It's not even a very funny joke at that.I once gave credence to this theory until I found out the specific claims that were being made. I keep hearing about the "mountains of evidence" in support of Darwin's pet, but I have to say when critically examined they are found wanting. And every Darwiniac that tries to engage me on the specifics usually end up running from the specific topic of interest, from fossils to genetic mutation, not one of these guys can keep focused on the topic at hand.



So my challenge to you Darwiniacs is this, on this thread, bring one topic of interest about this mythical theory and STICK WITH THAT TOPIC ONLY!! Then we will truly see how far the evidence takes you.

you will see, as you travel thru life,



that the only constant with the "theory" is that



those who dont beleive upon the Living God will chase



after any wind that doesnt lead to the Throne.



as soon as the wind points in that direction,



the inner most regions of an persons conscious and spirit



will be so unsettled, that the vehement defense of anything



other than declared existance of Jesus Christ as Lord, will be



the rallying point.



to an unbeleiver, the defense of beliefs becomes secondary to



the idea of an non-existant Living God being declared in black



and white pages.



read between the lines, and you'll see its the spirit thats



guiding them, and not The Spirit.

brojason79 : Hi You wrote : And luc1fa and others of the 'Creationist' sect, you seem to want to comment on this old thread.

So my challenge to you Darwiniacs is this, on this thread, bring one topic of interest about this mythical theory and STICK WITH THAT TOPIC ONLY!! Then we will truly see how far the evidence takes you.

Can any of you ‘Evolutionary Skeptics‘ answer some of the following questions for me, (without making me laugh out loud).

Why did God put kangeroos in Australia, armadillos in South America? Why not Africa, Russia or The USA?

Why did God make pretty well ALL the animals, reptiles and plants in Madagascar unique?

Why make so many animals, reptiles and plants ‘similar’ or apparently adaptations to those God made in the long distant past, or as you would presumably say ‘before the flood’?

If the animals, reptiles and plants in the fossil record are all from ‘before the flood’, then why are they not all exactly like all the ones God saved in Noah’s Ark? Didn’t God save at least two of every kind? Why not representative species of ALL of the examples we have found in the fossil record?

Why did God get rid of all the Wooly Mammoths? (Not worth saving in the Ark?), (Were Elephants morally better and Wooly Mammoths wicked?). Why no Dire Wolves, Saber Tooth Tigers or Giant Sloths? What did God have against them?

Could there be another explanation for all these observations? One that does not require God to 'magic' the animals out of thin air, (or mud), in the first place and then obliterate the 98% of them that appear in the fossil record. Leaving only about 2% of all the forms that previously existed?

I’m quite happy to stay on topic on this one. Let’s see where it actually gets us.

I eagerly await whatever 'answers' you jokingly come up with which are supposedly more plausible than the 'joke' you call Evolutionary Theory.

Regards Chris.

Let's first be sure no Darwinists claiming to be Christian are foolish enough to deny the Flood of Noah's time, or ignorantly writing the account off as a metaphor for teaching purposes. Jesus stood by the Genesis report of it, so did Peter and Paul. Luke 17:[26] And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. [27] They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Jesus was speaking about His second coming, a very real event that doesn't need metaphors/parables to understand any of it.

Why did God put kangeroos in Australia, armadillos in South America? Why not Africa, Russia or The USA?

We have armadillos in the USA, occasionally rooting up my home's landscaping. They have been migrating up here from South America. I am not aware of man being blamed for that, so it remains apparently a natural event man can't stop. Kangaroos thrive here in zoos and petting farms.

In the days of Peleg the earth was divided (Gen 10:25 and 1 Chron 1:19. It was divided through language barriers as well as geographically which kept people separated, the one continent of Noah's day split into continents and islands, more islands added by volcanic action.

Sorry, it only took a generation for those continents to drift to where they are today, give or take a few meters.

Why did God make pretty well ALL the animals, reptiles and plants in Madagascar unique?

God didn't speak to that, but I accept the probability whichever tribe that migrated there took those animals earlier taken off the Ark with them between the end of the Flood and Peleg's lifetime. There isn't enough time this side of the Flood to allow for evolution according to evolutionists who insist on a requirement of epochs. So, there was no evolution involved from that period on (or before the Flood for that matter), the animals finding too little environmental challenge to require significant adaptation. They possess a DNA capability to adapt to survive temporary slow and non-severe changes in their environment, but not evolve.

Why make so many animals, reptiles and plants ‘similar’ or apparently adaptations to those God made in the long distant past, or as you would presumably say ‘before the flood’?

The error of thinking is that the pre-flood animals were distinct species resulting from evolution. Instead, God made each species capable of an amazing adaptation. Their environments had no biological affect on their DNA, but rather God made them able to change enough biologically to deal with changes around them. Those changes remain reversible within their array of DNA allowances (considerable) as warranted by changes in environment. If the range of change is exceeded, then there is another species with it's own range of adaptation more suited for that environment. In time, given geographical access and other favorable conditions such as no glacier blocking them from moving, or being unable to swim an ocean or river, the "right" species will find their place on earth.

If the animals, reptiles and plants in the fossil record are all from ‘before the flood’, then why are they not all exactly like all the ones God saved in Noah’s Ark? Didn’t God save at least two of every kind? Why not representative species of ALL of the examples we have found in the fossil record?

Almost all the fossil record is from that year the earth was flooded in Noah's time, buried in great depths of sediments that also trapped the earth's vegetation, forming vast coal and oil reserves. There is no record of exactly which animals were saved on the Ark, but their DNA enabled them to repopulate the planet. Another thinking error is exposed, that every slightly different fossil represented a different species, when most were simple examples of adaptation within a wide range of possible characteristics. If you were to be able to put a few thousand "species" of extinct mussels in a tank and keep them a few decades, their offspring would likely produce far fewer different organisms, leaning toward an eventual single species with little or no variation in characteristics.

Why did God get rid of all the Wooly Mammoths? (Not worth saving in the Ark?), (Were Elephants morally better and Wooly Mammoths wicked?). Why no Dire Wolves, Saber Tooth Tigers or Giant Sloths? What did God have against them?

Why assume something not recorded, like God getting rid of a critter? In my opinion those wooly mammoths made for some great pantry fillers. I'd first blame man for eradication of beasts that threatened their lives or food crops. Wolves are almost extinct here due to ranchers determined to eradicate them as threats to livestock. The animals that were non-threatening or easier to tame or were more worth feeding got the nod from men to continue existing.

Could there be another explanation for all these observations? One that does not require God to 'magic' the animals out of thin air, (or mud), in the first place and then obliterate the 98% of them that appear in the fossil record. Leaving only about 2% of all the forms that previously existed?

Again, ALL air breathing species were preserved, though not all variants of each species. 100% were saved, using God's definition of species, being "kind". It appears marine life suffered a much larger demise volume-wise, though God made no promise to preserve those populations, though it appears all the general species were. Some species believed to have been extinct millions of years are being found.


·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven :

We have armadillos in the USA, occasionally rooting up my home's landscaping. They have been migrating up here from South America.

So we have established the fact that creatures and plants will colonize any area of the earth’s face unless either climate or natural barriers like oceans etc. prevent them. OK. I’ll accept that.

so it remains apparently a natural event man can't stop. Kangaroos thrive here in zoos and petting farms.

Presumably then, being a natural event it has always been inclined naturally for creatures and plants to spread wherever they were able to. But kangaroos I guess needed some help from us human beings, even a lift on a 747 or perhaps an ocean going vessel. They didn’t get to the USA under their own hopping power, that’s for sure.

the one continent of Noah's day split into continents and islands, more islands added by volcanic action.

Then we could expect, since they all co existed on one continent to start with, (since all plants and creatures would have naturally populated the whole continent through migration before it was ‘separated’), that Kangaroos and Lemurs, Tigers and Polar Bears, penguins and Tasmanian Devils would now be distributed worldwide, not confined to isolated environments to which they are coincidentally supremely adapted, could we not?

Sorry, it only took a generation for those continents to drift to where they are today, give or take a few meters.

All the more reason then to be amazed and perplexed at the astonishing lengths creatures and plants have gone to to adapt themselves to their ‘new’ environments. Are you suggesting that before being ‘separated’ in the time of Peleg, God or Peleg had fenced in all the Penguins and separated them from the Polar Bears and Kangaroos to make sure they couldn’t get mixed up and end up on the wrong continents a generation or so later?

I accept the probability whichever tribe that migrated there (Madagascar), took those animals earlier taken off the Ark with them between the end of the Flood and Peleg's lifetime.

Why would they choose to take all and only the animals and plants that appear nowhere else on earth? How did they round them all up and make sure none escaped to later pop up in Russia, Afghanistan, Australia, British Columbia or anywhere else on earth?

The error of thinking is that the pre-flood animals were distinct species resulting from evolution.

I think there must have been distinct species back then. There were also many variations and adaptations of those species. So much so that it is quite possible that some adaptations eventually resulted in entirely new species having adapted beyond the ability to procreate with each other.

Can you be sure that ‘Creationist’ understandings of taxonomy can stand up to detailed scrutiny?

There is no record of exactly which animals were saved on the Ark, but their DNA enabled them to repopulate the planet.

On current calculations though only about 2% of earth’s flora and fauna managed to survive through to the present time. The rest are only to be found in the fossil record.

Now I am well impressed with what we actually have left for us today. From Zebras to Armadillos from Alfalfa to Zamang Trees but I think it strange indeed that God seems to have decided that Trilobites and Plesiosaurs would not survive 6 months extra rain. Surprising since they both naturally lived in an entirely aquatic environment along with myriad other aquatic creatures no longer extant on earth.

I think their total extinction requires more than a 6 month flood to explain their demise.

If you were to be able to put a few thousand "species" of extinct mussels in a tank and keep them a few decades, their offspring would likely produce far fewer different organisms, leaning toward an eventual single species with little or no variation in characteristics.

I’m not at all sure that would be the result. It might be more likely that genetic interbreeding would induce a catastrophic collapse in viability of the creatures. There is no evidence I know of where a ‘convergence’ of subspecies has occurred. I think the opposite is more likely to be true that ‘divergence’ seems to be the general rule and that driven by environmental influences.

In my opinion those wooly mammoths made for some great pantry fillers. I'd first blame man for eradication of beasts that threatened their lives or food crops.

Actually Wooly Mammoths were probably hunted to extinction during the last Ice Age or else they fell victim to it’s extremes of cold and starvation. For man they represented just about the only thing left on the menu at the time in northern climes.

Was that before or after The Flood of Noah? The Ice age Ending certainly resulted in a major ‘flood’ of world wide and long lasting proportions.

Again, ALL air breathing species were preserved, though not all variants of each species. 100% were saved, using God's definition of species, being "kind".

Are you trying to suggest that Taxonomically speaking no fossil remains actually represent extinct ‘species’, no longer to be found alive on earth? If 100% were ‘saved’ then why are there so many extinct ‘species’ on record?

Some species believed to have been extinct millions of years are being found.

Like the coelacanth. Indeed some ancient species still exist like crocodiles, alligators and horseshoe crabs but these are exceptions not the general rule. They being survivors of a probably far more devastating extinction event than Noah's flood.

Regards Chris.

Then we could expect, since they all co existed on one continent to start with, (since all plants and creatures would have naturally populated the whole continent through migration before it was ‘separated’), that Kangaroos and Lemurs, Tigers and Polar Bears, penguins and Tasmanian Devils would now be distributed worldwide, not confined to isolated environments to which they are coincidentally supremely adapted, could we not?

I would not at all "expect" all creatures on Pangaea, which spanned from nearly pole to pole, to have migrated equally all over the continent. Each Kind of animal would have tended to stay together, slowly migrating if needed to follow the food supply, better climatic conditions, etc. Each Kind of animal, I'll loosely deem a "super species" capable of splitting into many varieties, had plenty of time after the Flood, until Peleg's lifetime, to migrate to the best environment they could find in that amount of time (Peleg was son of Eber, Eber son of Salah, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah). A man could in one lifetime probably walked from end to end of Pangaea many times. The animals should have been expected logically to return to their former haunts of Pangaea as was before the Flood, the polar tips still suited to polar animals.

Kangaroos obviously liked the SE corner of the continent, where present day Australia originated from, attached to the original land masses of India and Antarctica. If some animal Kinds found their original geographical niche early on, able to return to it post Flood, then why wonder about how they stayed and became unique populations, such as at Madagascar? When the continent broke up, whatever animal populations by then spread out "rode" the wave so to speak. The miniscule continental creep rate didn't happen, only recently slowing almost to a stop, but still rapidly enough to keep the Pacific ring of fire active.

I'll work on finding time to get to the rest of your post, but not if you keep adding points without my having a chance to answer. Please let it have some time. I have plenty to say.


·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Why would they choose to take all and only the animals and plants that appear nowhere else on earth? How did they round them all up and make sure none escaped to later pop up in Russia, Afghanistan, Australia, British Columbia or anywhere else on earth?

While nobody knows "why" or "how", I'll venture to suppose the pairs from the Ark multiplied. How quickly could the average pair produce enough pairs to migrate far enough in a century or so, some pairs ending up permanently stranded from the original herd upon the geographical separation of lands into present day continents and islands? Some would surely have taken a dead end journey, others making the journey to suitable environs. I wouldn't doubt the great majority of animals did in fact "escape" control of Shem, Ham and Japeth and their offspring. I would bet the animals not easily domesticated would have been the first to get as far from the humans as possible.

Whatever the distribution was upon breakup of Pangaea would have pretty much set that permanently, except for animals able to navigate by air or water long distances. Humans affected distribution by extermination of some species, or introducing what we call today "invasive/exotic" life forms that sometimes survive better than in their native habitat. That suggests to me some life forms didn't have time to populate the most ideal environments while Pangaea was one land mass, and even afterwards such as in the case of the armadillo moving northward into N. America. Keep in mind life forms would have continued to move around on each speeding continent, some falling short of ideal homes due to barriers like desert, rivers, etc., while others continue to spread to this day.


·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

On current calculations though only about 2% of earth’s flora and fauna managed to survive through to the present time. The rest are only to be found in the fossil record. Now I am well impressed with what we actually have left for us today. From Zebras to Armadillos from Alfalfa to Zamang Trees but I think it strange indeed that God seems to have decided that Trilobites and Plesiosaurs would not survive 6 months extra rain. Surprising since they both naturally lived in an entirely aquatic environment along with myriad other aquatic creatures no longer extant on earth. I think their total extinction requires more than a 6 month flood to explain their demise.

I believe extinctions began long before the Flood, some due to competition for food as life forms multiplied, and they continue to add up today at an alarming rate, many more species endangered today than a century ago. Loss of habitat due to spreading civilization is probably the chief cause nowadays. Changes in climate are so far not obviously contributing, animals adapting within their DNA limits.
Trilobites were mostly bottom scavengers, sharing that niche with many other scavengers, being quite a meal themselves to predators. Why assume they perished in the Flood, and not a thousand years earlier? Or a thousand years later, post flood, like many plants and animals do regularly?

Can you be sure that ‘Creationist’ understandings of taxonomy can stand up to detailed scrutiny?

"Creationist" scientists usually get their professional education from the same places as evolutionists do, all obtaining the same foundation, so it's a big mistake to consider them incapable of using scientific method or qualifying as "scientist". Part of the argument stems from many changes in definitions of "species", restating in ways that disagree less with evolutionary theory. I've had to get "re-educated" several times since my initial school days. I had to learn evolution in the 60's (not much value then), re-learn in the 70's (improved curriculum), and pass through it again in the 90's (intense challenge) for an advancement, then again in 2002 at Dartmouth (mind blowing) knowing all biology science students must do so too to stay on top of a field.

Even top taxonomists admired by academia have their ongoing disagreements over modern changes that obviously at least partially came about to support ideology rather than true science observation.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Actually Wooly Mammoths were probably hunted to extinction during the last Ice Age or else they fell victim to it’s extremes of cold and starvation. For man they represented just about the only thing left on the menu at the time in northern climes.

Wooly mammoths are being extracted from ice with stomach full of food and in remarkably excellent preservation, apparently frozen suddenly, all probably covered in a moment by super cold air followed by freezing rain. The atmospheric conditions making that possible in the cold climate areas could easily be expected as a result of the world-wide Flood.

Was that before or after The Flood of Noah? The Ice age Ending certainly resulted in a major ‘flood’ of world wide and long lasting proportions.

The major Ice Age most likely began setting up during the Flood, continuing as the continents drifted for a few centuries while mountains built. Those that stationed in temperate/tropical latitudes had the least glacial encroachment. As each continent moved apart from previous neighbors, some remained subject to polar glaciation more than those that physically separated from polar regions and landed around the Equator. An example is Antarctica, a mountainous land mass that moved from temperate to arctic, eventually covered by ice, though that wasn't it's former state at all. The deep discoveries there are beyond amazing.

Keep in mind the Flood began and ended within a short period of time, a year for the Flood of Noah, centuries for the glaciers to reach out from polar regions, not over thousands of years. The advance of the glaciers could have been flood-like, sudden, and so could they recede as rapidly as some glaciers are doing now, especially as a continent moved into warmth.

The atheist evolutionist scientists choose to scoff over such beliefs simply because of what the authors believe about deity. For that reason, even scientists of their own that publicly applauded the Pangaea theory were subjected to treatment as though Creationists. But today the theory has gained wide acceptance, even though it creates many problems for atheists.

The means, methods, and interpretation of geologic dating and such efforts as dating the fossil record by other means in use today (such as not questioning "benchmark" ages for each species) has been totally controlled by scientists bound to the idea of evolution and the need for billions of years of life development, else they experience a very short, disappointing career. As I said earlier, most scientists apparently claim to be religiously atheist or agnostic, or hold some non-Christian world religion that accepts evolution. It is no wonder why that majority holds power over the conclusions of science concerning Creationist scientists whose highly professional works, though not mentioning the touchy subject, can't often get published in the atheist-controlled science journals.

·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

In an effort to conclude my comments on post #5....

Like the coelacanth. Indeed some ancient species still exist like crocodiles, alligators and horseshoe crabs but these are exceptions not the general rule. They being survivors of a probably far more devastating extinction event than Noah's flood.

I recommend, for greater understanding, not mixing up the fate of air breathing animals with marine animals. God made no provision for saving marine life since those animals already lived in a "flood" so to speak.

What is of concern about science as practiced by atheists is their conclusions that affect the credibility of their science that has been the standard incorporated into our schools from grade 1 up. For instance, the coelacanth was called extinct without an accurate explanation, other than no living samples of their representative fossil remains were known...until caught by fishermen recently. Their conclusion was a very faulty opinion that was a natural outcome of evolutionary thinking. They also represent a big smack in the face for evolution, still bearing their ancient "primitive" characteristics, unchanged in a vastly changed world.

I would much rather accept a Creationist science view along the line that the fish has been adapting, on its own, to a changing environment within the boundaries of its DNA structure. The coelacanth poses a total refutation of evolutionary thinking that the environment changes organisms from the outside in. There is no external force they call "natural selection". That fish came up with enough traits allowed by it's DNA to cope with its environment, and still remained a coelacanth, a "living fossil".

Done commenting on that one, Chris!
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven :

The coelacanth

modern coelacanths are specialized remnants of a once diverse and widespread group. They have changed extensively over hundreds of millions of years, as would be expected, they are different than any 'fossil' coelacanth that has ever been found, and this once widely successful and branched family has been pruned back to just a few twigs lurking in relatively inaccessible locations. (Clack, 2002)

"Coelacanth" is a term that refers to an entire order of fish, the Coelacanthiformes. The modern coelacanths are of the genus Latimeria, and none of the ancient fish belong to that genus—it ought to be fairly obvious that Latimeria is clearly distinct from any of the fossil forms if it was assigned to a unique genus.

Scientists haven’t been disappointed by the coelacanth at all. Neither are they perplexed as to how to explain it’s ‘survival’.

There are quite a few examples of species that have survived extinctions and tenaciously held on in a few environments which may have remained fairly stable over time. The Coelacanth is just such an example having found an ‘out of the way’ environment and a ‘way of life’ to which it is quite well adapted and presumably continues to adapt if necessary. Another example might be the Gingko tree which has no other relatives left in it's family but dates so far back that it must have been one of the earliest veined leaf trees to evolve on the planet.

Apparently there is quite a lot of ‘tosh’ promulgated by ‘Creationists’ regarding the coelacanth and it’s supposed importance in proving Evolutionary Theory false.

http://www.antievolution.org/.../wre_coelacanth.html
[/url]
Regards Chris

Latimeria chalumnae was long thought to have become extinct since the Cretaceous Period. Please explain how that could be if there were no fossils of it? Your link author claims no such fossil existed.

Here's something I found interesting that has a lot more weight to it than that article you linked to.
Using the sarcopterygian–actinopterygian split as a calibration point (450 Mya), divergence time estimation between L. menadoensis and L. chalumnae fell in the range of 40–30 Mya, which is much older than those of the previous studies (<6.3 Mya). Assuming that the most recent ancestor of Latimeria was distributed continuously along the deep coasts of Africa through Eurasia, our estimate is in agreement with the hypothesis that the collision of India with Eurasia (50 Mya) and the subsequent siltation caused by the formation of major rivers resulted in a coelacanth habitat disjunction that allowed populations on either side of India to diverge. http://www.sciencedirect.com/...ii/S037811190500017X

What caught my eye on that article was the statements concerning continental drift, India colliding with Eurasia, the two extant species cut off from each other 50 million years ago.

Aside from what I took to be too much disinformation at Antievolution.com, evolutionists believed the fish to have evolved into amphibians, another interesting rabbit trail I got on.

There was a time when I subscribed to several journals, including Science Direct, just to stay up and be more equipped to talk to evolutionists. I miss the new knowledge, but not the debates. My preference will remain Bible-oriented discussion, so as interesting as it all is I won't keep this up.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men