Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Jose Fly
New member
Aquatic ecosystems, mostly. And yep, it is very interesting.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so you should be aware that, according to evolutionary theory, the marine precursors to mammalian lifeforms were formerly called Pisces, or fish
i wonder why you struggled with that yesterday?
iouae
Well-known member
Since all Tertiary education in the natural sciences is taught from an evolutionary point of view, there is a natural selection process going on here.
The process turns out evolutionists.
Why would a creationist subject him/herself to a three year bombardment of course material saturated in evolutionary teaching? This would be totally off-putting and would tend to either chase the creationist into some other field, or simply pressure them into becoming evolutionists.
Thus evolution perpetuates itself, since all graduates are forced to become evolutionists. They in turn become lecturers.
Is it any wonder that biology is heavily BIASED in favour of evolution.
The same applies to palaeontology.
These fields of study are perfect examples of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Who is attracted to these courses? Evolutionists.
Who survives these courses? Evolutionists.
Who survives to perpetuate these courses? Evolutionists.
The evolutionary process has been demonstrated in the study of the evolutionary process.
The process turns out evolutionists.
Why would a creationist subject him/herself to a three year bombardment of course material saturated in evolutionary teaching? This would be totally off-putting and would tend to either chase the creationist into some other field, or simply pressure them into becoming evolutionists.
Thus evolution perpetuates itself, since all graduates are forced to become evolutionists. They in turn become lecturers.
Is it any wonder that biology is heavily BIASED in favour of evolution.
The same applies to palaeontology.
These fields of study are perfect examples of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Who is attracted to these courses? Evolutionists.
Who survives these courses? Evolutionists.
Who survives to perpetuate these courses? Evolutionists.
The evolutionary process has been demonstrated in the study of the evolutionary process.
I think all science should be taught from an astrology point of view, all history from a Chinese point of view, and all religion from a Druid point of view, medicine should go back to looking for the humors.
Makes as much sense as your complaint.
6days
New member
Good comments and I mostly agree.
However there are a growing number of Biblical creationists that are PHD biologists, physicists, geologists etc.
in fact the growing number of people rejecting the traditional evolutionary dogma has concerned some evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne.
6days
New member
Sounds like the fallacy of equivocation to me.
Evolutionists and Creationists both understand the mechanisms that allow organisms to change and adapt.
That is what we observe.
However common ancestry is a belief system and cant be observed. The fish remains a fish and can never evolve into a philosopher.
The evidence supports the Biblical creation model... organisms have the ability to often change and adapt very rapidly from a intelligently designed genome.
Previous post...
Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally 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.
iouae
Well-known member
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-extraordinary-evolution-of-cichlid-fishes/
"Africa's Lake Victoria is home to one of evolution's greatest experiments. In its waters, what began as a single lineage belonging to the cichlid family of fishes has since given rise to a dazzling array of forms. Like Charles Darwin's famous finches, which evolved a wide range of beak shapes and sizes to exploit the different foods available in the Galápagos Islands, these cichlids represent a textbook example of what biologists term an adaptive radiation—the phenomenon whereby one lineage spawns numerous species that evolve specializations to an array of ecological roles. But the Lake Victoria cichlids far surpass Darwin's finches in the astonishing speed with which they diversified: the more than 500 species that live there and only there today all evolved within the past 15,000 to 10,000 years—an eyeblink in geologic terms—compared with the 14 finch species that evolved over several million years."
As a creationist I believe that after the flood, fish diversified and specialised into fresh and salt water kinds.
These in turn diversified to exploit every available niche as the Scientific American article explains.
The pairs of animals coming off the ark likewise diversified into what we see today.
And the process can occur exceedingly fast, in thousands of years, not millions.
Spoiler
Last edited by a moderator:
well, you creationist would continue to be wrong
iouae
Well-known member
Too bad Scientific American calls your bluff.
Jose Fly
New member
iouae,
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your last couple of posts. First (in THIS POST) you complain about evolution being essentially universally taught in universities. But then in your very next post (HERE) you cite a good example of observed Darwinian evolution.
So on one hand you're asking "Why is evolution taught?" And OTOH you're saying "Look, evolution is observed reality".
See the disconnect?
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your last couple of posts. First (in THIS POST) you complain about evolution being essentially universally taught in universities. But then in your very next post (HERE) you cite a good example of observed Darwinian evolution.
So on one hand you're asking "Why is evolution taught?" And OTOH you're saying "Look, evolution is observed reality".
See the disconnect?
Jose Fly
New member
Sounds like the fallacy of equivocation to me.
Evolutionists and Creationists both understand the mechanisms that allow organisms to change and adapt.
That is what we observe.
Seriously? You're itchin' to get into another round of "Jose Fly asks 6days to define his terms and answer questions, and 6days dodges all of it"? Why?
Look, I've seen your rote mantras enough times already. No need to keep repeating them.
Thanks.
alwight
New member
Why would it require the whole Noah's Ark imo rather far fetched scenario?
Did Noah have fish tanks on board?
Why was a kind of evolution on steroids at all likely?
Why only cichlids in African lakes?
As a creationist why wouldn't God simply create new creatures spontaneously?
Why are you so wedded to evolution when it suits you to?
Presumably it's because a YEC way has to be found of believing what Genesis says literally no matter how unlikely or free from evidence?
iouae
Well-known member
Look at the common mutt. It comes in all sizes and shapes, such that if we did not know they were all Canis familiaris, we might think they were different species. I don't remember this argument being used against creationists by saying "See - evolution in real time".
In the lab we have been breeding and doing experiments with fruit-flies (Drosophila) such that we can produce almost any variety of fruit fly.
In nature cichlids are doing the same (diversifying) all over the world, in both fresh and salt water. We have kept some of these in our fish tanks not realising that they were cichlids, e.g. angelfish.
Cichlids never stop diversifying, just as there is a new mutt born as we speak which looks like no other. You may see it as evolution, I see it as diversification. They are still dogs/cichlids.
When God said that each was to reproduce "after their kind", we have to look to nature to see what this means. Cichlids and dogs are reproducing after their kind, if you do not define "kind" too narrowly, like some creationists do.
This post is getting long, but creationists take "reproduction after their kind" as some kind of immutable law. I take it as a general principle. I do not doubt that with gene splicing we could make a new "kind" tomorrow in the lab. New "kinds" of diseases form all the time. We all fear ebola going airborne etc. In fact biological warfare agencies can and do make new diseases. Certainly making a new virus (which has such a short chain of DNA/RNA) has been done, as far as I know.
Get bent Dude!! Patrick jane has no right to hand my thread over to you in a million years. You are an atheist and I'm a creationist. There is a big difference. You must be dreaming on the BA you've been given? With ALL of your scholarly experience, you still miss out on the Truth. That God is Supreme over all in the Universe and on Earth, and with Mankind. Start believing that and I will feel better!!
The last two paragraphs you mentioned were not even worth answering. You know Nothing about Miracles or God. I will consider sending my Proof Pages to Alwight, but not you, BJ, because you are beyond help and Alwight isn't. But Alwight is getting there. You are all poisoning his soul and you don't even know or care about it. With your stupid mind views. If I could write here what I feel, I would be banned. I'm not ready for that.
God Help You If You Change Your Stance,
Michael
Give me a break with this 'litany' of excuses. One mistake doesn't make a bad apple. You are the one that pressed upon me a date when He would return, so I gave you what I thought. Since No One Knows when it's going to be, I guess I am no different. Right, booper?
BJ, For what you do scientifically, we pay anyway through other ways, like dying with Alzheimer's or Dementia, or whatever else. There's tons that Science doesn't know. I MEAN TONS!! So don't get so high and mighty compared to God, or you'll fall. There is something we're ingesting or something that is causing these diseases and it something science probably helped to give the recipe to, like pesticides or additives in food. Let's see what happens in the very end and see what God says about it. It ought to be interesting.
Michael
iouae
Well-known member
Fish have been around since the Cambrian.
But after the Flood, all water was brackish.
Cichlids fill in a piece of that puzzle for me as to what happened after the Flood. See my previous post #14110 where I postulated that all fish alive today must have diversified from ONE brackish flood water covered earth.
The waters receded leaving pockets of brackish water with, lets say, the cichlid in each pond/sea. Because of their inherent ability to diversify which is part of their DNA, they all immediately began diversifying into the completely different looking fish found around the world, from S. America to Africa.
I see all land animals, such as dogs doing the same after leaving the Ark. The fact that Tinkerbell cannot survive in the wild but is totally adapted to Paris Hilton's handbag does not disprove creation.
Last edited:
Dear alwight,'
No, Noah did not have fish tanks aboard. They were on their own. The freshwater and saltwater fish were on their own. Cichlids were on their own. I'm sure that the water was saline enough for all fish and freshwater enough for all fish. They did not change. All of the rest of the creature life changed. The aquatic life basically all were never affected.
No, Noah did not have fish tanks!
Michael
Yeah, you should be able to predict 7 in. of snow out of the blue. Who are you trying to fool?? It could have only snowed 3-5 inches, instead. Right??
Michael
Originally Posted by MichaelCadry View Post
Dear All,
About this deluge! It was a Great Encompassing FLOOD. Noah took birds into the Ark also. If God was destroying all flesh off of the earth, then why wouldn't birds just fly to the nearest dry spot and stay there? I mean if there is dry land somewhere in this Great Flood, then the birds closest to it would fly to it. Noah would not need birds on the Ark. So now that you are wrong, are you sure that everything else that comes out of your head is wrong too? See Post #14573. Page 972. You missed it??
Dear 6days,
Yes, you are right!!! It doesn't take much time to figure it out. If it were a local flood, birds could have flown to a nearby island and lived. I mean they fly pretty long distances and off course, they rest. But if the Earth is covered with water, there is no place left to rest, unless they are ducks.
Michael
Dear All,
About this deluge! It was a Great Encompassing FLOOD. Noah took birds into the Ark also. If God was destroying all flesh off of the earth, then why wouldn't birds just fly to the nearest dry spot and stay there? I mean if there is dry land somewhere in this Great Flood, then the birds closest to it would fly to it. Noah would not need birds on the Ark. So now that you are wrong, are you sure that everything else that comes out of your head is wrong too? See Post #14573. Page 972. You missed it??
Dear 6days,
Yes, you are right!!! It doesn't take much time to figure it out. If it were a local flood, birds could have flown to a nearby island and lived. I mean they fly pretty long distances and off course, they rest. But if the Earth is covered with water, there is no place left to rest, unless they are ducks.
Michael
- Status