Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Crossless2.0]

Your point being Huggy? We know that the Wyoming only managed to stay afloat by pumping out water and eventually sank. Yet your ark not only has to carry two of each species, but multiple specimens of each species, enough to maintain genetic diversity so that the species can surviv in the wild (remember the minimum viable population I mentioned). You'd need a ship much larger than 600 feet to achieve that. Not that we know whether a 600 foot ship, if it was ever built even sailed without sinking because or that the rudder was even used on a ship that large because all they have is a rudder.

It is known that all species of cats (for example) that exist today, have a common ancestor.

---

---

This shows that all that was required on the ark was two cats, not EVERY species of cat that existed, so that reduces the number of animals required significantly.

So when do you suppose "Noah" lived? Obviously, you don't believe the genealogies.

[Minimalist]

Ah right now you're moving the goal posts. You asked:




You didn't ask us to name one thing in the Bible given careful and selective interpretation to mean something that could possibly be answered.

But no matter, by saying this you then exacerbate another existing problem. A wooden ark could not have been big enough to two of each species, yet alone many specimens of the same species sorted into similar "kinds".

Because yet again science has falsified the Bible, this time by demonstrating that wooden ships can only be built so large before they sink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)


Strange how the ark conveniently dropped all the animals off back to the same parts of the world from where they came from. Or did they all manage to walk back after the floods receded without leaving behind any fossils?

*Emphasis mine*

According to your article, the Wyoming appears to measure 450 ft. overall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_ship

The size and dimensions of the treasures are heavily debated. According to British scientist, historian and sinologist Joseph Needham, the purported dimensions of the largest of these ships were 137 m (450 ft) by 55 m (180 ft), which would make them at least twice as long as the largest European ships at the end of the sixteenth century. These dimensions have been challenged on engineering grounds and on the reliability of their sources; some have claimed they could not have been more than 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. However, in 1962 a large rudder was unearthed in the Treasure Ship Yard in Nanjing with dimensions corresponding with a 600-ft long ship.

Oops!

---

The bible uses the words "kind" and "sort" because the primitive shits who wrote it had no concept of what a "species" meant, dumbass.

"Kind" and "sort" are synonymous with "species" buddy.

Only to desperate morons like you trying to salvage a shred of dignity because you believe proudly in total fucking bullshit stories.  Grow up, man.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='Mathilda' pid='1638012' dateline='1508015576']

So the usual strawman argument from a theist who does not understand what the theory of evolution actually is but dismisses it anyway.

I am glad that you agreed that there is no mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations because that means that what you creationists call micro-evolution accumulate given enough time to become major changes. That is what the theory of evolution is, small changes accumulating over time. Genetic algorithms for example won't work if it requires large steps to be made.

And what I said in a nut shell is there is not one example of a major change. The 'algorithm' simply has not yielded one example of a major change. the 24 hour fruit fly is proof of that. 50,000 Generations of 24 hour fruit flies since they were first studied, and what did evolution do? it made one group blind and another tranlucent. that said they were all still 24 hour fruit flies after 50K generations. nothing morphed into anything else!

---

Your ancestors were once single celled amoeba and now you are able to use a computer keyboard with your multiple digits, I would call that quite a major change.
So you are an example of the major change you seek. You're welcome.

One interesting fact, the average human contains 60 mutations.
there are 7,000,000,000 humans on the planet times that by 60 and you get the amount on potential in humans NOW not even considering all the past animals and combinations.

https://www.livescience.com/33347-mutant...tions.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Some of which are..impressive.  Had we not already civilized at least a few would be candidates for hardcore selection.

[Succubus]

When people speak of the animal pairs that went into the ark they ALWAYS assume that it was a pair of the exact same animal and not a pair of the same species.

A pair of the exact same animal would be clones and I'm pretty sure no one has
ever suggested that.

The Bible uses the word "kind" and "sort" which have the same meaning as "species".

Kind, and sort, are not terms biologists use.

<bible nonsense snipped>

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species
species
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

I've no idea what usage of the term 'species' Dictionary.com are defining here.
However the next entry: 

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

That is the definition we all know and love.

What defines a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. So if two different animals are able to produce fertile offspring then by definition they belong to the same species.

Absolutely correct.

So in what way does minimum viable population disprove this?

It doesn’t. What you've done is to throw a curve-ball, a red herring.

[Huggy Bear]

How do you reconcile the above quote with this

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/wha...m-sea.html



And this
The Andes have been a mountain chain for much longer than previously thought, new research from the University of Bristol, UK suggests.

What? Huggy are you telling me that flood happened tens of millions years ago?

Considering your article(s) I don't see the problem. You quoted only parts of articles and I presume you try to say that sea animals died on Andes that were already high mountains, but the articles do explain themselves you should just read more:
"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief."

So there you go. In other article you show how some scientist said that Andes where full length 14 million years ago: so let's say they died 20 million years ago and then next 6 million years ago "the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains". What's the problem? Andes are very volcanic so they did grow relatively fast, but still millions of years.

*emphasis mine*
The "violent upthrusting" of the Andes in the first article was clearly posited to reconcile with whale fossils being found on these mountains.

"Hey these whale fossils on top of these mountains must mean that the mountains rose up from the sea floor really really fast..."

How is that science?

Not to mention the second article debunks the idea that the mountains rose quickly at all, never mind the fact that the article states that they were the same height 14 million years ago that they are at presently. Did they stop growing all of the sudden 14 million years ago?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...131817.htm

Dr Evenstar said: "It seems highly likely that the Andes have gone up slowly over at least the last 30 million years, and are the result of gradual thickening of the crust.

[Crossless2.0]

So now geologists perform their work for the purpose of disproving a story in Genesis?

The bullshit never ends with you, does it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Semi relevant aside, I was reading a story about a couple of folks who had a mutation such that their vision was dramatically superior to the rest of us throwbacks...and the first thought that came to my mind was "Be damned hard to ambush those fuckers......".

[Huggy Bear]

So now geologists perform their work for the purpose of disproving a story in Genesis?

The bullshit never ends with you, does it?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

[Succubus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_ship

The size and dimensions of the treasures are heavily debated. According to British scientist, historian and sinologist Joseph Needham, the purported dimensions of the largest of these ships were 137 m (450 ft) by 55 m (180 ft), which would make them at least twice as long as the largest European ships at the end of the sixteenth century. These dimensions have been challenged on engineering grounds and on the reliability of their sources; some have claimed they could not have been more than 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. However, in 1962 a large rudder was unearthed in the Treasure Ship Yard in Nanjing with dimensions corresponding with a 600-ft long ship.

Oops!

You should have read on a bit.

One explanation for the alleged size of these colossal ships was that the largest 44 Zhang treasure ships were merely for a display of imperial power by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats on the Yangtze River when on court business, including when reviewing Zheng He's actual expedition fleet. The Yangtze River, with its calmer waters, may have been navigable for such large but unseaworthy ships.

If ships of this size were built the things were never intended for the open sea.

My bold.