1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Evolution: Did God use it? Did God directly create every single species?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, Jan 7, 2014.

  1. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That proves nothing. There has been no change at the DNA level, simply a change in the frequency of certain characteristics. That is not evolution. That is better nutrition... and learning how to build better doorways.:smilewinkgrin:

    For evolution to be true, there must be a change at the DNA level because no single cell can function unless in receives instructions from the DNA. For those single cell organisms to "evolve" into all the species we know today, we have to explain where those fully intake DNA strains came from to give those single cells instructions to function.

    Every observed change at the DNA level results in conditions that are detrimental and often fatal to the organism. Every cancer is caused by changes at the DNA level.

    As far as I can tell, there has been no observed change in the DNA structure that has been beneficial to human beings.
     
  2. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Very good, interesting and salient points canadyjd. I perceive that you are either somewhat educated in some science, and/or have read some Michael Behe. (whom I like and respect greatly)
     
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "somewhat educated" is probably a good way to say it. :smilewinkgrin:

    I haven't read Michael Behe, maybe you could point me to one of his books?
     
  4. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry, I did not intend to come across as "snarky". I thought you might be an attorney (jd) and perhaps had a few science classes in college.

    A couple of good books by Behe

    Darwins Black Box
    The Edges of Evolution.
     
  5. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :1_grouphug:No offense ever came across my mind brother. I took it as a (an undeserved) compliment. It wasn't my own thoughts, anyway. It was something I picked up in seminary.

    I have heard of Darwins Black Box and keep intending to find it... but alas... kids and bills....bills and kids.... priorities and all that.
     
  6. Judith

    Judith Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    45
    Faith:
    Baptist
  7. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry you feel that way.
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Noah brought two canines on the ark. From those two we have today wolves, coyotes, jackals, foxes, etc.

    Apparently, animals had no fear of man prior to the flood and would obey and not attack out of fear or territorialism. (Gen. 9:2)
     
  9. prophet

    prophet Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    And you know this, how?

    Wolves, coyotes, jackals, and foxes are not descended from some original canine genus.
    They have different DNA.
    If you knew how genetic codes were passed, you would understand how impossible this scenario really is.
     
    #29 prophet, Jan 10, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2014
  10. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's the definition of the word "kind." Men may not be 100% accurate in their taxonomy of species today, but generally, if groups can interbreed then they are members of a kind.

    Can the egg and sperm from either of the groups I listed combine and create a pup? Then they are members of a kind.
     
  11. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scripture says, as best as I can remember, that Noah took 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pair of unclean animals on the ark.

    I try not to imagine how God got all of the animals in the ark... it was a supernatural event.

    If Jesus can pull enough bread out of one basket to fed 5,000 men along with women and children, then I see no problem with God the Father putting 7 pairs of clean and 2 pair of unclean animals of every kind in that gigantic ark and keeping them healthy for more than a year.:godisgood:
     
  12. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, not two pair and seven pair. Two of a kind and seven of a kind.
     
  13. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,285
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is the DETAILED reply I got from AIG

    To answer your first few questions, in short the answer is that God created several original kinds of each animal and these speciated (mostly after the Flood) where they have lost and are still losing genetic variation when they speciate. For more information on this please see the following articles:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what

    We don't answer eschatological questions, so I can't answer your "bedbug in the millennium" question. Please see the following for more info: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/19/where-do-we-draw-the-line


    Regarding you questions about insects being on the Ark, the short answer is “probably” they were taken on board the Ark. There was no requirement in God’s command to take representatives of all the different animals that would have mandated taking insects on the ark (but there was no prohibition either). Insects are defined separately in the Hebrew language. For instance:

    1) All the animals taken into the Ark are described as basar, “flesh”. This term (when used of whole living animals rather than simply the animal body) is never used of invertebrate animals.
    2) “the life (nephesh “soul”) of all flesh is the blood of it” (Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23; Gen. 9:4). In the Biblical and everyday sense, invertebrates do not have blood (Heb. dam).
    3) Basar is qualified by the phrase “asher bo ruach chayyim”, “which has in it the spirit of lives” (Gen. 6:17; Gen. 7:22). This additional phrase is likewise never used of invertebrates.
    4) In Genesis 7:14 kol ha’oph (every flier) is defined (through apposition) as kol tsippor kol kanaph (every bird every wing i.e. every bird of every sort). The phrase tsippor kanaph definitely excludes insects.
    Thus only the following groups were required on the basis of the Hebrew text to be taken into the Ark: (1) all birds, (2) all land-dwelling reptiles and mammals, (3) possibly some of the more terrestrial amphibians, or possibly all amphibians.

    Of course we know that Noah could have taken insects onto the Ark, if God brought them to him, and it would have been practically impossible to keep insects from joining the crew of the Ark. Most probably then, there were a number of types of insect on the Ark. They wouldn’t have been prevented by God either, in fact, since God commanded Noah to bring plants on board the Ark (Gen. 6:21) and many insects are pollinators, it seems at least some types were necessary. For example, ants help plant health by clearing the detritus (dead organic matter) that might otherwise clutter and choke out light and certain nutrients. They also produce waste that is essential as fertilizer for many plants. Bees would have been almost mandatory as pollinators (and of course as a bonus, would have been the source of honey).

    Some insects also are quite capable of surviving on the flotsam and other debris caused by the catastrophic effects of the Flood. There was quite possibly huge masses of floating vegetation all over the earth at the time of the Flood. Insects can survive long periods without food by going dormant, as well. Since Scripture doesn’t explicitly state one way or the other, we cannot be dogmatic.

    Given the delicate nature of some insects (butterflies, moths and dragonflies for example) it seems almost necessary to include them on the passenger list of Ark animals, and this may indeed be one of the criteria. If the adult stage of an insect could not survive on flotsam in heavy rain and ocean spray conditions, or if the larval stage of an insect was terrestrial, or did not have the ability to go into dormancy if aquatic, or if they were required as pollinators or plant "caretakers", it seems likely that God would have had Noah take them aboard. Other insects could have survived in aquatic larval stages or on floating mats of vegetation or flotsam. This is just a working “model” though, and I am not tied to it that strongly, but it does accord with the fact that God did want to preserve some of every "kind" of life through the Flood.

    It is an interesting hypothesis by some creationist scientists that if God may have delayed some animals starting a strictly carnivorous diet until after exiting the Ark, when there would have been enough carrion from the Flood washed up onto land or fish in tidal or remnant pools to support the rather small population of carnivores post-Flood. Most carnivores are carrion-eaters, or temporarily modify/supplement their diet with carrion. This would have allowed Noah to feed most animals with vegetation rather than meat, and would also have provided the herbivores a chance to avoid immediate predation and establish a larger population before being preyed upon. We must also trust the fact that God’s will was for the remaining animals to repopulate the earth. Other creation scientists have also postulated a Divine-induced hibernation or torpor like state in many Ark animals which would have minimized the amount of food needed by each animal. Others have suggested that the few true carnivores on board were sustained with an insect diet during the Flood. Many carnivorous animals are at least partly insectivorous, and some actually will switch to an insect diet when meat is scarce. Insects therefore may have been the bulk of the carnivore diet on board the Ark.

    There is no scriptural problem with insects being on board, and they would provide an ergonomic, economic and labor-easy way to provide meat to the carnivorous animals. Ants may have been necessary in large quantities for aardvarks and anteaters. (One radical explanation is that carnivores were fed with rodents, who in a year's time if brought on board pregnant can produce hundreds of thousands of offspring from a single population.) I should also point out that Gen. 6:21 records God telling Noah "And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them."; there is nothing in this statement that precludes Noah from taking dried meat, insects, dried fish or live animals on board to feed the carnivores. So again, insects may have been a necessity on board the Ark.

    I should also point out that the RSV and the ESV of Genesis 7:21 use the phrase EVERY SWARMING THINGS THAT SWARMS UPON THE EARTH; (every other translation uses the phrase creeping thing), and this could refer to insects as well as amphibians and lizards.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    God created all species directly, and used the process of micro evolution NOT macro though!

    He made the original dog , and in that animals Dna, was the coding to make for all ther various kinds of Dogs to come for example!

    man was a direct creation of God, NOT a part of evolutionary process from lower primates!
     
  15. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Where in scripture are we informed that God used micro evolution?
     
Loading...