Can you explain this for me?

[pastorkevin73]

I live in the plains of Alberta Canada. Throughout the western provinces there are many many lakes. For example Manitoba is called the Land of a 1000 lakes. Throught the western provinces many of the lakes have not water flowing into them. Some of these same lakes don't have a stream running out of them. Yet these lakes are populated with fish. There are some lakes and ponds on mountians (near summits even) that contain fish as well.

According to evolution how did the fish get there?

 

[Melethiel]

I live in the plains of Alberta Canada. Throughout the western provinces there are many many lakes. For example Manitoba is called the Land of a 1000 lakes. Throught the western provinces many of the lakes have not water flowing into them. Some of these same lakes don't have a stream running out of them. Yet these lakes are populated with fish. There are some lakes and ponds on mountians (near summits even) that contain fish as well.

According to evolution how did the fish get there?

That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. However, the answer would be that the lakes were not always isolated.

 

[Mallon]

According to evolution how did the fish get there?

Melethiel's answer is an obvious one. Most lakes aren't isolated systems. The are fed by and feed into other rivers. Fancy that.
The other would be that many rivers in Canada are artificially stocked.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Melethiel's answer is an obvious one. Most lakes aren't isolated systems. The are fed by and feed into other rivers. Fancy that.
The other would be that many rivers in Canada are artificially stocked.

Not when there are many lakes only reached by airplane. And there are lakes that are land locked.

 

[Mallon]

Not when there are many lakes only reached by airplane. And there are lakes that are land locked.

I still fail to see what the problem is. Lakes that may be landlocked today were not thousands of years ago. Any lake that has never been river-fed will likely not contain fish. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to present it.

 

[sfs]

I still fail to see what the problem is. Lakes that may be landlocked today were not thousands of years ago.

Especially in Canada, where glaciation completely scrambled river systems not many thousands of years ago. Occasional flooding also connects many landlocked lakes to other bodies of water.

 

[gluadys]

I live in the plains of Alberta Canada. Throughout the western provinces there are many many lakes. For example Manitoba is called the Land of a 1000 lakes. Throught the western provinces many of the lakes have not water flowing into them. Some of these same lakes don't have a stream running out of them. Yet these lakes are populated with fish. There are some lakes and ponds on mountians (near summits even) that contain fish as well.

According to evolution how did the fish get there?

Nothing to do with evolution. It's a matter of geology. Most of these lakes are remnants of the ice ages. As the glaciers retreated, fish from glacier fed streams followed them up to the new lakes. Eventually, the connections between the lakes dried up, and each fish population was isolated in its own body of water.

What would be of evolutionary interest is to see to what extent the fish populations of different lakes have become differentiated from each other since the last time they had contact with each other.

 

[random_guy]

Finally finished with finals, so I'm back.

Not when there are many lakes only reached by airplane. And there are lakes that are land locked.

I fail to see how this applies to evolution. Are you implying that Noah stocked those lakes after the Flood, or God specially created life in each of the landlocked lakes? It seems like you're really grasping for straws now.

 

[pastorkevin73]

So how did the fish get into those glacial streams?

 

[Melethiel]

So how did the fish get into those glacial streams?

They swam.

 

[pastorkevin73]

They swam.

Where the in the ice? or just on the ground waiting for the streams? Other options?

Some have ask what this has to do with evolution. Indirectly it may apply. When it comes down to it, we really don't know how fish ended up in the lakes and ponds, especially in ponds and lakes on mountian tops. The only possible explaination would be the Flood recorded in Genesis, which is an ever greater link to Adam and Eve and the creation story of Genesis 1. Thus evolution is only and idea, a false idea.

 

[gluadys]

Where the in the ice? or just on the ground waiting for the streams? Other options?

Glaciers are made of ice. Glacial streams--which issue from glaciers--are made of melting ice, IOW water. Does that solve the problem for you?

Since you live in Alberta, you should be able to visit the nearby Rockies and visit some glacial streams, such as the ones that feed Lake Louise.

Did you know that most of the drinking water in Alberta comes from glacial streams?

Makes you wonder what Albertans will have to drink when global warming has melted the glaciers.

 

[random_guy]

Where the in the ice? or just on the ground waiting for the streams? Other options?

Some have ask what this has to do with evolution. Indirectly it may apply. When it comes down to it, we really don't know how fish ended up in the lakes and ponds, especially in ponds and lakes on mountian tops. The only possible explaination would be the Flood recorded in Genesis, which is an ever greater link to Adam and Eve and the creation story of Genesis 1. Thus evolution is only and idea, a false idea.

Yes, a Flood that left behind no scientific evidence of its existence, multiple independent lines of evidence of its non-existence is much more sensible than the idea that geography changes with time. We all know the idea of one family taking care of millions of species, all of which require different habitats, nutrietal requirements, etc... is more feasible than plate tectonics (measureable). It makes more sense that a Flood left the fish in the lakes (even though the salinity of a global Flood would wipe out freshwater fishes in the freshwater lakes) and that kangaroos swam/hopped to reach Noah than geology (again observable, as well as fossil/geological evidence).

I'm very glad that ah hoc ideas are not allowed in science classes, while geology and biology (which includes evolution) and other scientific disciplines are allowed. Last thing we need is more people going,"God did it" instead of actually studying the ecosystem.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Yes, a Flood that left behind no scientific evidence of its existence, multiple independent lines of evidence of its non-existence is much more sensible than the idea that geography changes with time. We all know the idea of one family taking care of millions of species, all of which require different habitats, nutrietal requirements, etc... is more feasible than plate tectonics (measureable). It makes more sense that a Flood left the fish in the lakes (even though the salinity of a global Flood would wipe out freshwater fishes in the freshwater lakes) and that kangaroos swam/hopped to reach Noah than geology (again observable, as well as fossil/geological evidence).

I'm very glad that ah hoc ideas are not allowed in science classes, while geology and biology (which includes evolution) and other scientific disciplines are allowed. Last thing we need is more people going,"God did it" instead of actually studying the ecosystem.

You are forgetting that we don't know what the world would have looked like pre-Flood. Maybe there was a lot more land and less water on the face of the earth. Maybe Noah lived near the Kangeroo. It took a long time for Noah to build the ark. Maybe the animals from around the world began to journey to Noah before it's completion. As for the salt and fresh water, we just don't know how the water was like pre-Flood as well. We only know what the earth is like since the Flood.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You are forgetting that we don't know what the world would have looked like pre-Flood. Maybe there was a lot more land and less water on the face of the earth. Maybe Noah lived near the Kangeroo. It took a long time for Noah to build the ark. Maybe the animals from around the world began to journey to Noah before it's completion.

And maybe the pre-flood world was made of cheese... ad hoc gets us nowhere.

As for the salt and fresh water, we just don't know how the water was like pre-Flood as well. We only know what the earth is like since the Flood.

So how did God alter the fundamental nature of water pre-flood?

 

[gluadys]

You are forgetting that we don't know what the world would have looked like pre-Flood.

We do know, however, what a post-global deluge world should look like after the flood. We know, for example, that if horses and horse-sized dinosaurs in one location were affected by the same flood currents, their bodies would be deposited ultimately in the same layer and location.

We never find this. Why?

If spore-bearing ferns and seed-bearing hostas were growing side by side, we should find the pollen from the hostas along with the spores from the ferns. (Same applies to any spore-bearing vs. seed-bearing combination.) But we find huge deposits (as in coal) of ferns and mosses with not a sign of pollen of any kind mixed in. Why?

We find all sorts of geological features such as salt deposits that could be neither formed in a flood, nor preserved through a flood--and we find them in many geological layers, so they cannot all be the result of evaporation after the flood. How is this possible?

We don't need to have specific knowledge of a pre-Flood world. We have no explanation of the post-Flood world that fits with a global flood.

 

[random_guy]

You are forgetting that we don't know what the world would have looked like pre-Flood. Maybe there was a lot more land and less water on the face of the earth. Maybe Noah lived near the Kangeroo. It took a long time for Noah to build the ark. Maybe the animals from around the world began to journey to Noah before it's completion. As for the salt and fresh water, we just don't know how the water was like pre-Flood as well. We only know what the earth is like since the Flood.

So your position is to make up scenerios to try to explain your ideas, with no evidence to support those scenerios, and conviently, have the scenerios be impossible to falsify. This is such a better position than that of scientists, who use the evidence seen and collected to form testable theories. I guess since both positions take faith (faith in your ad hoc rationalizations vs. faith that our eyes work correctly and our minds are not broken), they're both valid?

 

[pastorkevin73]

And maybe the pre-flood world was made of cheese... ad hoc gets us nowhere.



So how did God alter the fundamental nature of water pre-flood?

This has got to be the lamiest comeback I have ever seen from a TE. Why do you question what God has done? Why is it so hard for you to accept God's greatness and ability to do anything. Have you not read Genesis 1?

 

[Melethiel]

This has got to be the lamiest comeback I have ever seen from a TE. Why do you question what God has done? Why is it so hard for you to accept God's greatness and ability to do anything. Have you not read Genesis 1?

Ah, but Genesis doesn't say anything about altering the fundamental nature of the elements after the flood. That is reading into the text what is not there.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Ah, but Genesis doesn't say anything about altering the fundamental nature of the elements after the flood. That is reading into the text what is not there.

"reading into the text" Nice try!