I believe that prior to the flood, the earth wasn’t tilted on it’s axis. This would mean temperate climates, not the temperature extremes we have today. Also, it wasn’t necessary to have every distinct animal, only the archetype from which the distinct animals would come. I tend to think there were many animals on the ark that are long gone. It makes sense too that young animals rather than adults would have been brought onboard the ark. As for the gathering, God brought the animals, Noah didn’t go out and hunt them. Noah had 120 years to build the ark, plenty of time for preparations…
How would the distinct animals biologically arise from an archetype? Can you give an example of what an archetype might look like for a specific animal?
As if you don’t write enough of your beliefs that you become your words.
Words and intention is karma. It’s cause.
Your replies on topics is always incongruous. You argue with the person on trifles and ignore content.
It’s ridicule attempts, passive aggressive braggadocio. Details mean nothing…
Not really, and I don’t know if archetype is the best word. What I mean is Noah wouldn’t have had to have every breed of dog or other animal. Some of the animals probably would have been the animals we recognize today, some wouldn’t. The estimates from the ark exhibit estimate their were about 7000 animals give or take…
I’ve heard and read some interesting theories. One theory Is that one or more of the other planets passed very close to Earth, which had very dramatic effects.
A planet passing close enough to alter our tilt in the last 10,000 years would have very dramatic effects indeed and we would find abundant evidence of such an occurrence. We don’t find that evidence.
I wish there was something I could add here, but I can’t.
There is no common ground to even begin talking about science.
I accept the common peer reviewed method of science. I accept the basic scientific axioms and common theorems, as I learned them in public school and college and beyond.
If somebody doesn’t accept the general scientific method and basic axioms of science, it is not possible to hold a discussion. There has to be at least some common frame of reference to hold a meaningful discussion.
How can one even attempt a reasonable adult conversation with someone who says “maybe the earth wasn’t tilted on it’s axis” or “the ark had 7000 animals on it”.
I used to believe the we lived on a young earth. I thought nothing was impossible with god. I’ve since turned 180 degrees on the topic. Doing research, field studies, calculations, led me to my personal conclusion that we’re on a very old earth, billions of years old. Dinosaurs didn’t live among men. It’s all in the rocks, the folds, the movement of various tectonic plates. Just need to use the brains. This image of folds takes billions of years to form with heat and pressure.