The Pine Barrens Tree Frog and the Flood.

[Tcg]

.
The Pine Barrens tree frog is well known in southern New Jersey and a few southeastern states.



This frog is tiny at about 1 - 1 1/2 inches long. If there were a global flood that killed all land animals except the few that were in Noah's ark, an ark that came aground in what is now called Turkey, how did this tiny frog find it's way to southern New Jersey?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Would you like to hear my faith based beliefs on the question of timing, as that is all I have to offer.

The question above asks you to clarify the intent of one of your previous posts. I see no reason why you'd need faith to remember what your intent was.


Tcg

Well I do need faith clarify the intent of one of my previous posts; my faith it influences everything I do. Now you were asking about the date of the flood, do you still want to know what I have to say? It will all be mere belief. Nothing more, just based on the bible.

"Are you suggesting all this took place after the flood which reportedly happened about 6,000 years ago?"

Do you want me to respond even if I only have with faith based beliefs to do so?




JW

[Tcg]

This frog is tiny at about 1 - 1 1/2 inches long. If there were a global flood that killed all land animals except the few that were in Noah's ark, an ark that came aground in what is now called Turkey, how did this tiny frog find it's way to southern New Jersey?

A pair of them rode on the back of a sea turtle that Jesus miraculously prevented from submerging.

This must be a dry run. This turtle seems to be struggling with just one hitch-hiking frog. Perhaps they need a bigger turtle or simply convince the frog that Mt. Ararat is a great place to live.




Tcg

[Purple Knight]

Just to interject, I don't think the exact number of years is a good hill to die on for either side. Granted, in my view it would be far, far wackier for the geological and climatological changes we're talking about here (such as the cooling of Antarctica) to have occurred in only 6000 years, but they might have, and since the leading edge of that frog population would only have had to move at 1.36km/year (to cross 8160km in 6000 years), and since that's an incredibly possible feat for a frog (see cane toads infecting Australia and the speed of their leading edge), I don't see a reason to argue about how long this took to happen in order to answer the basic question.

In other words, if the story of the flood is inconsistent with reality in some way other than pine barrens tree frogs, that's a horse of another colour.

[brunumb]

Just to interject, I don't think the exact number of years is a good hill to die on for either side. Granted, in my view it would be far, far wackier for the geological and climatological changes we're talking about here (such as the cooling of Antarctica) to have occurred in only 6000 years, but they might have, and since the leading edge of that frog population would only have had to move at 1.36km/year (to cross 8160km in 6000 years), and since that's an incredibly possible feat for a frog (see cane toads infecting Australia and the speed of their leading edge), I don't see a reason to argue about how long this took to happen in order to answer the basic question.

In other words, if the story of the flood is inconsistent with reality in some way other than pine barrens tree frogs, that's a horse of another colour.

The geological and climate changes are completely untenable arguments. The science is quite clear on that.

The cane toads are perfectly adapted to the habitats they are spreading into. They breed like rabbits and have not been required to cope with and cross hostile environments. The Pine Barrens Tree Frog would have faced the exact opposite. Can you suggest a route that would take them specifically from Turkey to the US without also spreading in other directions where they could have easily established themselves? Why aren't they found elsewhere? There are far too many unresolved problems associated with the proposed scenarios. What makes it all worse is that you then have to apply countless other mechanisms to explain the unique distributions of so many other animals and plants. The ark allegedly saved all the animal species, but drowned plants are another matter altogether. And, no, seeds are not the answer.

[1213]

I think the more specific area need is the result of later adjustment and it may be that they could survive also in different areas, if absolutely necessary. Hylidae frogs can be found almost everywhere. One possibility could be also that they traveled with people from Australia to America.

How would these frogs have gotten from Mt. Ararat to Australia?

It is possible that there was land route to Australia, after the flood. But, it could be also that frogs were not in the ark and they survived as explained in post 31, in torpor.

[1213]

... In your scenario we have a rain deluge accompanied by fountains of the deep bursting forth, continents floating around and collapsing. Whoa! NOTHING could survive all that! The energy involved would actually heat everything up to phenomenal temperatures. Consequent ice age? Truly laughable.

I am sorry, if you don't underestand what I said and what it really means.

...Also, no frogs that did not board the ark should have survived. That would be another biblical contradiction. ..

It woul not be, because frogs are water animals and Bible tells that the flood killed all that were on top of dry land.

... Survival of the ark's occupants once they disembarked would essentially be impossible....

Sorry, I don't have any intelligent reason to believe you.

[brunumb]

...Also, no frogs that did not board the ark should have survived. That would be another biblical contradiction. ..

It woul not be, because frogs are water animals and Bible tells that the flood killed all that were on top of dry land.

Frogs are not 'water animals' like fish. They can survive a few hours under water by holding their breath.

Also, Genesis 7:4 states "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth".

[Tcg]

I think the more specific area need is the result of later adjustment and it may be that they could survive also in different areas, if absolutely necessary. Hylidae frogs can be found almost everywhere. One possibility could be also that they traveled with people from Australia to America.

How would these frogs have gotten from Mt. Ararat to Australia?

It is possible that there was land route to Australia, after the flood.

Can you provide any evidence that would support such a possibility.

But, it could be also that frogs were not in the ark and they survived as explained in post 31, in torpor.

That would contradict many passages in the flood story. One has already been pointed out. Here's another:

Genesis 9:14 "When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

<bolding added>

Tcg

[Miles]

... In your scenario we have a rain deluge accompanied by fountains of the deep bursting forth, continents floating around and collapsing. Whoa! NOTHING could survive all that! The energy involved would actually heat everything up to phenomenal temperatures. Consequent ice age? Truly laughable.

I am sorry, if you don't underestand what I said and what it really means.

...Also, no frogs that did not board the ark should have survived. That would be another biblical contradiction. ..

It woul not be, because frogs are water animals and Bible tells that the flood killed all that were on top of dry land.

First of all, assuming your "water animals" means animals that live exclusively in the water, frogs and toads don't qualify. Surely you've heard of "terrestrial frogs and toads."

"Frogs who live on dry land are commonly referred to as land frogs, terrestrial frogs or toads."
source

Secondly, where does the Bible "tells that the flood killed all that were on top of dry land," implying "no water animals" were killed? Chapter and verse please. But before you go to the trouble of trying to find one I have a chapter and verse for you. Chapter 7 verse 4 in Genesis where god himself says:

"4 Seven days from now I will make it rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing I have made I will wipe off the face of the earth.”

You do read your Bible, don't you?

.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

So far in this discussion we've been considering that the global flood described in Genesis supposedly took place about 6,000 years ago. In researching that a bit I found that some Christians place it more recently.

ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, suggests a date of 2472 B.C. or about 4,500 years ago.

AIG, Answers in Genesis, suggests a date of 2348 BC or about 4,400 years ago.

Creation Ministries International suggests a date of 2304 BC or about 4,300 years ago.

If we accept these dates, and that the Flood was a literal event, how ever the Pine Barrens Tree Frogs got to southern New Jersey, they would have only had about 4,500 years to accomplish it.


Tcg