Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's your opinion about teaching the theory of evolution in public schools? (Freep this poll!)
KIII-TV ^ | 07/30/11

Posted on 07/30/2011 9:55:01 PM PDT by Dominic01

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-98 last
To: LetMarch

Martin Luther (1483-1546), said: “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless we diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth.”


It is coming to pass right before our eyes, yet most people can not see it.

Gates of Hell is right, maybe that is why Jesus said in matt 20 v 16 many shall be called but few chosen.


51 posted on 07/31/2011 5:19:15 AM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: al baby
If we evolved from apes why are they still here? case closed

Thank you, Steve!

52 posted on 07/31/2011 5:55:57 AM PDT by Ozone34 ("There are only two philosophies: Thomism and bullshitism!" -Leon Bloy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01

I believe it doesn’t really matter as long as the schools teach the kids what a THEORY is.

Theory: an UNPROVEN assumption.


53 posted on 07/31/2011 6:02:08 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Muslims do not immigrate; they colonize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al baby
If we evolved from apes why are they still here? case closed

If we came from Europe why are there still people in Europe?

If your non sequitur gives you comfort, then hey, don't mind if I laugh at it. But at the same time don't expect me not to.

54 posted on 07/31/2011 6:02:40 AM PDT by Cheburashka (If found, please return this Ring of Power to Sauron, Lord of Darkness. Return postage guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01

Taught as a theory(s) - no problem

Taught as inarguable facts - big problem


55 posted on 07/31/2011 6:11:48 AM PDT by John 3_19-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01

My opinion is that taxpayers should be refunded the portion of their property taxes that applied to public schools for as long as evolution is taught. IOW, we’re not getting our money’s worth.


56 posted on 07/31/2011 6:21:03 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ozone34
If we evolved from apes why are they still here? case closed

Thank you, Steve!


There's only one thing worse than an infinitely malleable theory able to explain everything, even its failure to explain everything, and that's a critique of one of its previous positions, now abandoned as though it never existed, a critique that believes itself to be so witty and trenchant that it ends all contention. Both exude a degree of smugness and certitude that is unwarranted regarding the matter at hand and both use that smugness and certitude as a substitute for evidence and reason. They're pretty much two sides of the same coin.
57 posted on 07/31/2011 6:21:38 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01
For those of you who favor creationism be taught in public schools, I have questions:

Which version of creationism do you prefer? Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Scientology, Aztec, Inuit, Creek, Hopi, Sioux, or black liberation theology?

Now, which version will the gay, pedophile, union, Arab religion teacher be teaching in your public school to YOUR kids?

I'm gonna guess that 99% of FReepers believe that gov’t is way too big, & legally intrudes on our private lives in too many ways. I'm also gonna guess that most of us KNOW the gov’t screws up badly EVERY TIME it involves itself in social & cultural aspects of American society.

It's obvious gov’t run schools cannot even teach reading, writing, & arithmetic. Sex education is primarily DEVIATE/PROMISCUOUS sexual education. Athletics is now about money rather than sportsmanship & health.

In most schools districts in the USA, the children come from diverse backgrounds, with many different religions & versions of creation. How does a school provide a creationism class for 5, 10, or 20 different religions, or do they provide one creationism class, with multiple versions of creation, or maybe they provide one creationism class with only ONE version of creation taught? Which option do you prefer vs. which option the gov’t, by force of diversity & budget, will prefer?

As of today, your child's religious education is COMPLETELY in your hands. You don't need a permit, child welfare cannot intervene, & no police will be kicking in your door (yet) to take your kid to the moon goddess sacrificial festival field trip.

So, why would ANY FReeper want ANY religion taught in gov’t run schools?

It is not about evolution vs. creationism, it's about gov’t sanctioned religion - Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, Boehner sanctioned religion being taught to our kids in gov’t run schools. If you can show that evolution is bogus, then work to have it removed from the school curriculum.

58 posted on 07/31/2011 6:24:39 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

I see no conflict ... BOTH are correct. The bible has the “timeline” off is all, and you’d expect that being it was written before people even knew the earth was round. A “day”? A “day” in God’s mind is how long? 10 or 12 million years maybe? Explaining how God sat in his deck chair and created the world in 7 days, “let there be trees” ... is easy, and easy for a not-so-deep thinker to understand. But think of the “intellect” (if you can call it that) ... that came up with evolution ... that is beyond anything man could make up or dream up .. we still haven’t figured it all out yet. Don’t tell me there isn’t something very superior out there watching and laughing at all this. (Yes, my God has a sense of humor too).


59 posted on 07/31/2011 6:24:45 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01

It’s the best scientific explanation we have, even if it isn’t a perfect match with religion. It may have flaws, and should not be taught as dogma, but it is does have decent reasoning behind it insofar as we do know things.

A key factor is NO theory is complete and perfect. People are, however, loathe to admit they don’t know everything and “demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty”.


60 posted on 07/31/2011 6:30:44 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01

I believe that public schools are an evolutionary dead end. They need to be put out of our misery and replaced with Freedom.


61 posted on 07/31/2011 6:37:32 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I concur. I've studied the evidence supporting common descent, phyletic evolution, punctuated evolution... probably most things TOE and shake my head. I saw little or no objectivity. Perhaps fairy tail/tale is the best description.
62 posted on 07/31/2011 7:21:35 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pallis
You may not understand from where I'm coming.

It certainly addresses the origins of man and life on this planet...

I thought so when I first started studying the subject but the TOE, common descent or however it is referred does not address the origin of life.

63 posted on 07/31/2011 7:32:40 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01
This is what they should teach in schools: Evolution - Eugenics. Make sure every student is aware of who all those famous evolutionary biologists really were.
64 posted on 08/01/2011 12:59:21 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

OK micro-evolution is real but after that we part ways.

Incidentally for a long time I thought they knew what they were talking about. Now it appears money and gov backing has corrupted things terribly.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


65 posted on 08/03/2011 11:25:24 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

“It’s the best scientific explanation we have...”

Not exactly. Science can not ‘do’ history since it is not repeatable. On the other hand their is much known information which the gov, schools and media would like to keep from seeing the light of day.

See my prior post on this thread #65 for more info.


66 posted on 08/03/2011 11:38:11 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

I’d guess you have not read much regarding either theory based upon your post.

See my prior post on this thread #65 for more info.


67 posted on 08/03/2011 11:44:10 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

There is much more evidence for a young earth and universe than the gov, schools and media would like for you to see.

See my prior post on this thread #65 for more info.


68 posted on 08/03/2011 11:47:12 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

I looked at your creationist site looking for a concise statement of the “theory of creationism”. I din’t see one, but I didn’t do a thorough search. Maybe you can point me to it so I can see if it’s falsifiable.

Also does it meet these other criteria?

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

Maybe you can comment on it.


69 posted on 08/03/2011 12:08:49 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

Dr Walt Brown PhD [from the 2nd link in post 65] does provide plenty of information both on explaining observations and making predictions [see part II of creationscience.com]. In part I he simply lays out point by point what we do know w/ near certainty about evolution [hint: micro yes, macro no not enough time even w/ billions of years].

On your 1st point please remember the scientific method requires repeatability therefore neither creation nor evolution fall into the classical definition of true science. I don’t recall any stated formal creation theory per se, but Dr. Brown does explain his hydroplate theory [replaces plate tectonics]

Dr. Brown was basically looking at any/all evidence in support of the biblical account. Walt stated how many problems he found w/ integrity and outright fraud while formerly working as an evolutionary scientist. He then began an exhaustive re-examination of the Genesis story he was taught during his Methodist upbringing.

One of my favorite quotes he documents from Darwin himself was the need for [paraphrased] thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils or the TOE completely falls apart.

Dr. Brown includes lots of references both for and against evolution and paints the clearest picture yet. He was also greatly inspired by Whitcomb and Morris book “The Genesis Flood” iirc.

Also the hydroplate theory is the only plausible theory I know of that explains where all the water came from and went to regarding a global flood.


70 posted on 08/03/2011 1:07:40 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

The theory of evolution is just another way for man to describe what’s been hidded he can’t figure out. God hides his ways from the wicked who are then left with their tainted and feeble minds to construct whatever their minds can conceive....regardless if facts can prove or not.


71 posted on 08/03/2011 1:12:08 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

” I don’t recall any stated formal creation theory per se, but Dr. Brown does explain his hydroplate theory [replaces plate tectonics]”

Without a concisely stated theory you don’t have anything since how could you possibly test it. Simply criticizing another theory makes you a skeptic, not a proponent of another theory. If the creationists’ “theory” is what’s in Genesis then they should clearly state so. Then we could test it against reality, such as, was all of the universe really created in seven days 4000 some odd years ago? Was Noah really able to fit a pair of each species in the Ark? Were all the species that ever existed created then? And son on.

I don’t have any problem with someone critiquing a theory and pointing out its shortcomings. That’s all part of good science and how a theory is improved, and even discarded. Science is filled with such cases.

But I have tremendous problems with people who start with a dogmatic belief which they will not alter regardless of what contrary evidence is presented, and insist on calling it a scientific theory simply to insert themselves in the classroom in order to neutralize a legitimate theory that conflicts with their dogma. I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.

Now, the evolutionary theory may very well be incomplete or possibly wrong. I myself have a hard time believing some of it’s aspects, while in many cases it seems to make a lot of sense. But simply because it may be lacking doesn’t make somebody’s dogma right.


72 posted on 08/05/2011 12:21:58 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

Ah please excuse me for answering so quickly and from memory rather than researching each and every of your concerns, and questions. How rude of me [/sarc]!

I provide you the links the least you could do is read them for yourself. What exactly have you read and what do you truly know or believe?

Such a load that I’m making ‘dogmatic’ claims, ‘inserting myself in the classroom’ and then you call evolution a legitimate theory. I’m so glad evolution never does any of those things! [sarc/]

You took 1 sentence from my rather lengthy post out of context in relation to all my other statements. What evolutionary theory?!?! Please show me just one - ha!

The point was no one can truly test creation nor evolution nor provide a formal scientific theory. Where is the evolution theory ever properly completely defined?
Did Darwin define one? Oh that’s right it depends upon who you ask and who you trust.

Where the rubber really meets the road -
PLEASE PLEASE show me evolution’s falsifiable tests for transitional forms?

You completely ignored the part where I told you neither is science because it is history 1st and foremost ~ neither one can be repeated / reproduced.

You want hard and fast theories than stick w/ hard science.

Evolution is not repeatable, contains more lies and outright fraud than all other scientific disciplines combined, and continually has to re-create not just goal-posts but all the rules of the game. Oh and please show me where the scientific method allows one to completely discard and continually dis-regard some/most of the collected datum?

Worst of all is the on-again/off-again evolutionary claim for origins. Most evolutionists today want to start w/ a single cell - poof - that’s 3 billion lines of living, self-reproducing, self-repairing code - rather than re-visit the failed ‘primordial soup theory.’

I never claimed to hold any reservations that public schools nor esp. higher education will allow any creation ideas to be fully explored. This is highly ironic since any scientist w/ integrity wanting to do true science has already dis-regarded the notion of macro-evolution.

Darwin saw a blob of tissue through his microscope over 150 year ago while Watson and Crick saw more complexity in a single cell’s DNA than all the rest of the known universe combined over 50 years ago. Since then the evolution bulb continually grows dimmer but not for want of the credentialed experts wanting to sell their ideas, books, and claim to fame.

Here’s another hint for you - mainstream anything today will not tell you of new facts/discoveries nor esp. concepts that conflict with their paradigms. Or if they are forced to they will include any disclaimers and made up just-so stories to quell the masses.

So it is really a question of cognitive dissonance ~ when science contradicts the bible which one do you consider as absolute truth and/or how far are you willing to roam off the mainstream reservation to find supporting facts, ideas and theories for the biblical accounts?

You concluded with: “I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.” and then the next thought shows how little research you have conducted for either ‘theory’ as you would like to call them.

From my purview there will always be loads of crappy arguments against rather than for the biblical account. Some prefer to be brain-washed by only reviewing one side of the ledger esp. when it is so full of supporting books, articles, documents, ‘facts’, and ‘science.’

Anyone reading this who cares about integrity will read the creationscience link and realize Dr. Brown does provide his hydroplate theory and includes predictions and tests for falsifying. Conversely anyone attempting to explain all of creation or evolution with a mere theory will always come up short.

I won’t hold my breathe waiting for you to read any of the creation links provided ~ I think I see where you butter your bread.


73 posted on 08/05/2011 6:14:17 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

If you had done some true evolution-type research before spouting off w/

“But I have tremendous problems with people who start with a dogmatic belief which they will not alter regardless of what contrary evidence is presented, and insist on calling it a scientific theory simply to insert themselves in the classroom in order to neutralize a legitimate theory that conflicts with their dogma. I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.”

then you would have realized how well this describes supporters of evolution rather than detractors.

Who is dogmatic in their beliefs?

Who ignores contrary evidence?

Who insists they have a theory?

Who inserts themselves in the classroom?

How is it un-christian to defend the Bible and assail
anything 100% contradictory yet purporting to be truth?


74 posted on 08/05/2011 7:25:56 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

You don’t seem to see the forest for the trees. Creationists are busy trying to disprove this aspect or that aspect of evolution not realizing that even if they prove that all of the theory is false IT DOESN’T PROVE CREATIONISM!!!

There’s one reason and one reason only why creationists object to the theory of evolution. It’s their dogmatic (by faith) literal belief in the bible. It’s for the same reason that the roman church jailed Galileo when he had the audacity to say that the earth was not at the center of the solar system - he went against their dogma.

I’m going to go on a limb and predict that you will deny this - i.e., that your main objection to evolution is because you believe in what’s in the bible. Many creationists I talked to do, and that’s the part that I find either disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, or simply blind to their own prejudice.

I’m an agnostic, and I don’t have any dogmatic attachment to evolution or any other theory. If you want to convince me that creationism is a valid scientific theory, first tell me what it is, and then provide scientific evidence that supports it. Telling me all the faults of the theory of evolution doesn’t cut it.


75 posted on 08/06/2011 12:20:38 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
What part of the theory of evolution states that we evolved from apes?

I think the part where scientists claim that we evolved from Lucy, or something very similar to her/him.

76 posted on 08/06/2011 12:35:42 PM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

For the 3rd time now, neither one is science.

Also I don’t need to disprove evolution, true science has already done that in spades. Even though many ‘experts’ refuse to see and will continue for the foreseeable future.

I gave you links to show you what has been proven scientifically and how all those puzzle pieces fit easily with creation and the biblical account.


77 posted on 08/06/2011 9:05:24 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

“I gave you links to show you what has been proven scientifically and how all those puzzle pieces fit easily with creation and the biblical account.”

I’m still waiting for you to tell me what the creationist theory is. Or, are you now saying that it is indeed Genesis the literal Genesis?

- That the universe, as it exists today, was created in seven earth days? And you have evidence for that?
- How long ago was that? Was it the 4000 or so odd years that a german monk (I think) calculated it to be? And you have evidence for that?
- And Noah, did indeed put a pair of every species of animals on his Ark? Again, how big was his ark? Oh and what about the trees, and the germs? And all the species that have been discovered in the last couple of thousands of years, that noah never knew they existed?

- And which came first chronologically, your belief that the world was created according to Genesis, or your Christian faith? How are the two related? And given your Christian faith could you ever believe in anything other than Genesis?

- Do you admit that the main reason you’re a creationist is because you’re a christian that believes that the bible is the literal word of god?


78 posted on 08/07/2011 12:58:00 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

from AnswersinGenesis.org...

Caring for the Animals on the Ark
by John Woodmorappe
March 29, 2007


According to Scripture, Noah’s Ark was a safe haven for representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals that God created. While it is possible that God made miraculous provisions for the daily care of these animals, it is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles. Exploring natural solutions for day-to-day operations does not discount God’s role: the biblical account hints at plenty of miracles as written, such as God bringing the animals to the Ark (Genesis 6:20; 7:9, 15). It turns out that a study of existing, low-tech animal care methods answers trivial objections to the Ark.

In fact, many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.

How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?

According to the Bible, the Ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals (the maximum number of animals on the Ark, if the most liberal approach to counting animals is applied), assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) were small (the largest only a few hundred pounds of body weight). What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.

It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants and rhinos. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area because it is most likely that these animals were young, but not newborns. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.

What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?

Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.

It is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles for the provision and daily care of the animals on the Ark. Many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.

How Were the Animals Cared For?

We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.

Studies of non-mechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”

Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential.

Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.

How Did the Animals Breathe?

Based on my two decades of research, I do not believe that anything more was needed than a basic, non-mechanical ventilation system. The density of animals on the Ark, compared to the volume of enclosed space, was much less than we find in some modern, mass animal housing used to keep stock raised for food (such as chicken farms), which requires no special mechanical ventilation.

It is reasonable to believe that one relatively small window would have adequately ventilated the Ark. Of course if there were a window along the top center section, which the Bible allows, all occupants would be even more comfortable. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further. However, if supplementary ventilation was necessary, it could have been provided by wave motion, fire thermal, or even a small number of animals harnessed to slow-moving rotary fans.


John Woodmorappe has been a researcher in the areas of biology, geology, and paleontology for over twenty years. He has two B.A. degrees and an M.A. in geology. John has also been a public school science teacher.


79 posted on 08/07/2011 1:40:26 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

Let us begin by reaffirming that God’s Word does indeed reveal, in the plainest possible terms, that the whole globe was inundated with a violent, watery cataclysm—Noah’s flood. All land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures not on the ark perished and the world was re-populated by those surviving on the ark.

How Did the Animals Get to the Ark?

Skeptics paint a picture of Noah going to countries remote from the Middle East to gather animals such as kangaroos and koalas from Australia, and kiwis from New Zealand. However, the Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up (Genesis 6:20). God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done.

We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood. If there was only one continent at that time, then questions of getting animals from remote regions to the ark are not relevant.

Animal Distribution After the Flood

There are severe practical limitations on our attempts to understand the hows and whys of something that happened once, was not recorded in detail, and cannot be repeated.

Difficulties in our ability to explain every single situation in detail result from our limited understanding. We cannot go back in a time machine to check what has happened, and our mental reconstructions of what the world was like after the flood will inevitably be deficient. Because of this, the patterns of post-flood animal migration present some problems and research challenges for the biblical creation model. However, there are clues from various sources which suggest answers to the questions.

Clues from Modern Times

When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually colonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things.

Land Bridges

Evolutionists acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas.[1] Before the idea of continental drift became popular, evolutionists depended entirely upon a lowering of the sea level during an ice age (which locked up water in the ice) to create land bridges, enabling dry-land passage from Europe most of the way to Australasia, for example.

The existence of some deep-water stretches along the route to Australia is still consistent with this explanation. Evolutionist geologists themselves believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors, in the time period which they associate with an ice age. For instance, parts of California are believed to have been raised many thousands of feet from what was the sea floor during this ice age period, which they call “Pleistocene” (one of the most recent of the supposed geological periods). creationist geologists generally regard Pleistocene sediments as post-flood, the period in which these major migrations took place.

In the same way, other dry-land areas, including parts of these land bridges, subsided to become submerged at around the same time.[2]

There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved there. However, living marsupials, opossums, are found also in North and South America, and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent. Likewise, monotremes were once thought to be unique to Australia, but the discovery in 1991 of a fossil platypus tooth in South America stunned the scientific community.[3] Therefore, since evolutionists believe all organisms came from a common ancestor, migration between Australia and other areas must be conceded as possible by all scientists, whether evolutionist or creationist.

Creationists generally believe there was only one Ice Age after, and as a consequence of, the flood. The lowered sea level at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries. Some creationists propose a form of continental break-up after the flood, in the days of Peleg. This again would mean several centuries for animals to disperse, in this instance without the necessity of land-bridges. However, continental break-up in the time of Peleg is not widely accepted in creationist circles.

Did the Kangaroo Hop All the Way to Australia?

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are sometimes asked mockingly, “Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?” We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question.

Kangaroo

Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world.

We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the flood. Kangaroos (as is true for any other creature) may not have been on any isolated landmass. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one landmass. (”Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”) For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone’s throw of Noah while he was building the Ark.

It may be asked, if creatures were migrating to Australia over a long time (which journey would have included such places as indonesia, presumably) why do we not find their fossils en route in such countries?

Fossilization is a rare event, requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the flood) to prevent decomposition. Lions lived in israel until relatively recently. We don’t find lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesn’t prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. The millions of bison that once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no fossils. So why should it be a surprise that small populations, presumably under migration pressure from competitors and/or predators, and thus living in only one area for a few generations at most, should leave no fossils?

Unique Organisms

Another issue is why certain animals (and plants) are uniquely found in only one place. Why is species x found only in madagascar and species y only in the Seychelles? Many times, questions on this are phrased to indicate that the questioner believes that this means that species y headed only in that one direction, and never migrated anywhere else. While that is possible, it is not necessarily the case at all. All that the present situation indicates is that these are now the only places where x or y still survive.

The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in different parts of the world, most of which subsequently became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than “random” processes in choice of destination), and were subsequently isolated from the placentals, and so protected from competition and predation.

Palm Valley in central Australia is host to a unique species of palm, Livingstonia mariae, found nowhere else in the world. Does this necessarily mean that the seeds for this species floated only to this one little spot? Not at all. Current models of post-flood climate indicate that the world is much drier now than it was in the early post-flood centuries. Evolutionists themselves agree that in recent times (by evolutionary standards), the sahara was lush and green, and central Australia had a moist, tropical climate. For all we know, the Livingstonia mariae palm may have been widespread over much of Australia, perhaps even in other places which are now dry, such as parts of Africa.

The palm has survived in Palm Valley because there it happens to be protected from the drying out which affected the rest of its vast central Australian surroundings. Everywhere else, it died out.

Incidentally, this concept of changing vegetation with changing climate should be kept in mind when considering post-flood animal migration—especially because of the objections (and caricatures) which may be presented. For instance, how could creatures that today need a rain forest environment trudge across thousands of miles of parched desert on the way to where they now live? The answer is that it wasn’t desert then!

The Koala and Other Specialized Types

Some problems are more difficult to solve. For instance, there are creatures that require special conditions or a very specialized diet, such as the giant panda of China or Australia’s koala. We don’t know, of course, that bamboo shoots or blue gum leaves[4] were not then flourishing all along their eventual respective migratory paths. In fact, this may have influenced the direction they took.

But, in any case, there is another possibility. A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation. A good example is the many modern breeds of dog, selected by man (although natural conditions can do likewise), which are much less hardy in the wild than their “mongrel” ancestors. For example, the St. Bernard carries a mutational defect, an overactive thyroid, which means it needs to live in a cold environment to avoid overheating.

This suggests that the ancestors of such creatures, when they came off the Ark, were not as specialized. Thus they were more hardy than their descendants, who carry only a portion of that original gene pool of information.[5] In other words, the koala’s ancestor may have been able to survive on a much greater range of vegetation. Such an explanation has been made possible only with modern biological insights. Perhaps as knowledge increases some of the remaining difficulties will become less so.

Such changes do not require large time periods for animals under migratory pressure. The first small population that formed would tend to break up rapidly into daughter populations, going in different directions, each carrying only a portion of the gene pool of the original pair that came off the ark.

Sometimes all of a population will eventually become extinct; sometimes all but one specialized type. Where all the sub-types survive and proliferate, we find some of the tremendous diversity seen among some groups of creatures which are apparently derived from one created kind. This explains why some very obviously related species are found far apart from each other.

The sloth, a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require much more time than Scripture allows to make the journey from Ararat to its present home. Perhaps its present condition is also explicable by a similar evolutionary process. However, to account for today’s animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have traveled across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.[6] Indeed, iguanas have recently been documented traveling hundreds of miles in this manner between islands in the caribbean.[7]

The Bible suggests a pattern of post-flood dispersal of animals and humans that accounts for fossil distribution of apes and humans, for example. In post-flood deposits in Africa, ape fossils are found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the flood, whereas the Bible indicates that people refused to do this (Genesis 9:1, 11:1-9). Human dispersal did not start until Babel, some hundreds of years after the flood. Such a delay would have meant that some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the apes.[8]

We may never know the exact answer to every one of such questions, but certainly one can see that the problems are far less formidable than they may at first appear.[9] Coupled with all the biblical, geological, and anthropological evidence for noah’s flood, one is justified in regarding the Genesis account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable.[10] Not only that, but the biblical model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions.

Footnotes

S.A. Elias, S.K. Short, C.H. Nelson, and H.H. Birks, “Life and Times of the Bering Land Bridge,” Nature, 1996, 382:60-63.

Note that the region around the north of Australia to Southeast asia is a tectonically active part of the world.

Anon., “Platypus Tooth Bites Hard into Long-held Beliefs,” Creation, 1992, 14(1):13, based on an article in New Scientist, August 24, 1991. A platypus is a monotreme (an egg-laying mammal).

Actually, the koala can eat other types of gum leaves. Australia has around 500 species of eucalypt (gum) trees. Koalas eat the leaves of about 20 species, with the blue gum a favorite. Recent work has shown that the koala’s insistence on eucalypt is actually an addiction to certain chemicals in the leaf which it first eats in the mother’s milk. Bottle-raised koalas can survive on a non-eucalypt diet (see CEN Technical Journal 8(2):126). Also, the giant panda, which normally only eats bamboo shoots, has been known to eat small animals occasionally.

See Origin of Races for an example of the way in which a very light-skinned “race” deriving from a mid-brown one is missing some of the information in the parent population.

Anon., “Hitchhiking Lemurs,” Creation, 1993, 15(4):11, commenting on J. Tattersall, “Madagascar’s Lemurs,” Scientific American, 1993, 268(1):90-97.

Anon., “Surfing Lizards Wipe Out Objections,” Creation, 1999, 21(2):8.

Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, paleoanthropologist, on the video, The Image of God, Keziah Videos.

In recent literature about some of the problems of animal distribution, even within an evolutionary framework, there has been an occasional suggestion that early man may have been a much better boat-builder and navigator than previously thought. Various types of animals may thus have accompanied people on boats across the sea. This should be kept in mind as a possibility in some instances. Animals brought in this way to a new continent may have prospered, even though the accompanying people did not stay, or perished.

For further reading: J. Whitcomb and H. Morris, The Genesis Flood, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1961); J. Woodmorappe, “Causes for the Biogeographic Distribution of Land Vertebrates After the Flood,” Proc. Second ICC, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990, pp. 361-367.

Related questions

Could Noah’s Ark have really held all the animals preserved in the Flood? Answer
Does the Bible claim that the Flood of Noah covered the entire Earth? Answer
Noah’s Flood - Where did the water come from? Answer
Noah’s Flood - Where did the water go afterwards? Answer

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Edited by Don Batten, Ph.D. / Authors: Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, adapted from The Revised & Expanded Answers Book (Master Books, 2000).

Text supplied by Creation Ministries International

Text copyright © 1996, 1999, 2000, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 1999, 2005, Eden Communications

www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200
Gilbert AZ 85299


80 posted on 08/07/2011 1:57:58 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

ChristianAnswers.Net

A growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood. This is causing them to question whether or not the biblical account of Noah’s ark could be true. Many people are rereading the Biblical description of the Ark to ascertain the feasibility of such a vessel to fulfill its designated purpose in light of present day knowledge of both zoology and our present day knowledge of shipbuilding.

How big was Noah’s Ark?

“And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.” (Gen. 6:14-16)

A cubit is the distance between an adult’s elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah’s Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

Was the ark big enough to hold the number of animals required?

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] —that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America’s leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.

God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God’s protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured.

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let’s be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let’s assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah’s family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

The bigger problem would have been the construction of the Ark. But the Bible indicates that Noah did this under Divine guidance and there is no reason to believe he did not hire additional workmen.

How were the animals gathered?

Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two. Some have suggested this may have involved the origin of animal migratory instincts or, at least, an intensification of it. We also know that most animals possess the ability to sense danger and to move to a place of safety.

How could Noah’s family take care of all those animals?

Once aboard, many have suggested that Noah’s problems really began, with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.

Conclusion

It is evident, when all the facts are examined that there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of Noah’s ark is a myth or fable. The facts support the view that Noah’s ark was large enough to carry the number of animals required to repopulate the earth after the flood and that Noah and his family were capable of caring for the animals during their time on the Ark.

The flood of Noah’s day was a universal judgment of sin.

God destroyed the world that existed at that time because of their wickedness. When we look at nature, with its testimonies to the flood, we are viewing a reminder that God does judge sin. It is also a reminder that God will save those who have faith in Him from judgment. God promised that He would never again destroy the world with water, but that a future judgment would take place. Jesus Christ came into the world to die for our sins and to restore man’s relationship with God, so that we need not fear His judgment.

Noah pleaded with the people of his day to have faith in God. They would not listen and the door to the ark was closed. Now, Christ is calling unto the world to once again have faith in God. Will you answer His calling and be saved from future judgment? The decision is yours.

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Authors: Stanley E. Taylor and Paul S. Taylor, adapted from from their motion picture The World That Perished, produced and distributed by Eden Communications.

This page is located at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Copyright © 1997, 1999, 2002, Eden Communications, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.
Click Here The World That Perished DVD
by Films for Christ / Eden Communications
All about Noah’s Ark and the Flood - This award-winning, highly visual documentary film answers the questions of skeptics, and reveals the source of most fossils. Discover scientific and cultural evidence in support of the Bible’s cataclysmic flood that once covered our entire planet and continues to effect our lives today!

www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200
Gilbert AZ 85299


81 posted on 08/07/2011 2:10:07 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

That same articles resorts to a couple of miracles, and oodles of assumptions along the way, and in my book even that isn’t enough.

And you wonder how did Noah go about getting the American Buffalo from America that no one knew about or Australian Kangaroo and all the insects that hadn’t been discovered yet.

Sorry Brandt... you’re free to believe what you want, but creationists are a loooooooong way from making a scientific case out of their beliefs.

http://www.mightydrake.com/Rants/CaseAgainstCreationism.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/creation.htm


82 posted on 08/07/2011 2:42:21 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

aquila48 “I’m still waiting for you to tell me what the creationist theory is. Or, are you now saying that it is indeed Genesis the literal Genesis?”
Keep waiting you should have it when you can produce the falsifiable version of evolution theory!

aq48”- That the universe, as it exists today, was created in seven earth days? And you have evidence for that?”
There are 3 natural clocks employed in support of evolution portending millions and billions of years while there are over 100 other natural clocks indicating far far less years have passed in history.

aq48”- How long ago was that? Was it the 4000 or so odd years that a german monk (I think) calculated it to be? And you have evidence for that?”
I think you’re referring to Ussher. Don’t feel I need evidence since this is not in dispute.

aq48”- And Noah, did indeed put a pair of every species of animals on his Ark? Again, how big was his ark? Oh and what about the trees, and the germs? And all the species that have been discovered in the last couple of thousands of years, that noah never knew they existed?”
Answered resoundingly in my 3 prior posts.

aq48”- And which came first chronologically, your belief that the world was created according to Genesis, or your Christian faith? How are the two related? And given your Christian faith could you ever believe in anything other than Genesis?”
I was raised with a long-ages theistic evolution perspective which I did not discard until 15 years ago [49 years old now] when I began to question long-ages and macro-evolution. Thanks to other FR yec posters I followed and then joined in these cre vs evo debates in favor of a biblical perspective due to the overwhelming evidence for same.

Besides Dr. Walt Brown [creationscience.com] another
convert from agnostic to yec christian is Lee Strobel.
Perhaps you would benefit from listening to his books on tape:
“The Case for Christ”
“The Case for Creation”
“The Case for Faith”

aq48”- Do you admit that the main reason you’re a creationist is because you’re a christian that believes that the bible is the literal word of God?”
Well I began to accept the Bible as literal as I reviewed
the mountains of evidence pro and con for each theory. I
would have created a position of cognitive dissonance to try to hold onto any of the evolution paradigms except for micro evolution or change within a kind.


83 posted on 08/07/2011 2:43:31 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dominic01

The public churches that we call public schools can teach the world’s religion, evolution, all they want. We home school.


84 posted on 08/07/2011 2:45:01 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Is Mrs Husain Obama proud of the country yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

Well when the evolution position is dissected it also shows oodles of assumptions and miracles. Miracles mind you that have no explanation and no author
just POOF there it is the single cell, no
wait POOF the cambrian explosion of mutiple never before seen life-forms.

On the other hand if you were to sincerely try to read and
understand the Bible you would be left affirming that the
Words therein had to be inspired by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing creator God.

You could start by exploring bible prophecy - say Psalm 22
which portrays Jesus Christ’s crucified. Psalm 22 was written approx 1,000 years before Jesus walked the Earth.


85 posted on 08/07/2011 2:55:32 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

Any honest scholarly review of both ‘theories’ will show 2 things:
Neither is true hard science, and
Far more evidence favors short ages and the creation model.

You’re links show just how little you are/were willing to read the ‘opposition.’ My links refuted your links and your links doe not even quote the Bible accurately. Seems like your links are doing 2 unscientific things:
Outright lying, mis-quoting, and mis-representing creation, &
Providing no other source material for their rather thin conjectures.

You should look up the definition for brain-washing.

I’m not surprised in the least, but at least I can say I
read your links.


86 posted on 08/07/2011 3:18:30 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Again, you keep harping against evolution as though showing its shortcomings proves creationism.

Forget about evolution and make your case for creationism using evidence. But since you cannot state what the theory is, it’s hard to make a case for it. I got my problems with evolution as well, but I have even more problems with creationism - maybe there’s a better theory waiting to be discovered.

The report you sent me about Noah’s is full of presuppositions - it could be this or this could have happened this way. There’s no evidence, a few miracles, and many unsubstantiated assumptions.

The thing with creationism, is that if you accept it you have to deny not just evolution, but geology, astronomy, genetics, biology, and other branches of science.

As for Psalm 22 that you claim predicted the crucifixion of Jesus, that is your interpretation. The jews who believe in the old testament don’t seem to share that. Again, it’s belief not evidence.

I don’t think either one of us is going to convince the other.... But I wish you well.


87 posted on 08/07/2011 9:28:28 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

The 1st 2 links I provided you make the case for creation quite well. I am not going to cut and paste them all to get you to read them.

aq48-”The thing with creationism, is that if you accept it you have to deny not just evolution, but geology, astronomy, genetics, biology, and other branches of science.”
Sorry but I don’t have to deny anything factual w/ those branches of science. The only thing I’m truly denying is called uniformitarianism. IOW if a lake accumulates 1 inch of sediment/year then for each and every 100 ft of sediment on the lake bottom = 120 years.

This is a logical fallacy the same as saying the movement of the continents are uniform [as with plate tectonics]. Geology 1st accepted this incorrectly and now some micro-biologists claim the same for ‘beneficial’ mutations - the only problem being [see below from my 1st link - item 3 esp. - all items 1-5 are applicable here].

1.DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

from my links page...
Dinosaur Shocker - 68 million year old T Rex w/ red blood cells
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html#ixzz0VZChRzSL

2.Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga. [BM - see also polystrate fossils.]

3.The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.

[Aquila48, you are aware aren’t you that the vast majority of all lifeforms that ever existed on earth are now extinct? This may have been through predation and/or environment but also may speak of robustness/decay for each specific genome.]

4.The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.

5.Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

[BM - #5 is also why racism [origins w/ Darwin and evolution] is no longer scientifcally valid as all mankind’s DNA are over 99.9% similar.]

Regarding astronomy the ‘experts’ claiming long ages again ignore Einstein’s time dilation due to weak vs strong forces of gravity. I suspect much more light will be shed on this when science knows as much about the heavens as they now know about 3 billion coded sequences in DNA.

I wish you well too and if you remain unconvinced that’s fine as I’m certain history will correct for the meddling government money has done to the integrity of true science.

One of the 1st things I learned on FreeRepublic is you have to be able to follow the money trail to see how it corrupts everything - most often proportionally.


88 posted on 08/08/2011 6:12:08 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

I found humorous the complaint about the “presuppositions” involved in accepting the account of the global flood.

As if there are no presuppositions in the uniformitarian view.


89 posted on 08/08/2011 6:15:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

Mankind would have to create a time machine in order to develop any scietific theories that are based upon past history.

If you review the scientific theory step #3 is repeatability.

Of course there is no step in the scientific method where you are allowed to throw out any/all data that contradicts your theory.


90 posted on 08/08/2011 6:17:37 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Right well err uhh one is science and the other is not!!! Yeah yeah that's the ticket.
91 posted on 08/08/2011 6:24:53 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

prior post #91 is intended as yet another sarcasm...


92 posted on 08/08/2011 6:26:18 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

And _I_ get to define what “science” is.

I also love the canard that if you deny evolution, you deny all other “science”. This has been answered repeatedly.

1 Tim 6:20
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called science...


93 posted on 08/08/2011 6:29:41 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Have you heard/read the potato peeler analogy WRT uniformitarian assumptions?

Basically, the scenario is that you walk into a room and see a guy peeling potatos. He peels at 1 potato a minute and puts it back in the bowl with the unpeeled potatos.
You look into the bowl, count 20 peeled potatos and determine that he’s been at this for 20 minutes.
You disregard that their might have been peeled potatos when he started, that someone could have put more peeled potatos in or taken some out, and that his rate of peeling has been constant.
These are the assumptions of radiometric dating.


94 posted on 08/08/2011 6:34:40 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MrB; aquila48

The best remark I recall regarding historical [hysterical] science went something like:

It is far more scholarly and trustworthy to try to re-create history starting from the recent, known, recorded, past and assimilate data going backwards than it is to start at the beginning and go forwards.

The latter will increase suppositions, assumptions, and out right fairy-tale telling exponentially when compared w/ the former.


95 posted on 08/08/2011 6:48:28 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: MrB; aquila48

Of course then you must also include the most trustworthy history book found in the world, the [by far] #1 best selling book worldwide, the one that corresponds 100% w/ every bit of archaeology paralleled in it’s passages.

That book of course is - The Holy Bible.


96 posted on 08/08/2011 6:54:49 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: al baby

If you are related to your family, why is your aunt still alive?


97 posted on 08/22/2011 2:20:13 AM PDT by Luminography (Paul Cumming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Luminography

She died years ago


98 posted on 08/22/2011 5:48:27 AM PDT by al baby (Is that old windbag still on the air ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-98 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson