TV01:

I have absolutely no idea how much water it would take to flood the earth such that the highest point at that time - or any time - would be covered.

The earth would have been vastly different at that time. Climate, topography the works. [s]Don't forget according to the biblical account rain wasn't even a thing. The Earth was like a perfectly configured biosphere. [/s]

Myth? In as much as myth is often taken to read fable, no I don't. I believe that it is absolute truth. The earth was covered until all that had breath died. And it was a global flood.


I am being "deluged" with questions, any takers for the one I raised?

Cheers
TV

okay. Keep believing in your myths.

wirinet:
You are yet to provide a concise classification mythology for your "Kind".

Even the typically employed order-family-genus-species taxonomy is not totally concise. With lots of re-classifications and disputes about what should be placed where. But it's a good point and I'd place it somewhere around or between family and genus.

wirinet:
The first problem with your examples of kind is that inter breeding is impossible between your kind, as a cheetah cannot breed with a lion.

This is not a problem that does not arise in the OFGS system. Interbreeding cannot and should not be the only or even the main criteria. But again, point taken. Cheetahs are listed as Felids in this OFGS classification. Some believe they are more like dogs? There will always be anomalies.

Tigers, Leopards, Lions and the other big cats can all interbreed, and with some of the smaller cats. Some kinds may have been more genetically rich/diverse or better able to adapt, leading to more types within it.

There could be "competition" even within the kinds over time. Lot's of factors could have led to a kind being restricted or expansive in the types within it.

There is a lot we can't say for sure and lot's of time has passed. It's possible that the 2 of each kind were not even what today would be called the same species and, there were probably fewer types within each kind but with greater genetic richness/diversity, which diminishes over time.

wirinet:
Now how does your cat "kind" differ from the ape "kind"?

Hopefully it's clearer now.

hakeem4:
okay. Keep believing in your myths.

And you are free to stick to your fables of evolution.

Meanwhile, any takers for the bolded?

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans requires the acquisition of new genetic material.
Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


TV

TV01:
Even the typically employed order-family-genus-species taxonomy is not totally concise. With lots of re-classifications and disputes about what should be placed where. But it's a good point and I'd place it somewhere around or between family and genus.

You are still talking without saying anything. Even if nothing in concise, give us a classification we can define. Give something that can be taught, disputed upon and discussed.
We know what biological family and genus means, explain what in between is and how it's criteria for classification.

This is not a problem that does not arise in the OFGS system. Interbreeding cannot and should not be the only or even the main criteria. But again, point taken. Cheetahs are listed as Felids in this OFGS classification. Some believe they are more like dogs? There will always be anomalies.

Cheetahs are cat family (felidae), no doubt about that. They possess all the features and characteristics of cats. Now if you say that according to your "kind" classification, it is dog, explain why.

Tigers, Leopards, Lions and the other big cats can all interbreed, and with some of the smaller cats. Some kinds may have been more genetically rich/diverse or better able to adapt, leading to more types within it.

Some big cats can interbreed, but the problem is their offsprings are usually sterile. They in turn cannot breed. The very definition of species iincludes the ability breed and create fertile offspring .
We really need your definition of what makes a kind.

There could be "competition" even within the kinds over time. Lot's of factors could have led to a kind being restricted or expansive in the types within it.

There is a lot we can't say for sure and lot's of time has passed. It's possible that the 2 of each kind were not even what today would be called the same species and, there were probably fewer types within each kind but with greater genetic richness/diversity, which diminishes over time.

Hopefully it's clearer now.

Clearer ke? Can you make sense of what you wrote up there?

And you are free to stick to your fables of evolution.

Evolution fables, and creation (or kind-ution) is fact? The only proof being a sentence "the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind" in a religious book? While, evolution fable produces evidence from generics, paleontology, geology and biology, kind-ution fact only evidence is a quote from the bible.

Meanwhile, any takers for the bolded?

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans requires the acquisition of new genetic material.
Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


TV

wirinet:


Family as defined biologically or socially?

mankind - The human race : the totality of human beings.
Now, how does this relate to monkeykind, Gorillakind, birdkind, Whalekind, dolphinkind, sharkkind, etc.

When I said 'Kind' I meant created kinds (Baramin).

OLAADEGBU:


Who sold you the lie that dinosaurs weren't saved by Noah's Ark?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

OLAADEGBU:


Species is a man-made classification God created them in 'Kinds' and Noah's Ark is an historical event.

can you see how ridiculously your so called cword of God fails you. ? the ship can take 125000 thousand pairs of animlals? are you not- even in this digital era that there are millions of species.

the moment you christians realise that your bible is the book of men, that day is the day a flame would settle on your forehead and ye shall speak in tongues and prophecy. but ontil then, everyday you continue to crucify the logos whom died for your sins. olaadegbu, you pharisee

kkins25:
can you see how ridiculously your so called cword of God fails you. ? the ship can take 125000 thousand pairs of animlals? are you not- even in this digital era that there are millions of species.

the moment you christians realise that your bible is the book of men, that day is the day a flame would settle on your forehead and ye shall speak in tongues and prophecy. but ontil then, everyday you continue to crucify the logos whom died for your sins. olaadegbu, you pharisee

Don't mind them, they suspend their senses and sanity in order to believe their imported myths and fables. Even at the ridiculous 125,000 pairs of animal, a single structure cannot contain them. A Zoo of a few hundred animals requires hectares of space. They think you can stack animals in drawers and then just lock them up for a year. They don't reason that feeding and living arrangements of each animal must be provided for daily.
It is ridiculous that a so called omnipotent God, that was supposed to have create the whole universe and all creatures in it with just words in 6 days, would have to go through such stupid strategy of destroying the earth with flood, and saving 8 people with 2 of every animal.

wirinet:
You are still talking without saying anything. Even if nothing in concise, give us a classification we can define. Give something that can be taught, disputed upon and discussed. We know what biological family and genus means, explain what in between is and how it's criteria for classification.

I have provided a brief overview of "kind" as mentioned in the bible. I don't have anything more comprehensive, although I'm sure there's more out there. It's purpose was to dispel the myth of 125'000 different kinds of animals in the ark.

wirinet:
Cheetahs are cat family (felidae), no doubt about that. They possess all the features and characteristics of cats. Now if you say that according to your "kind" classification, it is dog, explain why.

Does this discussion boil down to how one classifies a cheetah? Perhaps . Again, the point was that no system of classification is perfectly precise or devoid of anomalies.

wirinet:
Some big cats can interbreed, but the problem is their offsprings are usually sterile. They in turn cannot breed. The very definition of species iincludes the ability breed and create fertile offspring . We really need your definition of what makes a kind.

Again, somewhat missing the point. Sometimes they are not sterile. It often depends on the pairing. As mentioned, over time some of the richness of the genome at the original creation has been lost. We see this even in humans.

wirinet:
Evolution fables, and creation (or kind-ution) is fact? The only proof being a sentence "the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind" in a religious book? While, evolution fable produces evidence from generics, paleontology, geology and biology, kind-ution fact only evidence is a quote from the bible.

No branch of science has produced anything that evidences evolution - simply because that is not how we arrived at the richness, complexity and diversity of life today.

And it is still stuck on the point of how life actually began (even though "evolutionists" try and hive that off as a separated discussion). What we have is a "science academy" that is has an a priori commitment to seeing and interpreting everything through an "evolutionary" lens.

And still no response to my simple question

wirinet:
It is ridiculous that a so called omnipotent God, that was supposed to have create the whole universe and all creatures in it with just words in 6 days, would have to go through such stupid strategy of destroying the earth with flood, and saving 8 people with 2 of every animal.

How does non-omnipotence grasp or question what omnipotence is or does?


TV

TV01:

How does non-omnipotence grasp or question what omnipotence is or does?

Non-omnipotence grasps what omnipotence is or does by continously questioning omnipotence until one has grasped what omnipotence is or does.
_Ref

wirinet:

Don't mind them, they suspend their senses and sanity in order to believe their imported myths and fables. Even at the ridiculous 125,000 pairs of animal, a single structure cannot contain them. A Zoo of a few hundred animals requires hectares of space. They think you can stack animals in drawers and then just lock them up for a year. They don't reason that feeding and living arrangements of each animal must be provided for daily.
It is ridiculous that a so called omnipotent God, that was supposed to have create the whole universe and all creatures in it with just words in 6 days, would have to go through such stupid strategy of destroying the earth with flood, and saving 8 people with 2 of every animal.

I would be forever marvelled by that silly act of god. He indeed works in mysterious ways - Ways that are going to get every body on a one way ticket to eternal hell.

TV01:

Again, somewhat missing the point. Sometimes they are not sterile. It often depends on the pairing. As mentioned, over time some of the richness of the genome at the original creation has been lost. We see this even in humans.

How do we see this lost rich genome in humans?

TV01:

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans requires the acquisition of new genetic material.
Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?

There is nothing called less or more evolved, evolution is not a hierarchical ladder.

As for the acquisition of new genetic material, what do you mean by that? Do you understand what mutation is?

wirinet:

Don't mind them, they suspend their senses and sanity in order to believe their imported myths and fables. Even at the ridiculous 125,000 pairs of animal, a single structure cannot contain them. A Zoo of a few hundred animals requires hectares of space. They think you can stack animals in drawers and then just lock them up for a year. They don't reason that feeding and living arrangements of each animal must be provided for daily.
It is ridiculous that a so called omnipotent God, that was supposed to have create the whole universe and all creatures in it with just words in 6 days, would have to go through such stupid strategy of destroying the earth with flood, and saving 8 people with 2 of every animal.

In a boat made of wood that has been exposed to the elements for 120 years. Have they ever seen wood that has been exposed to the elements for 10years? Wood becomes brittle under those conditions, then you build a boat out of it and then load it with thousands of animals? What a farce.

LordReed:


In a boat made of wood that has been exposed to the elements for 120 years. Have they ever seen wood that has been exposed to the elements for 10years? Wood becomes brittle under those conditions, then you build a boat out of it and then load it with thousands of animals? What a farce.

Actually wood can last for a very long time if well maintained. One of the oldest wooden structure of today is the Pagoda at Horyu-ji, Ikaruga, Japan. It's been around since the 7th century.

omokoladejames:


Actually wood can last for a very long time if well maintained. One of the oldest wooden structure of today is the Pagoda at Horyu-ji, Ikaruga, Japan. It's been around since the 7th century.

"If well maintained", I severely doubt that someone from 4000BCE had the expertise to assemble and treat wood in the quantities that would be required for this project. Plus the wood need to be good enough to survive the 120 year construction period, the weight of thousands of animals, the weight of their food and water and the year long voyage. Even treated wood exposed begins to warp over a long period and you have to treat it again and again to prevent it from decaying. So in addition to building this giant boat, he has to keep the wood in good order, with a staff strength of 8 max and given that women were generally not taught the family business skills, I'd say staff strength of 4. 4 people cutting, hauling, treating, shaping, lifting and assembling the wood.

LordReed:


"If well maintained", I severely doubt that someone from 4000BCE had the expertise to assemble and treat wood in the quantities that would be required for this project. .

Boss, 7th century is over a thousand years ago, that's still a long way from us.
The idea that ancient people were unintelligent folks is not historical correct. Recorded history has always shown the mental capacity of man to solve problems,
From mathematics developed by the people of mesopotamia (with concepts like Pythagorean triples, geometry and fourier analysis etc that were thought to have been developed millenniums later untill clay tablets from that time period were discovered), to ancient structures like the Stonehenge.
Were they ignorant of some things? Sure... Just the same way we would be ignorant of certain things to a generation a thousand years into the future, but that has not stopped us from doing pretty amazing things and solving problems relevant to us. Thats the same way history has shown people who lived thousands of years ago equally doing pretty amazing things. The hardware upstairs is still basically the same for someone who lived 4000 BC and someone living today.

Granted, there are alot of hard questions concerning Noah's flood but saying he couldn't have had the expertise to build the ark is not one of them.

omokoladejames:

Boss, 7th century is over a thousand years ago, that's still a long way from us.
The idea that ancient people were unintelligent folks is not historical correct. Recorded history has always shown the mental capacity of man to solve problems,
From mathematics developed by the people of mesopotamia (with concepts like Pythagorean triples, geometry and fourier analysis etc that were thought to have been developed millenniums later untill clay tablets from that time period were discovered), to ancient structures like the Stonehenge.
Were they ignorant of some things? Sure... Just the same way we would be ignorant of certain things to a generation a thousand years into the future, but that has not stopped us from doing pretty amazing things and solving problems relevant to us. Thats the same way history has shown people who lived thousands of years ago equally doing pretty amazing things. The hardware upstairs is still basically the same for someone who lived 4000 BC and someone living today.

Granted, there are alot of hard questions concerning Noah's flood but saying he couldn't have had the expertise to build the ark is not one of them.

I doubt such a person had the capacity with only 3 other helpers to build such a thing. Even the so called tower of Babel involved all of humanity and yet 4 people supposedly built a boat capable of containing a pair of all the animals in the world? My objection is not his expertise, it is the scale.

LordReed:


I doubt such a person had the capacity with only 3 other helpers to build such a thing. Even the so called tower of Babel involved all of humanity and yet 4 people supposedly built a boat capable of containing a pair of all the animals in the world? My objection is not his expertise, it is the scale.

The scale isn't that much of a problem also, given that it took him roughly about a whole century to complete the ark.

Boss like I mentioned earlier, there's no doubt the flood story begs some really hard questions, but the actual construction of the ark itself in my opinion doesn't make that list.

omokoladejames:


Granted, there are alot of hard questions concerning Noah's flood but saying he couldn't have had the expertise to build the ark is not one of them.

The expertise is a main problem. There was no way affiliated family of 8 can build such a massive wooden boat in the time they said it took and with the technology of the time. Remember, they had no power tools and cranes to help them but only rudimentary tools.
Even today with power tools and cranes, it is still impossible for a family of 4 men and 4 women to build such a structure, from assembling and shipping the materials to site and then actually building the ship.

See this YouTube video for the challenges -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVaVbn7eIFs

LordReed:
How do we see this lost rich genome in humans?

From the base pair - Adam & Eve - were expressed all of the ethnic types. And whilst all ethnic types are able to procreate, pairs from any one ethnic type are limited in their expression.

Whilst certain traits become more pronounced and others less so, some are lost over time. Gene deletion attests to this in part and, I believe can be extrapolated backwards to about the time of the base pair

LordReed:
There is nothing called less or more evolved, evolution is not a hierarchical ladder.

Fine. No semantic quibbles. More, less, at least the evolutionary position is that it is different no?

LordReed:
As for the acquisition of new genetic material, what do you mean by that? Do you understand what mutation is?

Changes in morphology demand a change in the code. By what natural mechanism does this take place? Mutation does not possess the creative force required to write new code.

budaatum:
Non-omnipotence grasps what omnipotence is or does by continously questioning omnipotence until one has grasped what omnipotence is or does.
_Ref

This would be more apt - Ref - Non-omnipotence simply does not have the capacity to grasp omnipotence.


Cheers
TV

TV01:

This would be more apt - Ref - Non-omnipotence simply does not have the capacity to grasp omnipotence.

That would be appropriate for those who seek not. For those who do this all things are possible.

budaatum:
That would be appropriate for those who seek not. For those who do this all things are possible.

So you sought, and the outcome was a thread titled Evolution 101? ...

Anyone who claims to understand the theory of evolution and still thinks its wrong is not well.

TV01:
So you sought, and the outcome was a thread titled Evolution 101? ...

Yes indeed. Seek deep enough and you might find being born again is a form of evolution. You'd definitely see God evolving if you read your Bible from the Beginning to End, but you'd need eyes that see.

TV01:

From the base pair - Adam & Eve - were expressed all of the ethnic types. And whilst all ethnic types are able to procreate, pairs from any one ethnic type are limited in their expression.

Whilst certain traits become more pronounced and others less so, some are lost over time. Gene deletion attests to this in part and, I believe can be extrapolated backwards to about the time of the base pair

Where is the scientific study that brought this conclusion?

Fine. No semantic quibbles. More, less, at least the evolutionary position is that it is different no?

Yes, different.

Changes in morphology demand a change in the code. By what natural mechanism does this take place? Mutation does not possess the creative force required to write new code.

DNA is not a code, it is only described as such to simplify the explanation of its operation. DNA is a sequence of proteins which by their nature are capable of being altered in structure and sequence hence leading to new expressions in the organism. Mutation is how we describe the methods by which these alterations take place. There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

LordReed:
In a boat made of wood that has been exposed to the elements for 120 years. Have they ever seen wood that has been exposed to the elements for 10years? Wood becomes brittle under those conditions, then you build a boat out of it and then load it with thousands of animals? What a farce.

Do you know what the climate was at that point in time? Do you know what types of wood existed back then or their quality ? The bible records it was made of gopher wood and covered in pitch.

LordReed:


I doubt such a person had the capacity with only 3 other helpers to build such a thing. Even the so called tower of Babel involved all of humanity and yet 4 people supposedly built a boat capable of containing a pair of all the animals in the world? My objection is not his expertise, it is the scale.

Presumably the scale has been "right-sized" somewhat given that it has been explained that it was "kinds" and not necessarily every "species" of creature. Plus it was built over an extensive period. Further, and I stand to be corrected, nowhere does it say that labour was limited to Noah and his family does it?


TV

LordReed:
Where is the scientific study that brought this conclusion?

The NL commissioned longitudinal study of procreation across and between the nations 1960 - 2018

LordReed:
DNA is not a code, it is only described as such to simplify the explanation of its operation. DNA is a sequence of proteins which by their nature are capable of being altered in structure and sequence hence leading to new expressions in the organism. Mutation is how we describe the methods by which these alterations take place. There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

The denial is stroooooooong!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhuxg3WRfg


TV

^{...the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...repent ye and believe the Gospel}

TV01:
The NL commissioned longitudinal study of procreation across and between the nations 1960 - 2018

So none, got it.

The denial is stroooooooong!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhuxg3WRfg

What denial? Dawkins said it so much like software, does that translate to it being code?

Maybe you need a refresher on what it is:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (/diˈɒksɪraɪboʊnjuːkliːɪk, -kleɪ-/ (About this soundlisten);[1] DNA) is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids; alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life.

The two DNA strands are also known as polynucleotides as they are composed of simpler monomeric units called nucleotides.[2][3] Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. The nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands are bound together, according to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), with hydrogen bonds to make double-stranded DNA. The complementary nitrogenous bases are divided into two groups, pyrimidines and purines. In DNA, the pyrimidines are thymine and cytosine; the purines are adenine and guanine.

Both strands of double-stranded DNA store the same biological information. This information is replicated as and when the two strands separate. A large part of DNA (more than 98% for humans) is non-coding, meaning that these sections do not serve as patterns for protein sequences. The two strands of DNA run in opposite directions to each other and are thus antiparallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes genetic information. RNA strands are created using DNA strands as a template in a process called transcription. Under the genetic code, these RNA strands specify the sequence of amino acids within proteins in a process called translation.

Within eukaryotic cells, DNA is organized into long structures called chromosomes. Before typical cell division, these chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing a complete set of chromosomes for each daughter cell. Eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants, fungi and protists) store most of their DNA inside the cell nucleus as nuclear DNA, and some in the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA or in chloroplasts as chloroplast DNA.[4] In contrast, prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) store their DNA only in the cytoplasm, in circular chromosomes. Within eukaryotic chromosomes, chromatin proteins, such as histones, compact and organize DNA. These compacting structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed.

Please describe or otherwise evidence the natural process whereby organisms acquire "new" genetic information that enables them to become/turn into different life-forms. Not different expressions of pre-existing traits.

And please, not mutations which simply do not generate the capacity/information required for such wholesale changes, and has never been shown to do so. And, are if anything deleterious, not additive. New coherent information cannot be acquired in a random and unguided way.

If it's not semantics, it's scientese

LordReed:
There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

Please describe how this natural process works - what is the mechanism whereby it creates new coherent genetic content that leads to totally new morphological expressions

LordReed:


So none, got it.



What denial? Dawkins said it so much like software, does that translate to it being code?

Maybe you need a refresher on what it is:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (/diˈɒksɪraɪboʊnjuːkliːɪk, -kleɪ-/ (About this soundlisten);[1] DNA) is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids; alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life.

The two DNA strands are also known as polynucleotides as they are composed of simpler monomeric units called nucleotides.[2][3] Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. The nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands are bound together, according to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), with hydrogen bonds to make double-stranded DNA. The complementary nitrogenous bases are divided into two groups, pyrimidines and purines. In DNA, the pyrimidines are thymine and cytosine; the purines are adenine and guanine.

Both strands of double-stranded DNA store the same biological information. This information is replicated as and when the two strands separate. A large part of DNA (more than 98% for humans) is non-coding, meaning that these sections do not serve as patterns for protein sequences. The two strands of DNA run in opposite directions to each other and are thus antiparallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes genetic information. RNA strands are created using DNA strands as a template in a process called transcription. Under the genetic code, these RNA strands specify the sequence of amino acids within proteins in a process called translation.

Within eukaryotic cells, DNA is organized into long structures called chromosomes. Before typical cell division, these chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing a complete set of chromosomes for each daughter cell. Eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants, fungi and protists) store most of their DNA inside the cell nucleus as nuclear DNA, and some in the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA or in chloroplasts as chloroplast DNA.[4] In contrast, prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) store their DNA only in the cytoplasm, in circular chromosomes. Within eukaryotic chromosomes, chromatin proteins, such as histones, compact and organize DNA. These compacting structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed.

TV

TV01:
Do you know what the climate was at that point in time? Do you know what types of wood existed back then or their quality ? The bible records it was made of gopher wood and covered in pitch.Presumably the scale has been "right-sized" somewhat given that it has been explained that it was "kinds" and not necessarily every "species" of creature. Plus it was built over an extensive period. Further, and I stand to be corrected, nowhere does it say that labour was limited to Noah and his family does it?

The gopher wood the bible refers to is unknown so we can't even determine the properties of the wood. As for the climate, the bible claims it had never rained instead mist was how the world got precipitation. That doesn't eliminate the weathering such exposed wood must undergo even in a treated state. If you want wood to last in such exposed conditions you don't treat it once and then it will be fine forever or else the ark would have been found, if indeed it was real.

Right sized indeed. How many kinds of animals entered the ark?

So Noah had other people help him build the boat but they decided that they didn't want to take a ride in it? Did they think they did a crappy job? LoL.

LordReed:
The gopher wood the bible refers to is unknown so we can't even determine the properties of the wood. As for the climate, the bible claims it had never rained instead mist was how the world got precipitation. That doesn't eliminate the weathering such exposed wood must undergo even in a treated state. If you want wood to last in such exposed conditions you don't treat it once and then it will be fine forever or else the ark would have been found, if indeed it was real.

Exactly, there are number of unknowns, some degree of uncertainty based on our limited grasp of the event and the detail provided. However, you can't simply dismiss the possibility because it doesn't fit into your limited understanding or match your expectations. We know things lived longer, grew bigger and the earth is in fact suffering the effects of corruption.

LordReed:
Right sized indeed. How many kinds of animals entered the ark?

2 of every "kind". I am unable to give exact numbers.

LordReed:
So Noah had other people help him build the boat but they decided that they didn't want to take a ride in it? Did they think they did a crappy job? LoL.

Funny that, it's kind of like now, the ark of our salvation has been prepared in Christ Jesus - many decline to board


TV

TV01:
Please describe or otherwise evidence the natural process whereby organisms acquire "new" genetic information that enables them to become/turn into different life-forms. Not different expressions of pre-existing traits.

And please, not mutations which simply do not generate the capacity/information required for such wholesale changes, and has never been shown to do so. And, are if anything deleterious, not additive. New coherent information cannot be acquired in a random and unguided way.

If it's not semantics, it's scientese


Please describe how this natural process works - what is the mechanism whereby it creates new coherent genetic content that leads to totally new morphological expressions

Is there any further need to engage with you if you are just going to wilfully misrepresent the theory? No where does the theory say organisms turn into different lifeforms. It has been explain over and over again that the cumulative genetic shifts are what produce a new species and over time those become more and more specialised. But you'll just go on to "show me a monkey turning into a human being".

Describe to you mutation which you say is not the natural process? No, I am not masochistic.