that talk of kings ruling for way over 1,000 years.
7) "Never, to my knowledge, there are all kinds of people disproving it constantly." -- Baloney. One example was when the Bible talks about the Hittites and the critics noted that no other source even mentions them. Then the archaeologists found them.
8) "If there was water tall enough to cover Everest, " -- Your assumption is wrong. See http://www.godandscience.or...
9) "a mile high tidal wave" -- Who said that there was one?
10) "fresh and saltwater species in the same water." -- Backing up what Deem's study says in #8. Thanks!

So Noah's Ark just happen to stay in the same general area without being anchored? Why would a loving and all knowing God tell them to take the city of Jerusalem instead of drifting that Ark to the America that no one knew of. All of it is so very flawed. All religions collect money.
Religion was a way to control those masses and collect their money, why else would they say that suicide is the greatest of sin, they lose a tax payer. After the next great catastrophe someone will find a copy of Spider-man or X-men and convince the new world of these supernatural beings.

>"Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:"

Now list the differences.

dconklin why

Because they are far more telling and would thus show that the Bible story did not come from the GE. More likely the GE is derivative and downgraded version of the biblical story. Compare AND contrast is a very powerful analytical tool. It helps one to avoid "parallelomania" (see Sandmel's paper on the subject (from '62): https://biblicalstudies.org...

The biggest proof the Bible is fake is that it remains unchanged. Christians mention the bible as being morally sound but also as being scientifically sound. rabbit don't chew cud. the world doesn't have four corners. if it was two pair or seven we know genetically all those species including humans would be dead from inbreeding. as for christ? the spiel about his miracles is worthless, how about what he said? thoughts are the same as actions? a compassionate being curses his own family? a man claims to be divine but provides answers even someone a thousand years earlier could know. if chrisy were real we'd call him a psychopath, because the science has caught up and revealed what personality traits like this mean. that's why Christians cant give up the notion of divinity; it means they wasted their lives.

Some people believe the Christian Bible was changed. The Islamic view of the Bible is based on the belief that the Quran says that parts of Bible are a revelation, but believe that some of it has become distorted or corrupted, and that a lot of text has been added which was not part of the original.

> the world doesn't have four corners

BTW, from

Isiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So, not only did the Bible report the earth was round about a thousand years before the Greeks figured that out, it mentions that the heavens are expanding about 3,000 years before the theory of the big bang came up.

So, let's not try to force that unfounded flat-earth, four corner thing on people.

love your insight...I could listen to you for days :)
however; keep in mind...a circle is not a globe.

Thank you, M00dSwing. I know a circle is not a globe. I also know that the Bible is not a physics or biology text book. Yet there are things in there, like the first verse of "Let there be light.. and there was light..." that indicates things like the Big Bang many millennia before science caught up, that show sophistication beyond its time.

It really rubs me the wrong way when people try to find little details given to a nomadic tribe of desert dwellers that are not up to current quantum mechanics and try to say that is proof that the Bible is false.

Maybe this article could break some of that down for us and summarize the conclusion that:
"While most modern Bible versions translate khûg as ‘circle’, a good case can be made that ‘sphere’ was the sense intended by the original Hebrew."

https://creation.com/isaiah...

> but also as being scientifically sound
Well, you are not scientifically sound either
>the world doesn't have four corners.
When considered from a nomadic society point of view, it does have 4 corners. The land is bordered by mountains and seas on the east, sea on the west, mountains and inland seas on the north, impenetrable forest to the south. Kind of sounds like 4 corners. Besides, I have a map of the whole earth on the wall of office. That map has 4 corners. Any map drawn on flat paper will have 4 corners.

Also, consider this from Genesis 6:3 "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

It was not until the 1980's (over 3 thousand years after that statement was written) that scientists determined that genetically humans are limited to about 120 years.
There are many more like that, but it would take too long to enumerate them all.

> if it was two pair or seven we know genetically all those species
> including humans would be dead from inbreeding.
I love how your dogmatic spouting of secular scientism gets the science wrong. Scientists have shown, through mitochondrial DNA, that all humans originated from a single female. Also, if you go with Darwinism, then a single human male and female mutated from some non human. Therefore, whether we call that single source Adam and Eve or Persons zero, we have the same results.

The rest of your rant also shows lack of knowledge about Christianity, science, and religion, and is not worth further discussion.

In reality Sid you know nothing about the time before the big bang or god. Your a human being, Tiny insignificant and in 1000 years everything we think we know now will be different.

You are correct about knowledge before the Big Bang. It appears that information could not cross the singularity boundary if there was ever some universe before ours. However, if the universe oscillates, then there should be some kind of echo from previous versions, and we have not found any. That's not to say there are none, it's just we haven't found any. If there is some kind of multiverse, there is no evidence of the different flavors of universes impinging on each other. That is also not to say that it never happens, it's just we haven't seen anything. So, you are correct, we know nothing about pre-Big Bang.

As for your comment about God, well I would say that you are wrong. If God exists then God may have revealed himself to people and therefore we get to know something of God. If Jesus is the true Son of God, then we get to know a lot more by what Jesus revealed to us. If other religions are correct then God revealed Himself through those other religions.

Regardless, we can know something about God. We can only know a very small amount about God, but that is not zero. While there may be a lot of technological changes in the next 1000 years, it is unlikely that our spiritual knowledge will grow significantly (well, unless Jesus comes back, and then all bets are off). That means that in 1000 years people will still be having these same arguments as they try to figure out truth and reality. Heck, the Greeks were arguing these same problems 2500 years ago, so it is not like we have made any great strives along the spiritual path.

That map on your wall that has four corners is also FLAT, isn't it?

We still talk ab't the 4 corners of the earth.

Maybe you do. . .

See https://www.merriam-webster...

Even used as a name of a restaurant: "Four Corners of The Earth" Vegetarian/Vegan Restaurant in Burlington, Vermont.

You know that if the world were flat, cats would have knocked everything off it by now, don't you?

I don't believe in a flat earth. I do know how to read--like dictionaries: https://www.merriam-webster...

"The far ends of the world; all parts of the world. For example, Athletes came from the four corners of the earth to compete in the Olympics ." from https://www.dictionary.com/...

Of course it is flat. Any map, short of a globe, is flat and has four corners. So, if I look at my map and make the comment "I have traveled to the four corners of the map" it means I have traveled around the world.

Consider the comment that the United States is in the West and China is in the east. From a globe-point-of-view that comment is nonsense. There is no "west pole" and therefore there is no "West". Also, there is no "east pole" and therefore there is no "East". There are only relative directions, like China is East of Britain. But, from LA, you would fly West to get to China.

So, if we, who know better, can use this shorthand to describe the round world in a flat geometry, why is it so bad that people used that same metaphor 5,000 years ago?

They didn't make globes in those days, huh?

And your point being?

If you are implying that ancient civilizations had not yet reached the surveying and map making capabilities of the late 16th century, then wow, you made such a powerful point.

Just guessing that in 500 BCE or before that globes of the world were pretty scarce. What do you think?

I agree - the technology to create a globe was maybe 2000 years off. However, there is evidence that people knew the world was spherical back then. It took Ptolemy (around 150 AD) to figure out how big that sphere was. Even though people knew the world was a sphere, a flat map served their purposes for the level of traveling they would do.

Always good to see anyone who is Christian or Muslim etc is unfailingly an imbecile!!! No moron not nearly all humans originated from the same female but mathematically the descendants from thousands of years ago are limmited but not nearly one!!!!

So, you make these grand statements when you know nothing about evolution or biology? Go away and take second grade biology before you post again. Also, go take a look at mitochondrial DNA. Then look up the different theories of evolution. Then look up mutation rates of human DNA.

Then, when you reach the equivalent of maybe fourth grade you will understand that the probability of a group of creatures mutating to make the same new species at the same time is basically impossible. Instead, the probability of just one showing up is very rare, but it might be possible. That means that according to evolution, a new species will, to a huge probability (like billions to one), emerge from a single parent pair and not from multiple simultaneous parents.

But since you are all about making loud, idiotic, uniformed, but self-congratulatory and self-satisfying noise, plugging up the internet with a spewing of fecal foolishness, you will not do any research and you will not attempt to expand your brain cell by so much as a single synapse.

The really scary and disgusting point of religious morons is that they say so many, many B.S. statements that they pull out of their ass!!!! You moron are one of those!!! Tell me about your academic qualifications (which of course are none).

Let's see, I have a degree in physics, I have taught math in college, I have studied biology, chemistry, geology, meteorology, astronomy, oceanography, and math. I have graduate classes in engineering and computer science. I have engineered globe-spanning systems that process medical, financial, communications, or scientific information. I have studied philosophy, social sciences, many different religions, economics, and political science.

You, apparently, have studied your own ass and think that is the entire world. Maybe you should try removing your head and looking around at a reality that is bigger than just your sphincter.

Also FYI I am a retired Boeing 747 Captain and a practicing lawyer. We deal with facts not ignorance my friend. Your Genesis lists many people living up to over 900 years yet in your first ignorant rant you state Genesis says 120 years. Again what is your work I am sure if truth be told it is Janitor or similar (apologies to any janitors for linking you with such a dimwit)!!!!

Let's see a false name so you can be anyone you want to be as long as no one checks. It is obvious from your statements that you are lacking in any real qualifications but area great LIAR!! Undergrad degree in physics ho hum studied nothing that brought a scintilla of insight or intelligence though as is obvious by your acceptance of a fairy tale begun by people of your intelligence!!!! You are a sad waste go back in your ignorant hole!!!!

So, let's see, you started by calling me an an imbecile and moron. You then made a scientifically provable false statement, indicating your ignorance on evolution. You then called my statements BS without adding any info to back up those statements. Yo ask for my qualifications (the first reasonable thing you said), without offering any of your own. That's okay, I'm willing to take that first step.

So, I offer up my quals, and you then accuse me of lying and hiding behind a false name. Well, if you google sid1138 you will find that I have posted thousands of things under that handle from computer engineering to economics, from physics to religion, gaming, music, and more (yes, it's google, so there is other junk as well). When I google Douglas Miles, I find nothing about you, even looking through hundreds of entries. So, who's the false-named liar here?

You claim to be a pilot - that does not make you an expert or even an advanced amateur scientist, is just means you know how to play with your control stick. You claim to be a lawyer, but none of your posts show signs of being able to formulate a valid argument.

>Again what is your work
I have said that I have engineered globe-spanning systems, so I must be some kind of an engineer. I have indicated the kind of systems, which include medical and scientific systems, which shows I apply the science I learned in college. When I look through your posts I only see immature name callings and unsubstantiated claims with no argument, no information, no content, just imbecilic rantings of a 10-year-old.

If you are, as you claim, retired - prove it. Show some maturity. I am (and have shown here quite often) more than willing to participate in a valid discussion where we can exchange thoughts and ideas. What you offer is a stream of unconsciousness that shows the intelligence of a slug, and even that is an insult to slugs.

>Your Genesis lists many people living up to over >900 years yet in your first ignorant rant you state >Genesis says 120 years.

You have not shown the capability to read anything beyond Dr. Seuss. If you actually have a law degree then maybe, just maybe, you understand how complex and difficult it is to create a document that can provide information in an extremely dense, multi-layered manner. If you did more then listen to what other people say about the Bible, you would understand the deep level of symbolism required to create the dense information source that it is. Since you seem to struggle with "One Fish, Two Fish" I will not expect you to be able to have a valid conversation with a valid exchange of ideas about complex subjects.

I think I will go talk to my 4-year-old granddaughter. She, at least, shows way more intelligence than you have ever shown on this forum.

SID we did not originate from one female, i have looked up the research after reading your comment and it clearly says that the media took this as a misconception on the subject.

Thank you, Steve for doing the research. However, I have a question for evolutionists. The mutation rate is very slow (hundreds or thousands of generations to move to another, closely related species). So, we now have something that was not human mutates to being human. Since these mutations are rare, what is the probability that two occur within the same generation close enough that the male and female can breed? What is the probability that dozens will occur within a breeding range? (besides zero, that is)

Here is the problem. Consider the case of the horse mating with a donkey. the result is a mule and it is sterile. While some species can cross-breed (like wolves and coyotes), the results tend to be less successful then either alone. Basically, random species generations tend to not be able to interbreed successfully. That greatly limits the speed and spread of new genes. We do know that Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and Home sapiens interbred, so they had to be very close and compatible. Still sapiens was the dominant gene.

Now let us look at the problem of a mutation that causes a new species of humans. Given that the group of mutations needed is rare, and the probability that two mutation will produce the same species is essentially zero. (If the probability of a mutation creating a new species is ten billion to 1 for any one birth, and that there were about a million or less pre-sapiens, then the probability is only one such birth every 2000-3000 generations. Two such births in close proximity would be one per millions of millions of generations. If the species-forming mutation rate was faster than one per billion, we would see dozens of new species of humans every generation. Where are these new species?) That means the new "human" person would be a lone person and would have to mate with non-humans.

Was the first homo sapiens male or female? It doesn't matter. There was only one because the probability of more is essentially zero. Now, this person would have to mate with Homo heidelbergensis, neanderthal or Homo erectus since there were no other sapiens around, The sapiens' genes soon took over, and heidelbergensis, erectus, and neanderthal all became extinct. From there, the sapiens' started to spread out. Eventually the original mitochondrial DNA mutated to form 7 new versions, and the human race and all of its breeds was born.

So, while yes, there were more than one female and male pair, only one was homo sapiens and that gene spread out and took over other hominid species.

How do we know that the mutation rate is this slow? There are a lot of ways (see, for example http://humanorigins.si.edu/... but one is just simple math. The genetic difference between people around the world is roughly 0.1%, That means that over some 400,000-500,000 years we only a 0.1% viable mutation rate or 1% every 4-5 million years. The genetic difference between chimps and humans is 1.2% and the split was around 5-7 million years, or 1% every 4-6 million years (showing consistency between the two estimates). Given a generation is roughly 20 years, that means 1% mutation would occur over the course of 200,000 generations or so. Not very fast.

What all of this rambling indicates is that the probability is very high that there was only a single ancestor of homo sapiens that mingled with other genes, but that it was that original mutation set that caused the change. So, was there one or many parents in the new species? Well, sort of both. There was one of the new genes and lots of the old. These mixed to create the modern humans.

Sid it's a pity when any serious discussion morphs into a mere name calling session :)
Let's assume there are some seeming question marks on some aspects of the theory of evolution. That still doesn't mean the bible, which as shown on this website, is utterly shot full of holes, is a valid alternative.

I agree, 'onacid, that we are discussing something here that people have been discussing for thousands of years because it is that important. Still, it's the internet, so you have to expect the occasional (or constant) troll.

Anyway, I disagree with the Bible being "shot full of holes". What I have found is that whenever I thought I found a hole, further research would plug that hole. Likewise, many of the holes identified here are misunderstandings, misquotes, or taken out of context.

Anyway, to address your main point. I agree that we (as investigators and scientists) cannot pick one thing (Bible or evolution) as the sole answer. Instead, we need to investigate with an open mind, look at the theories and evidence, and adjust theories as evidence shows the theories are deficient.

I have been told for at least 40 years that the theory of evolution is complete and to not question it. First off, as soon as I am told not to question something, I know it needs serious questioning. Also, that comment of being complete and not questionable sounds more like a religion than a science.

So, if I use the scientific method,I find that the theory of evolution fails quite often. Its predictions don't hold, there is no experimental evidence (even after 100,000 generations of bacteria or 30,000 generations of fruit flies). Its linkages between different species is often weak and highly circumstantial.

In short, evolution needs a lot of work.

If, on the other hand, I use the theory of intelligent design and divine intervention, all of these problems go away. Of course, one major problem remains - what is the nature of the intelligent designer and the divine intervener (and are these the same entity)?

I have spent a major part of my life searching for answers to these and other questions. I have gathered a lot of information and evidence that suggests that an outside creator is more probable than many of the current scientific theories. Someday, I will actually finish my book that discusses my scientific search for God and what I found.

The bottom line, a true scientist and philosopher must keep an open mind and explore all possibilities, not just popular, mandated, or convenient ideas.

Sid 1138
It is interesting that you call me a liar on my professional history, appears you fall to have any integrity or honesty so you mirror that on others! You are patently a weak personality as the vast number of people ignorant enough to believe in a fairy tale are so often, a real shame!!!

You are funny about control stick while without a doubt you are too weak to begin to be a pilot, much too weak and cowardly as your posts show!!

Also, unlike you, I have a busy professional and personal life so this will be my last post!!

The point is anyone for decades now (even centuries), whom believes in a god is just a weak person whom can't face reality!

Best of luck as you indicated you have a grandchild, hope you don;t infect her with your silly superstitions and fantasy's !!

First off, unlike you, I never called you a liar. To remind you, here is your quote:

"It is obvious from your statements that you are lacking in any real qualifications but area great LIAR!!"

And here's mine:
"So, who's the false-named liar here?"

I did not call you a liar, I questioned your assertion. This then brings me to questioning your assertion of being a lawyer. If that were true, then either you are not very good, you do not know how to analyze statements and review facts, or you shut off your brain when you post here. Regardless, you make inane comments with little or no backing.

>appears you fall to have any integrity or
>honesty so you mirror that on others!

I'm not the one who's only posts on this forum are to call people names and act like your normal, 12 year old internet troll. I am more than willing to give you a chance to redeem yourself, but nothing you have posted here (and I could find nothing elsewhere) shows you to be anything but a troll.

>Also, unlike you, I have a busy professional and >personal life so this will be my last post!!

Well.you know as little about me as you do about this subject. I have flown several different planes in the past, but so what. I have probably done so much more than you on so many different aspects of life that you could not even begin to know these things. Like, have you ever stood on a glacier on Antarctica? Have you ever walked with wild lions? Have you ever watched the sun rise from the Great Barrier Reef or watched the sun set from the side of an Hawaiian volcano? Have you experienced the spiritual power of the pyramids, Sphinx, and ancient Egypt?

I have done all of these things and way, WAY more. I have experiences that your small brain could not comprehend.

>The point is anyone for decades now (even >centuries), whom believes in a god is just a weak >person whom can't face reality!

Can you even tell me what reality is? Can you tell me what is more real - objective reality or subjective reality and why? Do you know what love is? Not some infatuation for some pretty face smiling at you, but real love that sits up nights with a dying loved one, that helps the poor because of love, that finds that missing blank spot in your soul and fills it will the love of the universe. What about hate - the hate that can turn nation against nation killing millions? Do you question reality. Do you ask why there is life? Do you ask why there is a universe? Do you know how to search for answers to the unanswerable? Do you know the answer to some simple question like "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?"

>Best of luck as you indicated you have a >grandchild,

Thank you, I appreciate it. And, don't worry, I will not let them get infected by silly superstitions, although I will tell them of the truth of God and religion.

>Also, unlike you, I have a busy professional and >personal life so this will be my last post!!

Too bad. I had hoped there was a true spark of curiosity in you and that maybe we could fan it and actually have a reasonable discussion. Oh well, I will still pray for you (even though you don't want that).

I wish you well in whatever paths you follow.