I think it would be nice to respectfully discuss your position and the evidence for or against it.
Me to.
Aren't there marsupials all ove n. and s. america? But, specifically to your question, I assume they walked. Or hopped. I'm also assuming you have some problem with this that you will reveal at the perfect "gotcha" moment. Maybe it's now?
I think it would be nice to respectfully discuss your position and the evidence for or against it.
Me to.
Aren't there marsupials all ove n. and s. america? But, specifically to your question, I assume they walked. Or hopped. I'm also assuming you have some problem with this that you will reveal at the perfect "gotcha" moment. Maybe it's now?
How did they hop to Australia? It's surrounded by ocean.
Hoops wrote:Are you going to require an explanation for every animal living today?
It's probably a good idea to explain the ones that don't make any sense. There are tons of animals that would not have been able to go on Noah's ark. It's one of the big reasons why a global flood did not happen.
once again when he calls the animals of "the Earth" he uses: erets
Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis. Its translated "earth" 665 times, "land" 1581 times, "country" 44 times, "ground" 119 times, "lands" 57 times, "countries", 15 times, and a few others. It seems that the “land” overflowed the “earth” in KJV (pun intended). Same thing with the “mountains” can be used as “hills” (#2022, har). It seems to me that all of them are in limited land areas rather than the entire planet.
So he could mean the animals from the land, from the country, from the ground... etc. Hedbrews had no concept of a global earth. they used "erets" to signify things around them.
..must make sacrifice of his own life to atone. for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail." - Bruce R. McConkie
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, … Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man (a.k.a., Jesus) will be forgiven (Matthew 12:31-32).
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of problems with the notion that the earth completely flooded a few thousand years ago. To talk about any few, no matter how significant, always seems to come across as trivializing the problem.
Of course. Argument from hyperbole.
Mutations rates at various loci in the genome is relatively discrete. This is a consequence of the physical properties of DNA and its environment. Because of this, we can measure when a population has undergone an extreme bottle-necking event. It takes time for diversity of mutations to build up in the genome. It would be plain as day if a massive % of biodiversity underwent a bottle-necking event a few thousand years ago as a global flood would predict. That evidence simply isn't there.
However, we know that the biblical addresses this. Perhaps not this problem specifically, but we know that before the flood, we did not eat meant, and animals did not eat each other. Second, we know that God instantly changed the structure or appearance of the creature that satan used to entice Eve. I would assume this would involve some kind DNA modification.
How did they hop to Australia? It's surrounded by ocean.
I'm not sure it's necessarily fair to assume that the land masses, the oceans, the mountains you see today are exactly - or even remotely - like they were during the flood and during the time that the waters receded. It's seems logical to me that, given massive amounts of water required to flood the entire earth, the earth would continue to experience significant violent changes. Perhaps years afterward. But, you're right, the biblical record is silent on exactly how animals repopulated the earth, but we can make inferences based on what the Bible does tell us. Given the above, it's not unreasonable to assume that the land masses were still connected or close to each other as they were before the flood. It would also seem reasonable that the receding waters would have enough power to move the continets relatively close to where they are now.
Hoops wrote: However, we know that the biblical addresses this. Perhaps not this problem specifically, but we know that before the flood, we did not eat meant, and animals did not eat each other. Second, we know that God instantly changed the structure or appearance of the creature that satan used to entice Eve. I would assume this would involve some kind DNA modification.
While it would be nice to respectfully discuss your position and the evidence for or against, that's practically impossible when you come up with stuff like this. How could anyone take it seriously?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
So he could mean the animals from the land, from the country, from the ground... etc. Hedbrews had no concept of a global earth. they used "erets" to signify things around them.
Erets is not theonly reason one believes it was a global flood.
How did they hop to Australia? It's surrounded by ocean.
I'm not sure it's necessarily fair to assume that the land masses, the oceans, the mountains you see today are exactly - or even remotely - like they were during the flood and during the time that the waters receded. It's seems logical to me that, given massive amounts of water required to flood the entire earth, the earth would continue to experience significant violent changes. Perhaps years afterward. But, you're right, the biblical record is silent on exactly how animals repopulated the earth, but we can make inferences based on what the Bible does tell us. Given the above, it's not unreasonable to assume that the land masses were still connected or close to each other as they were before the flood. It would also seem reasonable that the receding waters would have enough power to move the continets relatively close to where they are now.
Like so many things associated with a global flood theory, the assertions made in this paragraph are unbelievably wrong. Plate tectonics are responsible for the movement of continents, and these forces act on a scale of millions of years. Also, the energy scales, even for a catastrophic flood, would be much different than the cumulative energy needed to move continental plates across the earth. It shows a lack of even a basic understanding of science to even suggest that a single catastrophic flood would have had sufficient energy to move billions of tons of rocks halfway across the earth.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
While it would be nice to respectfully discuss your position and the evidence for or against, that's practically impossible when you come up with stuff like this. How could anyone take it seriously?
I don't understand. Are you saying the biblical record does NOT tell us this?
keithb wrote:Like so many things associated with a global flood theory, the assertions made in this paragraph are unbelievably wrong. Plate tectonics are responsible for the movement of continents, and these forces act on a scale of millions of years. Also, the energy scales, even for a catastrophic flood, would be much different than the cumulative energy needed to move continental plates across the earth. It shows a lack of even a basic understanding of science to even suggest that a single catastrophic flood would have had sufficient energy to move billions of tons of rocks halfway across the earth.
(4-22) Genesis 10:25 . Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?
“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [ D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.)