What's wrong with evolution?

[AV1611VET]

and if the Global flood were what happened... why arent there Kangaroos in Egypt?

The animals that got off the Ark would tend to stick together with their own kind for awhile. Kangaroo with kangaroo, coyote with coyote, etc. in what's called biological niches.

Later, when the earth segments, the kangaroo would, of course, be isolated from the other six continents.

 

[Quantos]

The animals that got off the Ark would tend to stick together with their own kind for awhile. Kangaroo with kangaroo, coyote with coyote, etc. in what's called biological niches.

Later, when the earth segments, the kangaroo would, of course, be isolated from the other six continents.

When did the "earth segments" ? Chapter Verse If possable ?

 

[Loudmouth]

The animals that got off the Ark would tend to stick together with their own kind for awhile. Kangaroo with kangaroo, coyote with coyote, etc. in what's called biological niches.

Biological niches are habitats, not herds. There are habitats throughout Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Africa that can support kangaroos. What we are talking about is the near absence of placental mammals (other than bats and the placentals introduced by man) in Australia. This would not happen if the animals dispersed from a central point in Asia minor. For example, rabbits are doing just fine in Australia so why didn't they make it there while relatively slow koalas and even slower marsupial moles made it just fine?

Later, when the earth segments, the kangaroo would, of course, be isolated from the other six continents.

You need to supply evidence for a recent (ca 4,000 years before present) break up of the continents. I will be waiting with bated breath.

 

[Jase]

The animals that got off the Ark would tend to stick together with their own kind for awhile. Kangaroo with kangaroo, coyote with coyote, etc. in what's called biological niches.

Later, when the earth segments, the kangaroo would, of course, be isolated from the other six continents.

And what about animals that can only survive in certain climates in certain geographical areas of the world?

And you know very well you have no Biblical support, let alone scientific support for the break up of the continents. Splitting the continents apart in such a short period of time would produce more energy than the Earth receives from the sun ( 160 trillion tons of TNT per day). If you think anything on Earth would survive that, you are quite naive.

 

[AV1611VET]

When did the "earth segments" ?

circa 2347 BC

Chapter Verse If possable ?

[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible][bible]1 Chronicles 1:19[/bible]

 

[Loudmouth]

circa 2347 BC



[bible]Genesis 10:25[/bible][bible]1 Chronicles 1:19[/bible]

In the mid-1800's the United States was divided as well. So I guess geologists must explain how the two halves of America came back together, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, rabbits are doing just fine in Australia so why didn't they make it there while relatively slow koalas and even slower marsupial moles made it just fine?

I don't know --- I'm not an expert on how the animals dispersed after the Flood.

You need to supply evidence for a recent (ca 4,000 years before present) break up of the continents. I will be waiting with bated breath.

Sorry --- I'm sola scriptura --- I don't need evidence to believe --- only THE written documentation.

I'm not a scientist --- just a teacher.

You bring me the evidence, and I'll be glad to teach it, so long as it doesn't conflict with written documentation.

 

[AV1611VET]

And what about animals that can only survive in certain climates in certain geographical areas of the world?

What about them? I'm not sure why you're asking ME these questions. There are others, I'm sure, more qualified to answer.

And you know very well you have no Biblical support, let alone scientific support for the break up of the continents.

I quoted my support.

Splitting the continents apart in such a short period of time would produce more energy than the Earth receives from the sun ( 160 trillion tons of TNT per day). If you think anything on Earth would survive that, you are quite naive.

Okay --- I'll humor you --- we're all dead then.

...and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

more Bible as phone book evidence.
cute, funny, but hardly persuasive or proper hermeneutical and exegetical technique.

 

[theFijian]

If you created it 6000 years ago, and it looked 6000 years old, then it would look 12,000 years old today.

What's the difference --- you embedded 6000 years into it --- yet God can't?

dear dear, if I created the universe 6k years ago, for scientists looking at it today it would appear 6k years old. You see?

 

[theFijian]

Have you read your own sig? Can you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? If not, and if there are discrepancies (hint: I'd bet everything I owned there are), then you would in fact be saying that the KJV is more authoritative than the originals, yes?

He simply doesnt understand his own sig. The elevation of the KJV to infallibility is heretical as it is a human endeavour and therefore not 'inspired'. Therefore to have the KJV as your standard is to raise up something which is not 'inspired' to the level of something which is, and is therefore idolatry, and heretical.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know --- I'm not an expert on how the animals dispersed after the Flood.

Were you not the one that said the animals would "stick together". Evolution and geology can explain why you can not find native placental species in Australia. Creationism can not. How stunning.

Sorry --- I'm sola scriptura ---

The world I live in is made up of more than scriptures. Given you tendency to insert non-scriptural miracles to explain away problems for a young earth it would seem that you are not sola scriptura, just sans evidence.

I don't need evidence to believe --- only THE written documentation.

The fact that you don't think evidence is necessary is your problem, not mine. If you want to show that the Earth is young you will need more than passages written by men.

I'm not a scientist --- just a teacher.

You bring me the evidence, and I'll be glad to teach it, so long as it doesn't conflict with written documentation.

A literal Genesis does conflict with written documentation, such as every article in geological and biological journal in the past 100 years. If your written document is falsified by the reality around me, why should I trust it?

 

[USincognito]

Please tell me what "embedded history" is. I Googled it and Wikipediad it, and found nothing.

Like I said, I'm 52 years old, and despite all the studying and schooling I've had, I've never heard that term used.

You probably won't find it in Wikipedia or any place other than a site that discusses the fatal problem of Omphalos with regards to the appearance of age problem.

The Earth and Universe don't just look old. They look like they have a history of thing that have been occuring for billions of years. That includes things mentioned by others and myself dozens of times - plate tectonics, radioactive decay, multiple ancient astronomical body strikes, the K/T boundry layer, multiple extinction events, vulcanism, sedimentation and metamorphism. These things don't happen suddenly or during a year long flood. They happen over long periods of time, billions of years in some cases and thus represent a history of things that have happened over those billions of years.

That is the fatal problem the appearance of history presents to those who claim the Earth is 6,000 years old but has the appearance of age. I just don't understand what that's so hard for you to get.

 

[birdan]

The Earth and Universe don't just look old. They look like they have a history of thing that have been occuring for billions of years. That includes things mentioned by others and myself dozens of times - plate tectonics, radioactive decay, multiple ancient astronomical body strikes, the K/T boundry layer, multiple extinction events, vulcanism, sedimentation and metamorphism. These things don't happen suddenly or during a year long flood. They happen over long periods of time, billions of years in some cases and thus represent a history of things that have happened over those billions of years.

Not only is there solid evidence for these events, but these events can be dated and placed in a sequential history of the planet. Consider the following timeline:

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/earth_timeline.html

That, by any definition of the word, is history. History of the planet earth. If a 4.5 billion year old earth was created 6,000 years ago, then all the millions of pieces of evidence that timeline encompasses were artificially embedded within the earth 6,000 years ago. And that would seem to be deceptive. It is precisely this history that leads to an age of 4.5 billion years. Without this history, you would not be talking about a 4.5 billion year old earth. Without this history, the earth really would look only 6,000 years old. 4.5 billion years = embedded history, in your scenario. There is no way around that.

 

[USincognito]

Without this history, the earth really would look only 6,000 years old. 4.5 billion years = embedded history, in your scenario. There is no way around that.

Excellent link. And without all those effects that create that history (resulting in said appearance) I'm sure there are places in the world that wouldn't even look 6,000 years old.

How old is a beach? Depends on how long it's been since last high tide if you're going by appearance.
How is a flood plain in a river valley? Depends on how long it's been since the last flood if you're going by appearance.
How old is a glacier? Depends on how long it's been since the last snow if you're going by appearance.

But we know that beach, that flood plain and that glacier are much older than this morning, or last winter because they have history we can study to determine it's actual age. The same is true of the Earth. Events occur, and leave evidence that they occured. Some occured this morning. Some occured 10,000 years ago. Some occured 1,000,000,000 years ago. And it's these things that contribute to the appearance of history AV and which makes your claim of the appeance of age fatally flawed.

You think the Earth is 6,000 years old. You need to be up front about that and stop this Omphalos nonsense.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Thinking of the poor old penguins aving to walk all the way from the Middle East to the Antarctic. You'd think their fat layer would be quite uncomfortable crossing the Sahara!

Would they have had to walk from Antarctica to the launch point of the Ark too? Soo sad.. think I'm gunna cry.

 

[TommyN]

First of all let me just say that the bible when studied in detail without dogmatic teachings from people who them self are limited in understanding actually hints at evolution. The bible deals with the Adamic race (Gods new creation ) mingled amongst the old creation and the earth people who have evolved from the prehistoric world and the bible is not meant for all people just the Adamic. Genesis 1 where the days are numbered is not the physical creation but the spiritual blue print and Genesis 2 is the actual physical creation in which time is not given and could possibly have taken many millions even billions of years between Genesis 2:6 and Genesis 2:7. The mixing of these two different kinds of people is spoken of in Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of (earthly)men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. The sons of God refer to Adam and his sons through Seth but also remember Cain is part of the new creation and is the son of God's wraith. The sons of God are not angels coming down out of heaven. Angels do not have sexual organs besides Jesus said that in the age to come we are neither given nor taken in marriage but are like the angels (Mark 12:25) Jesus also speaks about the Wheat the tares and the field (Matthew 12:24-30) and then explains the parable in (Matthew 12:37-43) 37) He answered and said to them: He who sows the good seed is the son of man. 38)The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked. 39) The enemy who sowed them is the devil (Cain), the harvest is the end of the age. 40) Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41) The son of man will send out his angels, and wthey will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42) and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43) Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their FATHER. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! You are not of the world if you were the world would love its own. We are mixed with 3 different gene pools just like Noah whose sons Shem, Japheth and Canaan represent the 3 genologies. The sons of God will evently overcome the animal and Cains traits. Genesis one actually speaks of the angel Adams creation who was then one with God and Genesis 2 speaks about this angel man (neshma) being deposited in the physical body. The Adamic race through Seth, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Israel are the seed of God and it is true they are angel people and Jesus is their brother. He came to regather the lost sheep of Israel back to the relationship with their heavenly FATHER not to set up a new religion called Christianity.

 

[JohnR7]

The bible deals with the Adamic race (Gods new creation ) mingled amongst the old creation and the earth people who have evolved from the prehistoric world and the bible is not meant for all people just the Adamic.

What your saying is pretty much what I believe. It is nice to see that I am not the only one that reads the Bible and understands it that way.

 

[JohnR7]

Thinking of the poor old penguins aving to walk all the way from the Middle East to the Antarctic.

Are their penguins in the middle east?

 

[LightHorseman]

Are their penguins in the middle east?

No! Which is her POINT!

If EVERY animal on the Ark had to walk to their current locations, how did the penguins get to and from antarctica pre and post flood?