Could the theory of “natural selection” have happened AFTER the flood?

[Blaise N]

Hi everyone,


I’ve been pondering this question I thought up about 3 weeks ago,and I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion,feel free to correct me,as I would love more insight on it.

Though I pay no attention to them,many skeptics claim that not “all the animals of the world could fit in the ark” but I came up with this.Is it possible,like us humans that have free will; that simpler animals existed prior to the flood and after the flood,God cared for them and more species came about from the breeding they have done?

I’d like to add,like I’ve said before,I don’t believe in evolution,natural selection,the Big Bang,or a multiverse.I disdain all of those theories,and am very against atheists.I’m not trying to unify worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.I’m simply asking.

 

[sfs]

Short answer: no. The genetic diversity we see in all sorts of species could not have arisen from a tiny set of ancestors a few thousand years ago.

I’d like to add,like I’ve said before,I don’t believe in evolution,natural selection,the Big Bang,or a multiverse.I disdain all of those theories,and am very against atheists.

I hope you realize that none of those theories have anything to do with atheism. Believing scientists almost universally accept evolution, natural selection (actually, even creationists accept natural selection), and the Big Bang. In fact, the very idea of the Big Bang comes from a scientist who was a Roman Catholic priest.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I can share my thoughts on theistic evolution, old earth creation, and the scope of the flood... but not if it causes someone to doubt or lose faith. Better to just remain as is. If the Lord wants to open this up to you then great. Be strong in the Lord and the power of His might!

 

[Unqualified]

There are creation scientists

 

[sfs]

There are creation scientists

There are certainly scientists who are creationists. There are no scientists using creationism to do science. The closest is probably Todd Wood -- you should read what he has to say about evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi everyone,


I’ve been pondering this question I thought up about 3 weeks ago,and I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion,feel free to correct me,as I would love more insight on it.

Though I pay no attention to them,many skeptics claim that not “all the animals of the world could fit in the ark” but I came up with this.Is it possible,like us humans that have free will; that simpler animals existed prior to the flood and after the flood,God cared for them and more species came about from the breeding they have done?

I’d like to add,like I’ve said before,I don’t believe in evolution,natural selection,the Big Bang,or a multiverse.I disdain all of those theories,and am very against atheists.I’m not trying to unify worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.I’m simply asking.

I'd recommend just saving yourself the time and learning about the theory of evolution.

Here is a short video that may help put things into perspective on your questions:

 

[Vesper_Jaye✝️]

There are certainly scientists who are creationists. There are no scientists using creationism to do science. The closest is probably Todd Wood -- you should read what he has to say about evolution.

How can someone who is a creationist not use it to do science- especially sciences that have a lot to do with evolution? Aren’t evolutionism and creationism complete opposites?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

How can someone who is a creationist not use it to do science- especially sciences that have a lot to do with evolution? Aren’t evolutionism and creationism complete opposites?

Not really. Theistic Evolution is God using the earth to create creatures. It is His life factory. Evolution is what upgrades the life that earth generates.
"Let the earth bring forth life..."
God spoke to the dirt and water of the earth. His words empower the very substance of the earth to first bring forth life, and then to improve it.
Genius really.

 

[eleos1954]

Hi everyone,


I’ve been pondering this question I thought up about 3 weeks ago,and I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion,feel free to correct me,as I would love more insight on it.

Though I pay no attention to them,many skeptics claim that not “all the animals of the world could fit in the ark” but I came up with this.Is it possible,like us humans that have free will; that simpler animals existed prior to the flood and after the flood,God cared for them and more species came about from the breeding they have done?

I’d like to add,like I’ve said before,I don’t believe in evolution,natural selection,the Big Bang,or a multiverse.I disdain all of those theories,and am very against atheists.I’m not trying to unify worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.I’m simply asking.

well ... that view (simpler animals) is not the Genesis account of how God created everything. Animals fully formed existed before the flood according to Genesis. How many individual species existed at that time is unknown. Regardless we know the genetic code (that God created) has the ability to create many variations within itself and that is biblically acceptable (referred to as micro evolution) .... male and female after their kind ... and continue to do so.

Creation scientists and natural scientists all look at the same data.

They interpret the data differently.

Most atheists discount interpretations (or don't even consider) interpretation from a creation aspect even though they put forth very reasonable evidence of such using the same facts. They are mostly closed minded about it from the get go.

 

[sfs]

ow can someone who is a creationist not use it to do science- especially sciences that have a lot to do with evolution?

It's the latter part of your question that's hard to do. It doesn't matter if a physicist or chemist is a creationist, and there are scientists like that. (Not many, mind you, but they exist.) It's a lot harder within biology, but there are certainly subfields that don't depend on evolution. In these cases, neither evolution nor creationism is playing a role. Where that becomes impossible is in something like comparative genomics, where you're looking at the genomes of different species. Evolution provides a highly successful framework for explaining and predicting data and for guiding research, while viewed through the lens of creationism the data make no sense at all. As far as I can tell, the few creationists who dabble in this area devote themselves to attacking evolution rather than to understanding or explaining data -- which means they're not doing science.

 

[Vesper_Jaye✝️]

As far as I can tell, the few creationists who dabble in this area devote themselves to attacking evolution rather than to understanding or explaining data -- which means they're not doing science.

Is that what you meant when you said that Answers in Genesis wasn’t a reliable source?

 

[Unqualified]

Of course some are doing science and have come up with some pretty good discoveries which help disprove parts of evolution. But I guess not completely conclusive to hard headed evolutionists. Like the upheaval of the crust of earth from the flood that shows the oldest fossils on top.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course some are doing science and have come up with some pretty good discoveries which help disprove parts of evolution. But I guess not completely conclusive to hard headed evolutionists. Like the upheaval of the crust of earth from the flood that shows the oldest fossils on top.

Plate tectonics lifts fossils on top of other rocks. This doesn't contradict geology or biology or the theory of plate tectonics or evolution.

Of you have any questions about the theory of plate tectonics, feel free to ask.

 

[Unqualified]

So did the flood. But people don’t want to believe the Bible. In the name of science and people who want to make a name for themselves they always have to disprove the Bible. Creation scientists are piecing to get her the story as it appears in the Bible. They have God on their side He carved the earth with His finger. Evolutionists are no closer than that to figuring out the origins.

 

[Platte]

The genetic diversity we see in all sorts of species could not have arisen from a tiny set of ancestors a few thousand years ago.

Yes they could have.

 

[coffee4u]

Hi everyone,


I’ve been pondering this question I thought up about 3 weeks ago,and I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion,feel free to correct me,as I would love more insight on it.

Though I pay no attention to them,many skeptics claim that not “all the animals of the world could fit in the ark” but I came up with this.Is it possible,like us humans that have free will; that simpler animals existed prior to the flood and after the flood,God cared for them and more species came about from the breeding they have done?

I’d like to add,like I’ve said before,I don’t believe in evolution,natural selection,the Big Bang,or a multiverse.I disdain all of those theories,and am very against atheists.I’m not trying to unify worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.I’m simply asking.

Natural selection has always occurred since the fall but it would have occurred more after the flood and mankind would have played a big part in that.

They came out of the ark to a harsh new world, the flood caused an ice age.
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/

Then God told mankind he could now eat meat because he was going to need it due to this huge climate change.
Genesis 9:3
Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Before this mankind only ate plants so this was going to have a big impact along with the ice age. I would assume one of the best and easy food sources for them would have been eggs. Raiding nests of birds or dinosaur or any other egg laying animal would have drastically reduced their numbers- even to extinction.

Natural selection is not evolution, it simply means certain genes become less to even disappearing and other genes because more prolific. To start with the animals were created as kinds from the kinds they branched off into a variety of types. After enough time those types would have become the species we know today and certain populations would have become isolated and inbreed until they could only breed amongst themselves without human intervention. For example a horse and a zebra can be breed but I don't know if they would without the human element intervening. Like wise humans would kill of weaker animals and breed stronger ones. Add to that after the fall mutations occurred and those built up and again made certain populations in certain areas. A real combination of things.

 

[Job 33:6]

So did the flood. But people don’t want to believe the Bible. In the name of science and people who want to make a name for themselves they always have to disprove the Bible. Creation scientists are piecing to get her the story as it appears in the Bible. They have God on their side He carved the earth with His finger. Evolutionists are no closer than that to figuring out the origins.

I prefer to simply be referred to as a geologist. Anyway, if you have any questions about plate tectonics, I'll be here.

All the best,

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes they could have.

How so?

 

[sfs]

Is that what you meant when you said that Answers in Genesis wasn’t a reliable source?

No, I meant that a lot of what they write is simply wrong or misleading.

 

[sfs]

Yes they could have.

No, they really couldn't have. For an explanation of why you can't get the kind of genetic diversity we see from a single breeding pair a few thousand years ago, see this article. It's specifically about Adam and Eve, but the same principles apply to any single pair. So it would apply to any of the single-pair critters on the ark.