Why did god cause the flood?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are right, I am wrong here sorry I was applying something some one else said to you, my bad!

"You are right, I am wrong here"

This honours you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So tell me again, spell out the reasons why I need to believe evolution had anything at
all to do with the mosquitoes acquiring something new they didn't have
before? For me it seems like good programming and what the
mosquitoes already had was at work nothing new required!
Kelly

Nobody is telling you that you have to believe anything. I am merely telling you that your given reasons for not believing or rejecting it are invalid.
You are not understanding the argument because despite you yourself repeatedly pointing out that evolution is blind and does not plan ahead etc you still insist on trying to view it in that manner.

Let me spell it all out:
a) There are vast numbers of mosquitoes in the world. Over 3000 species will billions (possibly many orders more) individuals in each species.
b) There are vast numbers of genes represented in these mosquitoes at any given time.
c) Some of these genes are fairly essential and do not change significantly over time as when they do the individual dies.
d) Other genes are changing frequently including being copied into new versions or even acquiring genes from other organisms. There are many known mechanisms involved but suffice it to say that new genes are appearing and old ones disappearing all the time. The exact rate is dependent on chance and the total number of individuals involved.
e) Many mosquitoes around the world were exposed to DDT over a fairly long period of time.
f) Some of those individuals had resistance to DDT at the time they were exposed and thus the genes involved in the resistance became more frequent due to natural selection.

What we do not know for sure is whether the genes in f) existed in some individuals before DDT spraying began. However there is no good reason to assume that they did. Your argument as presented so far has been:
1) that the frequency of new genes in d) is too low for resistance to have arisen, but as I have already pointed out that is just a wild guess in the dark on your part as you do not have the information to make that call.
2) that new genes arising in d) are almost always not useful to the organism to the extent that a DDT resistance gene arising is improbable. Again, you do not have the actual data to back up such a claim and in fact observations of many species leads to the opposite conclusion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I agree that is the way natural selection works, that is what it does
it simply has those that are best able to make it, make it as long as
they can. If this was as far as you suggested natural selection actually
goes we would never disagree on how it plays its roll in evolution.
Kelly

But I am not sure that we do agree on what we are talking about. The claim I saw in a documentary on cane toads in Australia was that the cane toads on the leading edge of the expanding population are bigger and better jumpers than any single individual from the original population or any individual in South America where they originated from.
This means that they are evolving into a bigger toad. Do you accept that this is possible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I am not sure that we do agree on what we are talking about. The claim I saw in a documentary on cane toads in Australia was that the cane toads on the leading edge of the expanding population are bigger and better jumpers than any single individual from the original population or any individual in South America where they originated from.
This means that they are evolving into a bigger toad. Do you accept that this is possible?

he does accept that because small scale evolution is accepted by creationists. in fact many propose the idea that noah didn't have to take zebras and donkeys and horses on the arc but a common ancestor of those. and after the flood that ancestor diversified.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you still don't understand.

i am not talking about evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#survival
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphili ...[text shortened]... ugh, would have died out after all their prospective hosts were either dead or resistant.

I am talking about evolution, you again assume all things remain the
same over time. If what kills you now didn't then, why would having
them over time within the human system be a big deal until the
human host lost its ability to contain such things and remain healthy?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I am not sure that we do agree on what we are talking about. The claim I saw in a documentary on cane toads in Australia was that the cane toads on the leading edge of the expanding population are bigger and better jumpers than any single individual from the original population or any individual in South America where they originated from.
This means that they are evolving into a bigger toad. Do you accept that this is possible?

Yes I do accept that, as I accept we can breed bigger or smaller dogs
too, the point that seems to be over looked is that they are still dogs
and still frogs.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nobody is telling you that you [b]have to believe anything. I am merely telling you that your given reasons for not believing or rejecting it are invalid.
You are not understanding the argument because despite you yourself repeatedly pointing out that evolution is blind and does not plan ahead etc you still insist on trying to view it in that ...[text shortened]... back up such a claim and in fact observations of many species leads to the opposite conclusion.[/b]

LOL, there is no good reason to accept they did. You kidding? If you
spray them, they do not die you don't think that is something to
take into account? Why would that not be part of the thought process?

I think you are being selective here in your evidence.

My argument has been there is not evidence to accept what has been
proposed here, that evolution caused the mosquitoe to mutate into
something that did not have a nature ability to defend itself against
DDT and later did. I do see evidence to suggest they had it in small
numbers and later those numbers grew due to they were the only
only ones left standing.

I'm giving you something else to look at and your best shot at it so
far is that you see no reason to accept it. If you cannot dispute it
you just ignore it?

If you wanted to show me my error I suggest you show me the before
and after shot of the gene in question, show me how it was not there
before and how later it started mutating until we see it everywhere in
the mosquitoe population. If it happened right in front of us, and you
think it is true, lets see it! That was all I asked for earlier, it is a here
and now event that shouldn't be so hard to produce. why worry about
all the could haves and should haves if it happened right in front of
us?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I do accept that, as I accept we can breed bigger or smaller dogs
too, the point that seems to be over looked is that they are still dogs
and still frogs.
Kelly

No, the point is not overlooked, it is wrong. 'Dog', and 'frog' are vague classifiers and in fact classifiers of quite different levels. There are thousands of species of frog, and to be perfectly biologically accurate I suspect that cane toads are not frogs but toads. What you are trying to imply is that there is some imaginary barrier to change that prevents us from renaming a particularly large breed of dog something other than 'dog'. That is a totally unfounded and unwarranted claim. The different breeds of dog are physically diverse enough that if they were discovered in the wild they would be labeled with different names.
As breeds they are already given different names and if you were proven wrong in your claim you would just expand your definition and say "but the point that seems to be over looked is that they are still canines." or if that failed you would go with "mammal" or even "kind".

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, there is no good reason to accept they did. You kidding? If you
spray them, they do not die you don't think that is something to
take into account? Why would that not be part of the thought process?

It is part of the thought process, you simply did not read my summary carefully enough. Go read it again.

I think you are being selective here in your evidence.
I haven't presented much evidence.

My argument has been there is not evidence to accept what has been
proposed here, that evolution caused the mosquitoe to mutate into
something that did not have a nature ability to defend itself against
DDT and later did. I do see evidence to suggest they had it in small
numbers and later those numbers grew due to they were the only
only ones left standing.
That is well and good. I for one have not presented evidence to the contrary. However, neither have you presented any reasonable argument for prefering choosing one of the two scenarios that I presented in my f).

The point you are missing is that nobody is suggesting that evolution magically knew there was a threat from DDT and thus started manufacturing defenses. That is your own strawman. What is being suggested is that genes that give resistance to DDT may arise relatively frequently in mosquito populations in nature and the effect of spraying with DDT over long periods is that some of those genes arise and are selected for.

I'm giving you something else to look at and your best shot at it so
far is that you see no reason to accept it. If you cannot dispute it
you just ignore it?
I have repeatedly stated that your scenario (that the genes existed in some individuals) is perfectly plausible. My only criticism is that it is not the only explanation.

If you wanted to show me my error I suggest you show me the before
and after shot of the gene in question, show me how it was not there
before and how later it started mutating until we see it everywhere in
the mosquitoe population. If it happened right in front of us, and you
think it is true, lets see it! That was all I asked for earlier, it is a here
and now event that shouldn't be so hard to produce. why worry about
all the could haves and should haves if it happened right in front of
us?
Kelly
Again a strawman argument (when addressed to me though possibly not when addressed to Andrew). I have made no claims that the gene did arise during the period in question only that it could have and that you do not have the information required to rule it out as unlikely based on a statistical argument. I do not even need the genes in question to even exist in order for my point to be valid, the whole story could be totally fabricated and you would still be wrong to claim that you know that it is unlikely that the genes could arise in the given time. You simply do not know the necessary figures to make that call and your comments in earlier posts have shown that you don't even know what figures you would need to be looking for.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
This is a hypothetical scenario. Let us suppose he did cause the flood, and the flood happened exactly as portrayed in the bible. I would like to discuss several issues

1. Why did god need to wipe all mankind except the Noah clan?
2. Was there nobody else worth saving?
3. God created and he saw that it was good. Why did he had to destroy most of what h ...[text shortened]... he perspective that it already happened. The purpose is to think about what did god had in mind.

Oh the flood happened, its spoken of in the bible. However, I don't believe it should be taken so literally, the people of the time had no way of knowing the boundries of the world in which we all live in. This flood could have been in a very specific region of the world prone to flooding,
the people of the time in order to flourish would have needed to live by the waters, Noah was faith filled man an headed the warning that God was giving him to build this Ark to save his family and the fauna along with the wildlife of that region, These stories are to be interpreted and the bible was well written in a way for that to happen, hence the reason we still speak of God, Jesus today in 2009 AD, The Flood Happened, look at the mid west floods happen all the time, volcanos erupt, tornados twist, its biblical or is it fable, these are stories of an ancient people with no satelites, no computers, no cell phones, no post offices, no running water, no electricity, no modern technologies, however they did have time to talk and record
what hey had seen or what they had heard from others. Noah was warned and he listened, the others were of little faith so they perished in that region and the earth was cleansed to grow again, Ironically though the people of these regions are still fighting today over religious truth, so did they listen or have WE learned from their mistakes?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am talking about evolution, you again assume all things remain the
same over time. If what kills you now didn't then, why would having
them over time within the human system be a big deal until the
human host lost its ability to contain such things and remain healthy?
Kelly

have you read that site?

"measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000" or do you claim there where no measles then? and if so, how does it work? after the flood, measles simply appeared? don't you understand you cannot claim to be doing science if any judgment you pass you pass in order to fit a foundation you take for granted? if you make claims simply because they "fit" should we also make such claims? should we say unicorns existed on the arc? nothing in the bible says they didn't. nothing in the bible say anything about diseases. so you simply assume. you have no evidence about diseases yet you allow your imagination run free and as long as it fits the foundation, anything goes.


don't you understand knowledge, reliable knowledge cannot be reached in this manner?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am talking about evolution, you again assume all things remain the
same over time. If what kills you now didn't then, why would having
them over time within the human system be a big deal until the
human host lost its ability to contain such things and remain healthy?
Kelly

i am pissed at me for not thinking this sooner.
EDIT: there are so many things contradicting a literal flood that it is puzzling as to why you haven't ever asked a question or two.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#survival
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I do accept that, as I accept we can breed bigger or smaller dogs
too, the point that seems to be over looked is that they are still dogs
and still frogs.
Kelly

another paragraph i copied without shame from that site. see if i make any mistakes. i copied the heathen text here and i will disprove it.


Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

* Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all. -> god made them go faster

* Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along? -> god allowed them to eat something else or they(koalas) started eating eucalyptus after the flood
* Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity. ->they can't survive now, befor the flood they could
* Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.-> god took care of them


see what i did? anything the heathens have said, i can use the god argument. who can blame me? god cannot be proved or disproved. but i have a holy book that says he is real. therefore he is real. and as such he is omnipotent. as such he could have done all those things because koalas were present on the arc, and spiders were present on the arc since anything outside suposedly died. now tell me what stops me from answering some other questions with "god did it" since i already created this precedent?

"what cures cancer"
prayer and god.
"what causes cancer"
satan
"how can we develop cheap energy"
pray
"how can send a rocket to the moon"
pray
"what is fusion"
man made it up, but pray in case god has something to do with it.


see? am i advancing the human race this way? are we making progress?
it is easier though. we are freed from responsibility of world events and catastrophies because god made them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I do accept that, as I accept we can breed bigger or smaller dogs
too, the point that seems to be over looked is that they are still dogs
and still frogs.
Kelly

ok -forget about domestic animals then -try this:

http://northernlightsonline.blogspot.com/2006/06/example-of-speciation-cichlid.html

“… Ernst Mayr has said that evolution is no longer a theory it is fact (Mayr 2001), and today we have many examples of speciation….”

-It then explains the example of the Cichlid fish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

-this gives a number of species that have observed to come into existence in just the last century.

So evolution and speciation are proven scientific facts by observation alone (and this is totally ignoring all of the mountain of indirect evidence! ) -that mere fact should end this debate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, the point is not overlooked, it is wrong. 'Dog', and 'frog' are vague classifiers and in fact classifiers of quite different levels. There are thousands of species of frog, and to be perfectly biologically accurate I suspect that cane toads are not frogs but toads. What you are trying to imply is that there is some imaginary barrier to change that pre ...[text shortened]... hey are still canines." or if that failed you would go with "mammal" or even "kind".

"Kind" is the proper word I should have used, but neither you nor I
actually have that word defined...I used dogs and frogs simply to
make the point, now should I have used canine or some other word,
probably yea. Point was still made, we do see variety within kind which
is as I said something I agree with, I'll look at your proof for
looking for changes of the kind I was looking for.
Kelly