Do you believe all the plants survived under water all that time?
No. We have fossils of plants which apparently didn't survive.
So how did all those plants survive almost a year underwater? Apparently they did survive because they are still here. Did Noah take all the species of plants too?
I never said all the plants survived. What survived survived and what did not survive did not survive. People who set about to preach 'natural selection' might be expected to understand this.
Do you believe that Noah only took limited numbers of animals on board, managed to cater to all their specific needs during that time, and that the animals then hyper-evolved once they got off the ark?
Not sure what you mean here. I believe the history included in Genesis is accurate, and animals produced offspring after their kinds just as they have always done.
This is a nice general statement but it doesn't explain much without some accompanying detail.
Detail? Look at the question for cryin' out loud.
Does "producing offspring after their kinds" mean that the species existing today are the same as the species that walked off the ark?
Not by most definitions of 'species', no. You ask for detail & bring up 'species', one of the most notoriously polymorphic terms in the language?
If so:
1. How did the marsupials of Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania get back to those places? Same for New World animals.
Back? Who says there was an Australia before the flood, or where it was located at the time soon thereafter? We know the continents have moved around, but we don't know the timetable.
2. Why did they only go there and not anywhere else? We know this because no fossils or remains of those animals have been found anywhere else.
3. What kept the other species of animals, like cats, from going to Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania? Cats have caused much trouble for the indigenous populations of birds since man brought house cats to those places.
I don't claim I can read the minds of animals. Not living animals, and certainly not long-dead animals.
Now about that lack of fossil remains, just how much certainty can one assign to this knowledge? Does not finding fossils really mean the animals did not live there? I'm just a little surprised that you venture such a conclusion.
If not:
1. Then some evolution is required to result in the species we see today. What is the mechanism incorporated by the biology in each kind that limits the amount of change in the genetics of the daughter populations?
Anyone who studies genetics, particularly recombination, should be able to figure out quite a bit about how these things work. Calling it "evolution" is just a cheap attempt to claim "evolution has been observed".
The problem with your blanket statement is that, without detail, it's kind of like telling a doctor that you are sick but refusing to provide him with symptoms. Basically, it is a useless statement.
The problem with your criticism is you're trying to put me down for giving the best response I knew how to practically give to LindaLou's question. Basically it is a useless waste of time, and is likely to backfire.
I don't have any doubt that an uncountable amount of questions can be produced. Experience has made me skeptical about the quality of questions about the history of the flood. As it's mandatory for even the OEC's to demonstrate a flaw in the history, one might expect someone should have come up with one or two rock-solid objections.
Perhaps you can provide a detailed evaluation of my questions above and tell us why they are of low quality. Accusations are your forte`. It's the supportive evidence for your accusations which seems to be in short supply.
Well, your fourth post in this thread supplies this quacky accusation:
Another jab at a scientific discipline. At least you don't limit yourself to insulting biologists. Now it's geologists. Which field is next...astronomy?
I don't know about others, but it still makes no sense to me; neither does the question part. My best guess is that you also consider the opinions of evomongers to be facts. Can you confirm this by a simple yes/no or perhaps by a convincing demonstration? (Or maybe a mix of saying "no" and demonstrating "yes"?)
