Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

In college I took several courses on Christianity. It is the opinion of those who study the scriptures that the wolf/lamb/lion passages are parabolic. They're meant to illustrate that when Jesus returns, there will peace throughout. The wolf (bad people) will no longer prey on the lamb (good people), and all people will live together in harmony. The lions of the world will no longer hurt or take advantage of the lambs, but instead all will be peaceful and just.

If this passage wasn't parabolic, then that would mean that poor snakes would be condemned by God to eat dirt forever. Does that sound right to you?

Dear Greg Jennings,

I believe they are parabolic also. But also true and real. From what I understand, the lions ate straw on the Ark. What do you think Noah fed them for such a long period of time? With God, Everything is Possible. Horses live on hay/straw. So why not lions?? Also, the snakes do lick dirt every day. I do know that they also eat crickets, toads, frogs, and mice, rats, etc. But they probably ate fruit while on the Ark. But no, I do not know, for sure, what the snakes ate on the Ark. Perhaps the clean creatures ate the unclean creatures that were on the Ark. God and Noah know.

Michael

 

[Greg Jennings]

All the animals we call "ancient" could survive a flood.

The food part, maybe. The salinity issue though, that's a toughie. Almost all marine and freshwater species require a certain salinity level in order to survive. Without this specific level, they die in hours. This applies even to whales and dolphins.

Very few animals, for example the bull shark, can adjust their own body's osmoregulation in order to survive in various salinity levels

 

[Greg Jennings]

Horses live on hay/straw. So why not lions?? Also, the snakes do lick dirt every day. I do know that they also eat crickets, toads, frogs, and mice, rats, etc. But they probably ate fruit while on the Ark. But no, I do not know, for sure, what the snakes ate on the Ark. Perhaps the clean creatures ate the unclean creatures that were on the Ark. God and Noah know.

Michael

Horses can eat hay because they have a long digestive tract which allows them to break down fibrous plant matter with the help of probiotic bacteria in their gut. Lions can't digest hay because they lack the length of intestines needed as well as the bacteria responsible for breaking down plant matter. For similar reasons, snakes can only break down animal matter.

I personally don't put much stock into a literal flood story as told in Genesis. Was there a big flood? Probably. Was it global? That seems unlikely. It seems like a legend with a kernel of truth at the center

 

[patrick jane]

Dear Greg Jennings,

I believe they are parabolic also. But also true and real. From what I understand, the lions ate straw on the Ark. What do you think Noah fed them for such a long period of time? With God, Everything is Possible. Horses live on hay/straw. So why not lions?? Also, the snakes do lick dirt every day. I do know that they also eat crickets, toads, frogs, and mice, rats, etc. But they probably ate fruit while on the Ark. But no, I do not know, for sure, what the snakes ate on the Ark. Perhaps the clean creatures ate the unclean creatures that were on the Ark. God and Noah know.

Michael

Why did he take snakes ? Snakes On A Ark

 

[6days]

The food part, maybe. The salinity issue though, that's a toughie.

No...not really.
We don't know how much animals have mutated and adapted in the past several thousand years. And, we don't know what pre-flood conditions were. (IE. How much salinity would be added to oceans after a global flood?)

 

[6days]

So you agree that no animal can adapt to drastic condition changes in one year?*

It would depend on which species and a number of other factors.

Evidence in the case of evolution model versus creation modelgenerally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.*

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:*
Fruit flies grow longer wings...*
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'*
New Scientist 165 wrote:*
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"
*

Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...*
... Evolutionists are surprised.*
Science Daily wrote:*
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm*

And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...*
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.*
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!*

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael

"The first living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and bears the scientific name .... it feeds primarily on cephalopods (cuttlefish, squid, and octopus) and fishes."

All these food sources would still be around during the flood.

Likewise crocodiles can survive a year without food.

Sharks also eat fish, and dead bodies.

All the animals we call "ancient" could survive a flood.

Dear iouae,

I have no qualms with you about these. It's nice to know that sharks can eat dead bodies. Crocodiles can live in water and come up for air, so they have a great chance at surviving. Alligators too. Otherwise, I'm not doubting that all of those animals could survive a flood. It's the others that I am concerned with.

May God Watch Over You!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Why did he take snakes ? Snakes On A Ark

Dear patrickjane,

So they would survive the Flood!!

Nice to see you posting! God Be With You!!

Michael

 

[iouae]

The food part, maybe. The salinity issue though, that's a toughie. Almost all marine and freshwater species require a certain salinity level in order to survive. Without this specific level, they die in hours. This applies even to whales and dolphins.

Very few animals, for example the bull shark, can adjust their own body's osmoregulation in order to survive in various salinity levels

Consider this Greg...

No fish were taken onto the Ark, nor whales, dolphins, sharks, turtles etc.

Thus all aquatic species today, fresh and salt water HAD to have survived the flood according to the Bible.

Isn't that a fruitful way for atheists/agnostics to disprove the Flood, or for us Creationists to strengthen our argument. And since we Creationists have faith in the flood, we have nothing to fear.

Here is the experiment I propose...
All aquatic species today should be able through acclimatisation to survive the same salinity, since at The Flood, all aquatic species HAD to have been in the same salinity. There is no mention of God creating fish after the flood.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Horses can eat hay because they have a long digestive tract which allows them to break down fibrous plant matter with the help of probiotic bacteria in their gut. Lions can't digest hay because they lack the length of intestines needed as well as the bacteria responsible for breaking down plant matter. For similar reasons, snakes can only break down animal matter.

I personally don't put much stock into a literal flood story as told in Genesis. Was there a big flood? Probably. Was it global? That seems unlikely. It seems like a legend with a kernel of truth at the center

Dear Greg Jennings,

I'm sure that, if God wanted lions and tigers, and bears, to survive on other food, like straw, they could. Long intestines or not. Humans eat both plants and meat. We're doubly able. And how long can a snake keep swimming until it tires and drowns? Snakes can digest skins and bones, but not straw?? Then again, it could be purely parabolic. I'll ask God when I see Him. Then I will know for certainty.

Praise The Lord,

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :rapture:
​

 

[Jonahdog]

No...not really.
We don't know how much animals have mutated and adapted in the past several thousand years. And, we don't know what pre-flood conditions were. (IE. How much salinity would be added to oceans after a global flood?)

Well then just get those crack creation scientists working on those issues. Get Ken Ham or Liberty University or Ben Carson (once he drops out of the current beauty pageant) to fund some research.

 

[Jonahdog]

Here is the experiment I propose...
All aquatic species today should be able through acclimatisation to survive the same salinity, since at The Flood, all aquatic species HAD to have been in the same salinity. There is no mention of God creating fish after the flood.

Define acclimatization please.

 

[Interplanner]

It would depend on which species and a number of other factors.

Evidence in the case of evolution model versus creation modelgenerally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.*

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:*
Fruit flies grow longer wings...*
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'*
New Scientist 165 wrote:*
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"
*

Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...*
... Evolutionists are surprised.*
Science Daily wrote:*
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm*

And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...*
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.*
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!*

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

Great work, 6days. Good material. Don't forget that biological evolution had no time to work with until the novel and imaginary science of geology 'found time.' These circular buddies believed they were helping reinforce each other, but the geology actually does not. Usually because of rapid movement.

Also aren't there many, many studies of mutations that show that the most vital function of organisms (that would be reproduction) cannot adapt, thus making most mutations a one-off situation? This fall there was a broadcast on NRBtv from a major conference on creation, and this particular topic was F. elegantis. These are fruit flies studied for this question. He compared it to a bridge over a chasm. A mutation can put out a new extension about 10 feet toward the other end, and then it's gone, because the chasm is 200 feet across. It can never change anything about reproduction, which had to be there from the first generation and had to reach 200 feet.

 

[Jonahdog]

Also aren't there many, many studies of mutations that show that the most vital function of organisms (that would be reproduction) cannot adapt, thus making most mutations a one-off situation? This fall there was a broadcast on NRBtv from a major conference on creation, and this particular topic was F. elegantis. These are fruit flies studied for this question. He compared it to a bridge over a chasm. A mutation can put out a new extension about 10 feet toward the other end, and then it's gone, because the chasm is 200 feet across. It can never change anything about reproduction, which had to be there from the first generation and had to reach 200 feet.

Are you sure you are not talking about C. elegans the nematode worm?

If you are going to cite "science" you should at least get the freakin' name of the organism correct.

 

[Interplanner]

Are you sure you are not talking about C. elegans the nematode worm?

If you are going to cite "science" you should at least get the freakin' name of the organism correct.

They were fruit flies. Perhaps they have a stage where they are a worm.

 

[iouae]

Define acclimatization please.

If there was a worldwide flood, fresh and salt water were mixed. Only aquatic species which could survive this one-and-only salinity level could have survived the flood (and the mass extinction event which left earth in Gen 1:2 essentially flooded).

It is hard to find consensus on past salinity levels but it makes sense to me that as the flood receded animals slowly acclimatised to increasingly more fresh water, and increasingly more saline ocean water.

In the 4500 years since the flood, aquatic animals have become more acclimatised to fresh or salty water. One cannot quickly reverse this, but have people done experiments on aquatic animals trying to acclimatise fresh water fish to salty conditions, and salt-living fish to fresh-water conditions.

We know there are salt and fresh water turtles, crocodiles, sharks, fish, mollusks, mussels, etc. If these could adapt to both conditions, could not all aquatics? There has to be a mechanism for controlling salt levels in animals. Is this mechanism with time, able to adapt all animals to every level of salinity?


http://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html


"The highly adaptable euryhaline species are able to endure a wide range of salt levels , according to The National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). They are successfully able to migrate back and forth between saltwater, such as the ocean, and freshwater, which includes certain rivers.

There are two main types of euryhaline fish: anadromous and catadromous. Anadromous fish are born in freshwater but spend most of their lives in the sea, only returning to freshwater in order to spawn. These fish include salmon, smelt, shad, striped bass, and sturgeon, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Catadromous fish, on the other hand, generally live in freshwater bodies of water and only enter saltwater to spawn. North American eels and European eels fall under this category, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Most fish that can only tolerate narrow ranges of salinity and are highly sensitive to any changes in the levels of salt to the water in which they dwell. These fish are known as stenohaline species and include goldfish, which can live only in a freshwater environment. Reversely, tuna can exist exclusively in saltwater, according to the NMFS."

 

[Ian Roz]

Have you read The Twelfth Planet by Z. Stichin, it is available for free online as acrobat file. I am interested to know your view on this idea?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Consider this Greg...

No fish were taken onto the Ark, nor whales, dolphins, sharks, turtles etc.

Thus all aquatic species today, fresh and salt water HAD to have survived the flood according to the Bible.

Isn't that a fruitful way for atheists/agnostics to disprove the Flood, or for us Creationists to strengthen our argument. And since we Creationists have faith in the flood, we have nothing to fear.

Here is the experiment I propose...
All aquatic species today should be able through acclimatisation to survive the same salinity, since at The Flood, all aquatic species HAD to have been in the same salinity. There is no mention of God creating fish after the flood.

Your proposed experiment is performed on a daily basis. Dolphins swim upriver and die; coral that is inundated with freshwater rots away; fish trapped in a saltwater bay after heavy rains die. Like I said, with the exception of a few extraordinary species, all aquatic animals need a very particular salinity level to survive.

 

[Greg Jennings]

If there was a worldwide flood, fresh and salt water were mixed. Only aquatic species which could survive this one-and-only salinity level could have survived the flood (and the mass extinction event which left earth in Gen 1:2 essentially flooded).

It is hard to find consensus on past salinity levels but it makes sense to me that as the flood receded animals slowly acclimatised to increasingly more fresh water, and increasingly more saline ocean water.

In the 4500 years since the flood, aquatic animals have become more acclimatised to fresh or salty water. One cannot quickly reverse this, but have people done experiments on aquatic animals trying to acclimatise fresh water fish to salty conditions, and salt-living fish to fresh-water conditions.

We know there are salt and fresh water turtles, crocodiles, sharks, fish, mollusks, mussels, etc. If these could adapt to both conditions, could not all aquatics? There has to be a mechanism for controlling salt levels in animals. Is this mechanism with time, able to adapt all animals to every level of salinity

Salinity doesn't mean anything to reptiles since they come out of the water often.

This mechanism you speak of does exist and can develop. The only problem with this mechanism fitting into your flood theory is that individuals don't adapt to salinity changes, species do. If an animal does not currently have the ability to live in both fresh and saltwater, it will take many many generations to possibly produce this change. The animals in the flooded ocean would immediately suffer. They wouldn't live for more than a few days with the influx of freshwater. Tats not enough time to crank out a new generation

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg Jennings,

Long intestines or not. Humans eat both plants and meat. We're doubly able. ​

Quite true. Humans, bears, and other omnivores have guts and teeth designed to be able to eat both meat and some plant matter (but not much; most is very indigestible to us). Look at your teeth. You have molars for grinding plant matter, incisors for cutting and slicing, and canines for ripping and tearing meat. Lions have massive canines, and lack molars but in their place have teeth that act as scissors to cut the meat into tiny chin is just before its swallowed. Whatever an organism's diet, you can tell by its dental structure.

And how long can a snake keep swimming until it tires and drowns?

Depends. A rattlesnake? Not very long. A few hours probably. But a sea snake or anaconda? Days.

Snakes can digest skins and bones, but not straw??

Yes, because in order to digest plant matter you must have a certain strain of E. Coli bacteria in your gut. They mostly break down plant matter, while stomach acid breaks down meat.

Then again, it could be purely parabolic. I'll ask God when I see Him. Then I will know for certainty.

Praise The Lord,

Michael

Sounds good. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have​