Creation vs. Evolution

[Greg Jennings]

Well... Little Tyke was one of at least two modern lions who rejected meat. It doesn't take a great imagination to think how a few mutations can alter an animal's diet. Yet evolutionists think mutations can change a bacteria into a biologist.

Nope, you are wrong. Tyke, as your source you so graciously provided me with previously said, ate meat/protein in the form of eggs. And quite a lot of it. Tyke was also given supplements to provide the nutrition that her odd diet could not provide.

So try again buddy

 

[6days]

Nope, you are wrong. Tyke, as your source you so graciously provided me with previously said, ate meat/protein in the form of eggs. And quite a lot of it. Tyke was also given supplements to provide the nutrition that her odd diet could not provide.

So try again buddy

I didn't say Littles Tyke was vegetarian...however he did reject meat and even milk with blood mixed in. It doesn't take much imagination to see how a few mutations can alter an animal's diet. However it does take just so stories to think that a bronotosaurus can evolve into a chicken / or, (dino to bird)

 

[Greg Jennings]

I didn't say Littles Tyke was vegetarian...however he did reject meat and even milk with blood mixed in. It doesn't take much imagination to see how a few mutations can alter an animal's diet.

Exactly, which is why I pointed out that Little Tyke did indeed eat meat when you suggested that was not the case.
And yes, it actually takes a lot of imagination to claim that a few mutations would cause such a drastic change as to alter an organism's ability to digest certain material. That takes millennia of mutations in an animal as advanced as a mammal.

[

However it does take just so stories to think that a bronotosaurus can evolve into a chicken / or, (dino to bird)

That would be raptor into bird, but you don't care because it's not in the Bible. And we all know, if it isn't in the bible, it never happened, right?

 

[6days]

And yes, it actually takes a lot of imagination to claim that a few mutations would cause such a drastic change as to alter an organism's ability to digest certain material.

Rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creation model...and often in the real world.

And we all know, if it isn't in the bible, it never happened, right?

Not true...or poorly stated.
From God's Word we know that animals remain part of the original created kind. It's only wild imagination that thinks a critter like a cow changes into a whale.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creation model...and often in the real world.

Rapid adaptation does not include dietary changes. At least not in things higher than bacteria. Those kind of changes take thousands, perhaps millions of years. The giant panda is a great example. We know it's a bear, but by being isolated for thousands of years it lost the need to eat meat, and instead lives off of bamboo even though it is difficult for the panda to digest bamboo. That's why it has to eat so much: it's gut can only pull a small amount of the potential energy in bamboo out by digestion. All bears eat plants, but the panda is the only one that completely subsists off of them

Not true...or poorly stated.
From God's Word we know that animals remain part of the original created kind. It's only wild imagination that thinks a critter like a cow changes into a whale.

Since you can't show any evidence of what you claim to be God's Word being true, your "theory" is entirely based on imagination. Funny that you project this onto scientists

 

[Derf]

Rapid adaptation does not include dietary changes. At least not in things higher than bacteria. Those kind of changes take thousands, perhaps millions of years.

Really? What about those pesky Italian lizards??? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_1.html
Some stunning quotes from the article:

• The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically
• Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.
• Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids
• "This was a brand-new structure."
• Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level,
• It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years
• There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred.

This was in 2008, and since then there have been a number of things suggested to explain why this is not really evolution, but evolution was apparently so poorly-defined that these poor chaps thought that's what they were seeing. Evolution meaning "change over time" certainly fits this episode.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Really? What about those pesky Italian lizards??? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_1.html
Some stunning quotes from the article:

• The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically
• Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.
• Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids
• "This was a brand-new structure."
• Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level,
• It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years
• There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred.

This was in 2008, and since then there have been a number of things suggested to explain why this is not really evolution, but evolution was apparently so poorly-defined that these poor chaps thought that's what they were seeing. Evolution meaning "change over time" certainly fits this episode.

I'll need a working link to evaluate the article, please

 

[6days]

Really? What about those pesky Italian lizards??? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_1.html
Some stunning quotes from the article:

• The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically
• Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.
• Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids
• "This was a brand-new structure."
• Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level,
• It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years
• There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred.

This was in 2008, and since then there have been a number of things suggested to explain why this is not really evolution, but evolution was apparently so poorly-defined that these poor chaps thought that's what they were seeing. Evolution meaning "change over time" certainly fits this episode.

Very good!!
I recall reading about this. If I recall correctly evolutionists said it was an example of evolution in action. It was simply another example of rapid adaptation fitting the Biblical creationist model.
(BTW...the "brand new" cecal valves was not really brand new. Other lizards have this, and it would seem this particular population had lost the cecal valves but still had the genetic info. ...an example of good design / good programming)

 

[Greg Jennings]

Very good!!
I recall reading about this. If I recall correctly evolutionists said it was an example of evolution in action. It was simply another example of rapid adaptation fitting the Biblical creationist model.

Do you have the working link by chance?

 

[Greg Jennings]

The great red dragon/lady/beast is actually a city {See Rev. 17:18KJV}. I was told by an angel that this city is Hollywood/L.A. which, through her movies, TV shows, music, magazines, commercials, etc., teaches all of the other cities of the world to keep bad and sinful ways. In other words, stealing, murder, killing men and any life, lying, deviousness, deception, gluttony, fornication, adultery, etc. These sins I've mentioned are represented by the horns and heads that you see on the beast.
Michael

I've never heard this interpretation of Revelations before, but I have to say that it makes a lot of sense biblically. Good parabolic thinking here Michael

 

[Greg Jennings]

“Holy Scripture could never lie or err...its decrees are of absolute and inviolable truth.”*–Galileo Galilei

He said before being imprisoned until death in his home by the church for daring to say that scriptural geocentrism was wrong

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Greg Jennnings,

It was told to me by an angel, so it is definitely true. I couldn't have come up with it on my own. So I don't deserve any credit. Only the Lord God!!

Thanks!! It's so WONDERFUL to have you here!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :angel: :cloud9:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, what lion have you ever heard of that survived on straw? Lions are carnivores as their teeth show. They are able to eat bread and other products of grain, but they can't live off of it alone. Without meat, a lion will die no matter what else you feed it.

Dear Greg Jennings,

I know it sounds improbable, but the Bible says that, after Jesus Returns, the lion shall lay down with the lamb, and the lion shall eat straw just like the lamb. So who am I to argue. There will be no more killing after Jesus starts reigning on Earth. Greg, I know you're agnostic and must really have trouble with all that I say here, but I do know what I'm talking about. If a lamb can stay alive eating straw, so can a lion. Absolutely no reason otherwise. But then, when the devil is loosed again after 1,000 years, then lions shall eat meat again. I can't go into writing all about it on this website. It would be like rewriting my book on TOL here. If you want to read what is in my book, I can arrange that for FREE. Just let me know.

God Bless Your Dear Heart And Soul!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :angrymob:
​

 

[6days]

He said before being imprisoned until death in his home by the church for daring to say that scriptural geocentrism was wrong

You are not quite correct. The scripture says no such thing.

 

[6days]

Do you have the working link by chance?

Not sure if this is the link Def mentioned but I just Google and found this...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are not quite correct. The scripture says no such thing.

Then why did the church think it did?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not sure if this is the link Def mentioned but I just Google and found this...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Yes thank you! I'll take a look

 

[6days]

Then why did the church think it did?

Many (of the more educated) within the church didn't think that. But the Pope at the time was a bit of a arrogant dope. He fell for the popular 'science' (Aristotolean) of his day rather than stick to scripture.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not sure if this is the link Def mentioned but I just Google and found this...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

"Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s."

This is truly an amazing study, but due to this quote above it's fairly obvious that this was no normal adaptation situation. Starting with just ten individuals guarantees more mutations by percentage than in a large population, and that (along with the island environment, a well-known evolution accelerator) would cause more change in a species than there would be in a normal situation.

But let's pretend for a second that animals did commonly evolve new organs and structures within 40 years. The flood of Genesis only lasted a year. That means that in order for those animals in the water to avoid extinction, they would've had to adapt.....well.....immediately. That's just not plausible

 

[Bright Raven]

Either you believe in biblical creationism or in the THEORY of Evolution. Simple as that.