If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Are you suggesting there were 9,000,000 "kinds" on the ark?

If so, please tell me the size of the ark as stated in the Bible.

(Remember that this is only one of a good number of problems with the Noah story when it is considered to be literally true.)

 

Species was not necessary, animal kinds were. I've already explained this to you. Are you that ignorant? I know you have no defense, but at least try to be honest, for a change.

If two animals of different can breed there is no reason to have more than those two of that genus.
View attachment 32129

- - - Updated - - -

Science by majority opinion is not science. You would still believe the Earth was flat by that measure.

- - - Updated - - -

The Genesis account has not been refuted by any scientific facts (see the definition of fact in my sig line).

Just as evolutionists can postulate how everything is as it is ,Biblical Creationists can take scientific discoveries and can deduce an explanation that fits the discovery.

Evolutionists always revise their doctrine and eliminate findings to fit the discovery. Huge difference between the two 'theories'.

- - - Updated - - -

Even using Ham's figures, it works out. So what?

 

What scientific evidence is there to support the religious belief in evolution?

What one fact has been produced to definitely prove that a.) the whole universe began as an explosion of nothing? b.) that all the chemical elements evolved from the hydrogen created from this explosion? c.) that life was spontaneously generated from mud at the bottom of a watery pool? d.) that a single celled organism decided one day to evolve into a turtle and the turtle later though it would evolve into a man?

Just one, irrefutable scientific evidence. Just one.

 

Now you're just another one that thinks you know more about something than someone that follows those teachings. By thinking that, you have no credibility just more arrogance.

 

Science is by all measures just an illusion where the only thing that matters is their "best guess" involving whatever the scientists are involved in.

 

There weren't more species on the ark than there were "kinds" on the ark. That is one member of a "kind" can not be of more than one species. Life forms can not be of more than one species.

Remember that a member of one species can not successfully breed with a member of another species.

So, you have one of only two choices:
- there were at least as many "kinds" on the ark as there are species today.
or
- there were fewer "kinds" on the ark, and after the flood there arose new species to make up the full compliment of what we see today.

Which is it? How did we get the number of species we see today?

 

Only if you want to appeal to ignorance, if we should need to quibble.

 

Ham (from the "Creation Museum") believes that after the flood, evolution took place to populate the world with the full number of species we see today.

He stated this in his debate on the subject with Bill Nye.

Do YOU accept that explanation?

If not, what is YOUR explanation?

 

Science = knowledge not opinion.

I.E. - Science knows there is a magnetic field surrounding the Earth and can measure it's strength using a measurement designed by Carl F. Gauss (iirc ?). Science has measured the degradation of the Earth's magnetic field over the past few centuries. Science can predict the strength of the magnetic in the future and can assume what the strenght was centuries and millennia in the past. If the predictions are correct, the assumptions are still assumptions, but may be considered more likely accurate. BUT, the forensic science is still an assumptions.

All other fields of science operate in similar methodology, radio-carbon dating, paleontology, geology, archeology, astronomy. These sciences MUST ignore the forensic sciences for their fairy tale to comply with their religious beliefs. THAT is not science.

 

Here is our Kind:

 

View attachment 32130

An animal kind is roughly equivalent to Family on this chart used and accepted as the taxonomy by biologists, zoologists.


From one of your denominational websites:

Perhaps the most widely accepted species concept is known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC). According to this definition, proposed by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in the mid-20th century, species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. Within this definition, a species represents a set of individuals connected by gene exchange ("gene flow") that is genetically isolated from all other such sets of individuals. There is gene flow among individuals within a species, but not between different species.
http://eol.org/info/468

A chihuahua and a wolf can interbreed as can a lynx and a tiger, a horse and zebra, a yak and a cow, a camel and a llama, etc.

That narrows down the kinds of animals to under 2,000 pairs.

 

Can man and chimps breed? orangutans? then they are not the same species. Scheesch!

I have to give you credit with volume of creative, but false attempts to defend your faith.

 

There are 9,000,000 SPECIES today - species that can not interbreed.

You are not answering the question.

Were they all on the ark, or did they arrive AFTER the ark?

You can not have it both ways. Either they were on the ark or they came about by some mechanism AFTER the ark.

 

I am not sure what you are referring to, unless you want to recant this statement upon which I am basing my current argument:

 

Funny. I ask you a direct question, you avoid giving an answer and you think I'm the one without credibility.

 

What you'd define as Micro-evolution? Yes, of course. A pair of wolves micro-evolved into domestic dogs, jackals, etc. then breeders selectively bred for spaniels, shepherds etc.

 

You asked a loaded question much like "do you still beat your wife".

 

Reference for your 9,000,000 land mammals and birds.

- - - Updated - - -

Animal kind = Family

View attachment 32131

 

have you ever seen, touched, smelled, tasted, heard a magnetic field? No! You have not. You may have experienced the effects of a magnetic field, but you have not seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard a magnetic field.... only the effects that are attributed to what is called a magnetic field.

To top it all off, you admit that the assumptions are still assumptions... leaving nothing more than the 'best guess' scenario.

 

Still NO evidence FOR evolution.

But no one can reference one, just one evidence for their religion, their faith in Big Bang and Darwinism. Nothing, nada, nichs, nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Magnetism can be measured. What is your point?

 

I got it right the first time:

Here is our Kind;

 

Can humans and chimps breed? Then they are not the same kind of animal.

 

That is not the definition of Kind as you equate it to Family in taxonomy; it is a simple appeal to ignorance if we should need to quibble.

 

What you are calling magnetism can be measured, but how certain are you that magnetism is really magnetism? If you have never seen, touched, tasted, smelled, or heard magnetism, then you are assuming that it is something but you don't know what it is. For all you know (and me as well), magnetism could be God (hypothetically speaking of course).

 

No, dogs and wolves are of the same species. There are 9,000,000 SPECIES.

Were they all on the ark or did SPECIES get added AFTER the ark?