Creation vs. Evolution

[Kdall]

Yes, Kdall, the lions ate straw just like they will do in the future. It is written that the lions shall lie down with the lambs and eat straw. Nothing is impossible with God. Your faith isn't strong enough to believe this? Are you a Christian if you don't believe the Bible?

Michael

Michael there is no reason why lions, or any animal for that matter, would have sharpened teeth if they were meant to eat plants. I assume that you are aware that carnivores have sharp teeth specifically because they need to rip and tear meat off to eat? Not to mention that their digestive tracts are shortened because they don't eat plant matter, and lack the necessary bacteria (think probiotics commercial; those kind of bacteria) to break down the vegetation.

I don't believe that God does things like this, no. It goes against all logic and reason. I am positive that Noah's ark is a parabolic story, and it's purpose is to teach, not to act as history.

Now in regards to the verse you referenced about lions and lambs eating straw together, that too is metaphor. It means that all people, even fierce enemies, will in the end be peaceful with one another and all fighting and killing will cease. It does not literally mean that lions and lambs will lay down together and eat hay. Jesus was called "the Lamb of God." But I don't think you believe that he was literally a baby sheep, do you? The Bible is heavy with symbolism

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael there is no reason why lions, or any animal for that matter, would have sharpened teeth if they were meant to eat plants. I assume that you are aware that carnivores have sharp teeth specifically because they need to rip and tear meat off to eat? Not to mention that their digestive tracts are shortened because they don't eat plant matter, and lack the necessary bacteria (think probiotics commercial; those kind of bacteria) to break down the vegetation.

I don't believe that God does things like this, no. It goes against all logic and reason. I am positive that Noah's ark is a parabolic story, and it's purpose is to teach, not to act as history.

Now in regards to the verse you referenced about lions and lambs eating straw together, that too is metaphor. It means that all people, even fierce enemies, will in the end be peaceful with one another and all fighting and killing will cease. It does not literally mean that lions and lambs will lay down together and eat hay. Jesus was called "the Lamb of God." But I don't think you believe that he was literally a baby sheep, do you? The Bible is heavy with symbolism

Kdall, see Isaiah 65:25, "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain." See Isaiah 11:7, "And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

It is real dude! Everyone in church knows that. People will most likely be vegan. Maybe they will also eat fish. I can't say. 1/3 of the Earth's people will remain on Earth after Armageddon.

Got to run. Am doing laundry. Will check back.

God's Peace & Love,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

NOTE BELOW, TAKEN FROM ANOTHER THREAD:

Dear Kdall,

God does sit upon His Great White Throne and watches the Earth from His Throne. You just don't understand what's going on. And I am not going to tell you right now.

I'll go ahead and tell you! I think He's ingenius!! His Spirit is within our Moon. That's His Heavenly Body for now. You wanted to know so badly. And now you can't stand to know? There is a veil which shall be removed quite soon. And Jesus is right on His right hand side. Look on the face of the full moon. His Spirit is everywhere, but his Base Station is our moon. He watches us as He goes around the Earth every 24 hours. Do not go and start worshiping the moon. Worship the Lord the way you have been, for His Spirit is the same. That is the real Him, not some inanimate object. It's time for us to grow up and know a few things. He will remove the veil soon. When we go to heaven, we are given heavenly bodies also. Us people give up our earthly bodies and we get a heavenly body, or a star to live on. This is why it is written in Dan. 12:3KJV, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament (Heaven); and they that turn many to righteousness {shall be} as the stars for ever and ever." Now you know why I didn't want to tell you. After the seventh angel sounds, you will receive proof of this. He told us, do not worship the creations of the Lord God, so don't. Worship His Spirit!! It's tricky, but you can do it!! See how Jesus says in Rev. 3:12KJV, "Him that overcometh will I make a 'pillar' {a star} in the temple of my God (Heaven)." There's tons of things going on and so I guess I might as well start telling you right now. You'll get proof of it very, very soon. Now, it takes many for each star. We all don't each get our own star. We are the light/energy of it. That is the spirit of life within us, which is of God. The Lord God revealed Himself a few times to other men, but they were called lunatics. Their minds weren't able to comprehend everything yet. They couldn't keep it together. But it is time now that man is able, for "the mystery of God shall be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets." There's a lot more you will learn also in the near future. Keep it together!!

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

FYI

 

[Jonahdog]

Michael, have you been smoking that funny tobacco again?

 

[Stripe]

Michael there is no reason why lions, or any animal for that matter, would have sharpened teeth if they were meant to eat plants.

Probably the same reason pandas do.

 

[Jonahdog]

Probably the same reason pandas do.

And why is that?

 

[noguru]

Probably the same reason pandas do.

Pandas don't have sharp teeth compared to carnivores that mostly eat meat.

They do retain pointed canines, but these probably mostly for defense, or for squabbles with other pandas. The molars are quite flat, as one would expect for an animal with a diet of tough plants.

 

[6days]

Be honest, do you or do you not understand the difference between natural selection and artificial selection?

Sure... And it has been explained to you before. You don't really seem to understand it still. Evolutionists often imagine selection almost as if its a deity with creative powers. However, selection (both artificial and natural) can only eliminate genetic info from a population. And, it can't eliminate the mildly deleterious mutations which accumulate to weaken a population over time.

 

[alwight]

Sure... And it has been explained to you before. You don't really seem to understand it still. Evolutionists often imagine selection almost as if its a deity with creative powers. However, selection (both artificial and natural) can only eliminate genetic info from a population. And, it can't eliminate the mildly deleterious mutations which accumulate to weaken a population over time.

So in your lay opinion no amount of artificial or natural selection would ever produce any beneficial traits that didn't already exist, and that genetic information cannot ever increase, by say gene duplication, which could then adapt as a new trait, right?
Geneticists who say otherwise are either incompetent fools or part of an atheistic/anti-creationist conspiracy, right?

 

[The Barbarian]

Pandas don't have sharp teeth compared to carnivores that mostly eat meat.

They do retain pointed canines, but these probably mostly for defense, or for squabbles with other pandas. The molars are quite flat, as one would expect for an animal with a diet of tough plants.

Stipe doesn't realize that pointy fangs aren't the indicator of a carnivore. It's the sharpened carnassal teeth farther back. Pandas have evolved grinding teeth, although other bears have carnassals.

Stipe has unwittingly presented another demonstration of evolution by natural selection.

 

[6days]

*

Evolutionists often imagine selection almost as if its a deity with creative powers. However, selection (both artificial and natural) can only eliminate genetic info from a population. And, it can't eliminate the mildly deleterious mutations which accumulate to weaken a population over time.

So in your lay opinion no amount of artificial or natural selection would ever produce any beneficial traits that didn't already exist,

Unlike natural selection, you can create! And you have created a bit of a strawman. Beneficial traits can sometimes arise...but selection itself is not creating. Selection often / usually is a process of eliminating - never creating.*

For example we could selectively breed long haired cattle over several generations until the genetic info for short hair has been eliminated.*

Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis *(Former wife of Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create."

*and that genetic information cannot ever increase, by say gene duplication, which could then adapt as a new trait, right?

That is a bit of different topic since Kdall seemed to be confused about what natural and artificial selection is capable of.*

We have likely debated before if mutations are capable of creating, or causing a gain of complex specified information. We disagree on that.

 

[noguru]

We have likely debated before if mutations are capable of creating, or causing a gain of complex specified information. We disagree on that.

:rotfl:

Right, and you do not heed correction in regard to your errors/inaccuracies when it is given. This is why you will never get anywhere in science or in the world. This is why reasonable people in the world, more often than not, refrain from discourse with dogmatic and blinded authoritarians such as yourself.

 

[noguru]

That is a bit of different topic since Kdall seemed to be confused about what natural and artificial selection is capable of.

Kdall is not confused. You are the one who is confused. Natural selection is the result of the environment/biome. Artificial selection is what man wants in his flora and fauna stock. This is still different than how humans reproduce. Because humans (other than southern slave owners from centuries ago) did not selectively breed humans for a purpose. Although there may be a little of that nowadays with women going to sperm banks in order to procreate.

 

[StanJ]

Well if you're good with God creating evolution and using it as His means of creation, then I'm not sure that we disagree much

Not what I said Kdall.....God created EVERYTHING. What you see as evolution is not what God created. He established pro-creation based on the Genesis 1 verses I showed you. The words "after their own kind" is key. The fall, sin, corrupted that process, which is why there are so many apparent anomalies, that some scientists like to point out. The fact that they START at the wrong place just means their science is corrupted from the get go.

 

[StanJ]

They do retain pointed canines, but these probably mostly for defense, or for squabbles with other pandas.

and here we have the basic crux of the so-called science of evolution.
It's called presumption. Yet those who make these presumptions slam people of faith because they just believe in God's Word?
How typically hypocritical.

 

[DavisBJ]

Kdall is not confused. You are the one who is confused. Natural selection is the result of the environment/biome. Artificial selection is what man wants in his flora and fauna stock. This is still different than how humans reproduce. Because humans (other than southern slave owners from centuries ago) did not selectively breed humans for a purpose. Although there may be a little of that nowadays with women going to sperm banks in order to procreate.

6days is correct in recognizing that selection – whether natural or artificial – does only that – it selects. Selection does not create new diversity, that has to be done by some mechanism that introduces novel capabilities into the species for selection to act on (such as mutation). When evolutionists get a bit lazy (as sometimes happens) and refer to natural selection as if it was synonymous with evolution they leave themselves exposed to legitimate criticism from the creationist community.

 

[noguru]

6days is correct in recognizing that selection – whether natural or artificial – does only that – it selects. Selection does not create new diversity, that has to be done by some mechanism that introduces novel capabilities into the species for selection to act on (such as mutation). When evolutionists get a bit lazy (as sometimes happens) and refer to natural selection as if it was synonymous with evolution they leave themselves exposed to legitimate criticism from the creationist community.

I agree. I am aware that it is a 2 part process. Genetic variation coupled with a type of selection. YECs know about genetic variation. Though they reject genetic variation (calling it mutation because it seems to help their argument - though in reality any copy of genetic info that is not an exact copy is a mutation) as a mechanism by saying "These genetic variations only 'weaken' the genome." Then they reject the second part which actually eliminates the variation(s) that lead to a reproductive disadvantage but multiplies the variation(s) that lead to a reproductive advantage. I am very familiar with YEC strategies for arguing. And ultimately they only do themselves a disservice because the information is out there for anyone who is sincerely interested in understanding.

 

[noguru]

and here we have the basic crux of the so-called science of evolution.
It's called presumption. Yet those who make these presumptions slam people of faith because they just believe in God's Word?
How typically hypocritical.

You say that like it is a bad word.

Can you list your presumptions in regard to science?

When you have done that I will list mine.

This way you will be seen for the liar you are for claiming "Having presumptions makes you a hypocrite."

 

[DavisBJ]

and here we have the basic crux of the so-called science of evolution.
It's called presumption. Yet those who make these presumptions slam people of faith because they just believe in God's Word?
How typically hypocritical.

I see you seize upon the use of a single word that connotes some degree of uncertainty, and try to make that into an indictment far broader than just the subject that was being discussed. Is this your normal MO?

 

[noguru]

I see you seize upon the use of a single word that connotes some degree of uncertainty, and try to make that into an indictment far broader than just the subject that was being discussed. Is this your normal MO?

:rotfl:

YECs do not like uncertainty. It scares them. They need to be "certain" they will get to heaven. So they often sacrifice accuracy for the delusion of certainty.