| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
16th February 2004, 03:35 PM
|  | Regular Member
  
| | Join Date: 8th February 2004
Posts: 310
Blessings: 91,006
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Arikay This again depends on who you talk to. Its generally between 4500 and 4350 years ago.
Remember, you need to compress everything down to around 6000 years. So the animals hyperevolved, quickly changing right after the flood, then all of a sudden the hyper evolution stops and reverts to the slower type of evolution.
Which makes perfect sense.
The speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation. |
16th February 2004, 03:35 PM
|  | Goodbye, my puppy
 
 | | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,145
Blessings: 311,238
Reps: 224,390 (power: 259) | | Originally Posted by DURANG0 Their offspring might be sterile, which shows that the evolution has a limit.
I think it shows that they have evolved to the point where they are no longer "compatible" with one another for mating purposes. Something which would take a rather long time to occur. Do they have a common ancestor, I think that goes without question, the question is... how far back does one need to go to get to that ancestor.
__________________
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven. |
16th February 2004, 03:35 PM
|  | HI
28 
| | Join Date: 23rd January 2003
Posts: 12,645
Blessings: 92,057
Reps: 5,365 (power: 27) | | Um, no it doesn't. But it does show something else...  Originally Posted by DURANG0 Their offspring might be sterile, which shows that the evolution has a limit.
__________________
Wei wu wei
Green faeries |
16th February 2004, 03:35 PM
|  | PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
33 
| | Join Date: 30th June 2002
Posts: 8,425
Blessings: 2,093,299
Reps: 9,311,669,886,675,212 (power: 9,311,669,886,693) | | Originally Posted by DURANG0 For example there was a large cat kind on the ark. No Lions and no Tigers. I don't know what that cat kind looked like.
We do know that the lion and tiger are members of the same cat kind because a lion and tiger can mate and produce offspring.
Sometime after being left off of the ark the lion and tiger MICRO-evolved from the original ark cat kind.
Given the diversity of the Felidae family, that would be macroevolution, not only into different species, but also different genera. Odd, I thought you didn't accept that level of evolution?
__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution |
16th February 2004, 03:35 PM
|  | Senior Member
49
| | Join Date: 13th July 2003 Location: Thayer Missouri
Posts: 633
Blessings: 91,280
Reps: 14 (power: 0) | | | How on earth do you know it took 7 million years for the horse to evolve; especially so when even the idea of so called evolution is itself in question. Even the late evolutioist Stephen Gould said there are no transitional forms in the fossil; record & here you are saying we KNOW the horsie has evolved in 7 million years. Somebody is BAD wrong here & Gould being a super evolutionist I believe him ! |
16th February 2004, 03:38 PM
| | HI
28
| | Join Date: 23rd January 2003
Posts: 12,645
Blessings: 92,057
Reps: 5,365 (power: 27) | | The funny part is that some creationists mistakenly argue against this hyper evolution.
To get back to our friends questions, it is often said by creationists that these main "kinds" were the most genetically diverse of their kinds, they then "deevolved" to what we see today.
obediah001: Source please (of gould). Originally Posted by DURANG0 Which makes perfect sense.
The speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation.
__________________
Wei wu wei
Green faeries |
16th February 2004, 03:42 PM
| | Senior Member
49
| | Join Date: 13th July 2003 Location: Thayer Missouri
Posts: 633
Blessings: 91,280
Reps: 14 (power: 0) | | | I like the hyper evolution better than the slow long ages type, cause there are NO (as Gould stated) transitional forms in the fossil record; so I ask why are there so many folks still supporting a false theory of long age evolution when the hyper evolution better explains the abscence of fossils, scientifically of course? |
16th February 2004, 03:45 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 8th February 2004
Posts: 310
Blessings: 91,006
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff Given the diversity of the Felidae family, that would be macroevolution, not only into different species, but also different genera. Odd, I thought you didn't accept that level of evolution?
They evolved into different genera? I don't think so. There was a couple of cat kinds on the ark. You should knowby now what happened when they were released from the ark. |
16th February 2004, 03:46 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 8th February 2004
Posts: 310
Blessings: 91,006
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by obediah001 I like the hyper evolution better than the slow long ages type, cause there are NO (as Gould stated) transitional forms in the fossil record; so I ask why are there so many folks still supporting a false theory of long age evolution when the hyper evolution better explains the abscence of fossils, scientifically of course?
Actually the flood explains the gap in the fossil record better than PE. |
16th February 2004, 03:47 PM
|  | Junior Mint
| | Join Date: 12th August 2003
Posts: 4,460
Blessings: 4,087,165 My Mood 
Reps: 60,014,717,072,303,280 (power: 60,014,717,072,316) | | | Do you believe Noah was white? Brown? Black? Tell me, how did all the races of man come to be in 4,000 years from one family? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
