Well, at least the wiser know the difference. I'm proud of you 6days. But I have to think about many things. Life is a trip and we can either pack sun lotion or burn. Do you know what I mean?
God Rest Your Soul On His Shoulder!!
Michael
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Well, at least the wiser know the difference. I'm proud of you 6days. But I have to think about many things. Life is a trip and we can either pack sun lotion or burn. Do you know what I mean?
God Rest Your Soul On His Shoulder!!
Michael
Dear iouae,
You are doing a spectacular job so far. Keep it up!! God created!! God bless you for all your stand for!!
Michael
You are doing a spectacular job so far. Keep it up!! God created!! God bless you for all your stand for!!
Michael
Really? Scientific American supports this earlier statement of yours
" Originally Posted by iouae View Post
We creationists 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.
"
Nah, I don't think so, but feel free to provide the citation. Especially the support of the Big Flood, the Ark and supersonic evolution. You can throw in support of Biblical kinds as well.
alwight
New member
I'm still getting mixed messages here, you seem to want me to accept fish being around for some 530 million years and Noah's flood at the same time? When exactly was this flood?
Personally I would have expected the same kind of diversity of fish as with any lake anywhere if they were all the result of a global flood. In these African lakes however it's only cichlids that had taken up the different roles.
Since perch were introduced into lake Victoria many indigenous cichlids have been wiped out. So it's pretty clear that originally cichlids had no other competition other than themselves. Evolution happens with whatever happens to exist in the environment.
Their ability to diversify is probably no better than any other aquatic creature, it was just that they had no other competition to deal with.
I would have thought that you would be telling me that a pair of wolves would have been all that was needed on the Ark since man artificially bred dogs from them dogs were not created.:think:
alwight
New member
Sorry Michael that just doesn't wash (pun intended
). Without a specific environment which would have been lost in deep water, along with the sunlight which doesn't penetrate very far in sea water (I used to be a scuba diver btw), most aquatic life would not have been able to last very long. If Noah didn't have marine and freshwater tanks then such life would have mainly all perished along with the land creatures.
iouae
Well-known member
I had thrown out a challenge in #14110 that all fish on earth today must have survived ONE salinity at one time viz. the worldwide Noah flood, 4400 years ago. I said this not having any proof, but as a scientific hypothesis, a proposed way to prove the Biblical flood a fraud. I proposed that all fish on earth today were at one time, neither fresh or salt water exclusively 4400 years ago.
All I am saying is that cichlids seem to demonstrate this, surviving the Flood, and then specialising, first into fresh or salt water varieties, and then even more specifically to suit the food available.
Fish like the coelacanth could have survived in deep sea caves where a slightly more saline environment would have persisted. Likewise, there are caves where fresh water reservoirs of fresh water fish possibly survived in less brackish water. All we need is a mating pair to survive. Or one pregnant female. Or even fertilised eggs. And only at one spot on earth.
6days
New member
Correct
We don't know what the salinity of preflood oceans was. We don't know how a global flood would change the salinity. We don't know how tolerant pre-flood marine life was. We don't know what extinctions the flood might have caused...etc.
We do know God caused a global flood. We do know that God created the genetic code allowing organisms to change and adapt rapidly. We do know that many of todays organisms are highly adapted (they have lost genetic info) and are less tolerant to change. We do know that God's Word and science are always in harmony. We know...evolutionists are out of harmony.
Jose Fly
New member
What's the difference between a population "diversifying" and one "evolving"?
What exactly is a "kind"?
It is defined in the Bible, I just can't put my finger on the verse right now. Perhaps 6 can do that for us.
alwight
New member
Created kind
"Identification
Main Article: Baraminology
To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. It is generally assumed that the "created kind" is analogous to the taxonomic Family, although numerous exceptions certainly exist. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and identifications are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record.
It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10]
Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo."
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind
:sheep:
Of course we all know that ***** are not arses.
iouae
Well-known member
From the Ark, animals diversified.
Have Creationists ever not believed in diversification?
There were a limited number of "kinds" taken onto the Ark.
From them we get the great diversity today.
I don't know if all the cats came from two cats which came off the Ark.
Mapping the genome will eventually connect all organisms together.
God implemented sexual reproduction from the start because He wanted diversity and multiplication.
So we believe in diversification.
You may view the exact same thing, as evolution.
Where we really differ is you see them all having a common ancestor.
We see them all having a common Maker.
And He did not just make once.
I already defined "kind" as "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."
iouae
Well-known member
Created kind
"Identification
Main Article: Baraminology
To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. It is generally assumed that the "created kind" is analogous to the taxonomic Family, although numerous exceptions certainly exist. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and identifications are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record.
It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10]
Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo."
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind
:sheep:
Of course we all know that ***** are not arses.
Nice
Jose Fly
New member
Of course we all know that ***** are not arses.
Hah!! Nice post....shows just how goofy (and what a misnomer) "creation science" is.
Jose Fly
New member
Um....that's not what I asked. I asked what the difference is between populations "diversifying" and populations "evolving".
If a definition has the word being defined in it, it's circular (and useless).
I didn't ask for examples, I asked for a definition of "kind". You still haven't given one.
alwight
New member
The "kind" Hominidae seems to be missing from their list, perhaps great apes are an embarrassment to creationists? :think:
Jose Fly
New member
Well yeah. As Barbarian liked to point out, whatever criteria they use to separate non-humans into "kinds", when applied to humans would put us in the same "kind" as other apes.
And we all know they can't have that. :think:
iouae
Well-known member
Alwight gave you a good answer.
alwight
New member
I hope that doesn't make me an honorary Creationist. :nono:
iouae
Well-known member
alwight
New member
You are up there with 6days & Michael
- Status