Was I born under a rock?(CC)(Young earth vs. old earth)

[lionfamily1999]

Evolution is a fact.

 

It's a fact...

Evolution is not a theory, but simply just a fact. Evolution is something that is observed directly and is extended to all life that is supported by more evidence than the spherical shape of the earth.

 

 

It can be both...

In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory.

Or it's a theory...

Yes, by definition evolution is a theory (hence it is called the 'theory of evolution').

 

Despite what some would try to argue, this is not a statement against evolution's credibility and the concepts involved. Rather, it is a statement of complete and unanimous support by the scientific community, which finds evolution to be the simplest and most logical explanation for the phenomena involved, as well as fitting the evidence, providing predictions which can be tested and passing all tests that ever attempted to break it.

 

 

 

Or it all depend on your definition of "fact"...

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty";

 

Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

 

 

:lol: So, everybody's right.

Edited November 17, 2010 by lionfamily1999
oops, but a clip in the wrong spot!

[lionfamily1999]

I don't believe that. I believe that it's a camel's nose in the tent sort of thing. They will start by casting doubt on evolution, then they'll get ID taught side by side with evolution, then evolution will be cast aside and eventually kids will be looking at diagrams of Noah's Ark with convoluted theories explaining how it held all the species on earth.

 

I don't think this is what they'll achieve, but I think this is what they want.

The ID community is different from the creationist community. Two different trains of thought. They have some things in common, the idea of something behind the beginning of life, but from there they separate. They also have some things in common with evolutionists and darwinists. They all believe that small changes occur over time.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't believe that. I believe that it's a camel's nose in the tent sort of thing. They will start by casting doubt on evolution, then they'll get ID taught side by side with evolution, then evolution will be cast aside and eventually kids will be looking at diagrams of Noah's Ark with convoluted theories explaining how it held all the species on earth.

 

I don't think this is what they'll achieve, but I think this is what they want.

Most YEC believe that not all of the species were in the ark, but that natural selection is the reason we have so many species.:svengo:We have seen speciation occur in real time, and we have seen it happen rapidly. And, like I stated earlier, all I am asking is that they keep the indoctrination of evolution out of basic science courses. No one has a good understanding of it from those anyway.

 

Rather, it is a statement of complete and unanimous support by the scientific community, which finds evolution to be the simplest and most logical explanation for the phenomena involved, as well as fitting the evidence, providing predictions which can be tested and passing all tests that ever attempted to break it. Hmmm... last I checked creationists were curing diseases, digging up fossils, creating world renowned models of plate tectonics, predicting the weather, and designing rockets. Unanimous support, sure.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[KingM]

Rather, it is a statement of complete and unanimous support by the scientific community, which finds evolution to be the simplest and most logical explanation for the phenomena involved, as well as fitting the evidence, providing predictions which can be tested and passing all tests that ever attempted to break it. Hmmm... last I checked creationists were curing diseases, digging up fossils, creating world renowned models of plate tectonics, predicting the weather, and designing rockets. Unanimous support, sure.

 

I think that statement is accurate enough that someone who is a YEC will have a hard time finding a job "curing diseases, digging up fossils, creating world-renowned models of plate tectonics, predicting the weather, and designing rockets." These are all jobs where the vast majority of coworkers (and those making the hiring decisions) take an ancient earth as a given and will question the education of someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

 

You may not like it and you may think it is unjust, but that is the current state of scientific consensus.

[susankenny]

I don't believe that. I believe that it's a camel's nose in the tent sort of thing. They will start by casting doubt on evolution, then they'll get ID taught side by side with evolution, then evolution will be cast aside and eventually kids will be looking at diagrams of Noah's Ark with convoluted theories explaining how it held all the species on earth.

 

I don't think this is what they'll achieve, but I think this is what they want.

 

eh. that's a crock imo. if evolution was just looked at as theory and no dogma, and could be open to a classroom for questioning and scrutiny, what does that have to do with diagrams of Noah's Ark??

[KingM]

The ID community is different from the creationist community. Two different trains of thought. They have some things in common, the idea of something behind the beginning of life, but from there they separate. They also have some things in common with evolutionists and darwinists. They all believe that small changes occur over time.

 

I don't have a problem with people who look at the facts and see that the earth is billions of years old and that humans evolved from earlier life forms and postulate that this is how God created the modern world. However, people who make pseudo-scientific statements about the eyeball and how it could not have possibly evolved, but must have been designed, are muddying the waters and doing harm to the education system. That's the danger I see in ID.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think that statement is accurate enough that someone who is a YEC will have a hard time finding a job "curing diseases, digging up fossils, creating world-renowned models of plate tectonics, predicting the weather, and designing rockets." These are all jobs where the vast majority of coworkers (and those making the hiring decisions) take an ancient earth as a given and will question the education of someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

I see what you are saying, but not as far as questioning their education... how did these scientists get PHDs? Some of them have more than one degree.

 

As far as Old or Young Earth, I have seen good evidence and theories on both sides of the issue, and in between. I believe it comes down to interpretation.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[monk17]

OH! Credible.... well you got me there, I think.

 

Are you joking? I journal with there conclusion in the title gives objective peer reviewed information?

 

The Origins of Species was not immediately accepted but it had as ammunition a basic good scientific foundation. The church fought it initially not so much as for a conflict with scripture but because the church was "science" at the time. Much as people complain of the scientist the church excommunicated and expelled they (the Church) kept science going during the Dark ages and didn't want to loos that power.

 

Church sponsored Universities and there are many, are not producing peer reviewed scientific articles supporting creationism. It's just not there.

 

Church groups are doing a wonderful job of keeping the whole evolution theory from being taught in public schools and we suffer from that stigma internationally. OK that's my biased opinion.

 

I think if you look for the fossil record as the only means for dating the earth you have only begun your scientific inquiry.

[susankenny]

I don't have a problem with people who look at the facts and see that the earth is billions of years old and that humans evolved from earlier life forms and postulate that this is how God created the modern world. However, people who make pseudo-scientific statements about the eyeball and how it could not have possibly evolved, but must have been designed, are muddying the waters and doing harm to the education system. That's the danger I see in ID.

 

But ID scientists aren't proposing that you teach ANY OF THAT.

[KingM]

I see what you are saying, but not as far as questioning their education... how did these scientists get PHDs? Some of them have more than one degree.

 

Think of it this way. If you were interviewing someone for a job as a meteorologist and he said in the interview, "Of course, I don't believe the North Atlantic Oscillation was a factor in the recent blizzard. I think Ullr, the Norse god of snow, decided to make it snow, for some reason," it wouldn't matter if he had a PHD in meteorology from an Ivy League school. You'd think there was something deficient in his education.

 

Now, you may think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can tell you if you applied for a job as a paleontologist and you said, "It's a shame that the tyrannosaurus didn't fit on the ark," your resume would be dropped into the round file faster than you could say "Seven Days of Creation."

[Marylou]

I see what you are saying, but not as far as questioning their education... how did these scientists get PHDs? Some of them have more than one degree.

 

 

Because they write their theses using words like "it is commonly believed that . . . " And you know what, they're right and they're still right! And King M is right too, they are looked on with bias when they apply for jobs. But it's not because of their "science education", it is because of their belief in the supernatural.

[Marylou]

Think of it this way. If you were interviewing someone for a job as a meteorologist and he said in the interview, "Of course, I don't believe the North Atlantic Oscillation was a factor in the recent blizzard. I think Ullr, the Norse god of snow, decided to make it snow, for some reason," it wouldn't matter if he had a PHD in meteorology from an Ivy League school. You'd think there was something deficient in his education.

 

Now, you may think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can tell you if you applied for a job as a paleontologist and you said, "It's a shame that the tyrannosaurus didn't fit on the ark," your resume would be dropped into the round file faster than you could say "Seven Days of Creation."

 

 

There were only six ;) God rested, and maybe this thread should, too!

[KingM]

But ID scientists aren't proposing that you teach ANY OF THAT.

 

That is exactly what they believe. Whether or not they want schools to teach it comes back to the camel nose in the tent question.

[KingM]

Because they write their theses using words like "it is commonly believed that . . . " And you know what, they're right and they're still right! And King M is right too, they are looked on with bias when they apply for jobs. But it's not because of their "science education", it is because of their belief in the supernatural.

 

No, I worked with nuclear submarines and most of my coworkers were believers, including one devout member of the Assemblies of God, and several devout Catholics. They didn't try to deny fundamental science, however.

[lionfamily1999]

I don't have a problem with people who look at the facts and see that the earth is billions of years old and that humans evolved from earlier life forms and postulate that this is how God created the modern world. However, people who make pseudo-scientific statements about the eyeball and how it could not have possibly evolved, but must have been designed, are muddying the waters and doing harm to the education system. That's the danger I see in ID.

What I'm trying to get accross is that the two are different. ID is not creationism. ID is just coming from the angle that for the diversity we see there MUST have been a mind behind it. Sure, some of their ideas are, imo, wacky. What I find interesting is that Dawkins is willing to float the ideas I think are jokes as possibilities (alien life forms seeding the earth for instance).

 

As far as the evolution of the eyeball, I've only glanced at it and found on equip.org (site of the Christian Research Center) that it's a bunk angle to shoot from. IOW, creationist YE scientists say it's not a valid argument. The question here, though, is whether or not Origin of the Species is even sort of kind of close to right. Origin relies upon the idea of everything evolving from the same thing. However, if you throw in a designer that completely junks the idea that we and everything around us evolved from same stuff. ID (and creationism although in a different way) both argue that Origins is impossible. There is too much variety and the odds are too far against it. They follow up with the idea that intelligence MUST be behind it.

 

Now, ID is not necessarily religious, although some religious people agree with them (the same way evolution isn't religious although some religious people agree with it). It's just the idea that Darwin over applied a good idea (small changes over time) into a bad idea (thus everything came from one thing). Evolution as the idea of change isn't something that most people would argue against. It's obvious. Evolution as the idea of how all life came into existence, though, loses a number of people because the odds are so incredibly slim as to be nonexistant. Not just that, but for many people the same way that evolution (changes over time) is obvious, Origins is obviously wrong, because we can see the variety of life around us.

I see what you are saying, but not as far as questioning their education... how did these scientists get PHDs? Some of them have more than one degree.

They must have faked it.

[susankenny]

That is exactly what they believe. Whether or not they want schools to teach it comes back to the camel nose in the tent question.

 

Actually, this is:

 

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

[Lovedtodeath]

Church groups are doing a wonderful job of keeping the whole evolution theory from being taught in public schools and we suffer from that stigma internationally. OK that's my biased opinion.

Is that what is going on? Let's get some way to nip that in the bud. I want the whole thing taught. With details. It is ridiculous that someone can go through 14 years of schooling and still not know all of it.

 

Think of it this way. If you were interviewing someone for a job as a meteorologist and he said in the interview, "Of course, I don't believe the North Atlantic Oscillation was a factor in the recent blizzard. I think Ullr, the Norse god of snow, decided to make it snow, for some reason," it wouldn't matter if he had a PHD in meteorology from an Ivy League school. You'd think there was something deficient in his education.

 

Now, you may think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can tell you if you applied for a job as a paleontologist and you said, "It's a shame that the tyrannosaurus didn't fit on the ark," your resume would be dropped into the round file faster than you could say "Seven Days of Creation."

:lol::lol:

 

There were only six ;) God rested, and maybe this thread should, too!

:coolgleamA:

[lionfamily1999]

Are you joking? I journal with there conclusion in the title gives objective peer reviewed information?

 

The Origins of Species was not immediately accepted but it had as ammunition a basic good scientific foundation. The church fought it initially not so much as for a conflict with scripture but because the church was "science" at the time. Much as people complain of the scientist the church excommunicated and expelled they (the Church) kept science going during the Dark ages and didn't want to loos that power.

 

Church sponsored Universities and there are many, are not producing peer reviewed scientific articles supporting creationism. It's just not there.

 

Church groups are doing a wonderful job of keeping the whole evolution theory from being taught in public schools and we suffer from that stigma internationally. OK that's my biased opinion.

 

I think if you look for the fossil record as the only means for dating the earth you have only begun your scientific inquiry.

:lol: I saw somewhere where a scientist from Poland was saying that in this respect (the examination of ID) were are not as free as they are. They're allowed to look into whatever theories for the origin of life they want, we get chucked on our butts for mentioning it.

 

As far as the theory not being taught in school....... well, what school isn't teaching it? The ones here do.

[KingM]

Actually, this is:

 

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

 

Ah, competing schools of thought within ID. There's at least one way they're modeling the mainstream scientific community. ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

:lol: I saw somewhere where a scientist from Poland was saying that in this respect (the examination of ID) were are not as free as they are. They're allowed to look into whatever theories for the origin of life they want, we get chucked on our butts for mentioning it.

 

As far as the theory not being taught in school....... well, what school isn't teaching it? The ones here do.

I think this wording is very important...

keeping the whole evolution theory from being taught in public schools

If that is true, then I want it stopped!:glare:

[unsinkable]

Think of it this way. If you were interviewing someone for a job as a meteorologist and he said in the interview, "Of course, I don't believe the North Atlantic Oscillation was a factor in the recent blizzard. I think Ullr, the Norse god of snow, decided to make it snow, for some reason," it wouldn't matter if he had a PHD in meteorology from an Ivy League school. You'd think there was something deficient in his education.

 

Now, you may think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can tell you if you applied for a job as a paleontologist and you said, "It's a shame that the tyrannosaurus didn't fit on the ark," your resume would be dropped into the round file faster than you could say "Seven Days of Creation."

 

:lol:

 

This is so dang funny.

[lionfamily1999]

I think this wording is very important... If that is true, then I want it stopped!:glare:

Do you mean all the way back to the origins of life, or do you mean holes and all, in depth?

 

If it's the second case, good luck with that. They won't even teach grammar in depth anymore. :glare: And I'm pretty sure the grammar rules are firm.

[KingM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovedtodeath

I see what you are saying, but not as far as questioning their education... how did these scientists get PHDs? Some of them have more than one degree.

 

They must have faked it.

 

After reading that thread on fake term papers, maybe all diplomas should come with fine print. :tongue_smilie:

[susankenny]

Ah, competing schools of thought within ID. There's at least one way they're modeling the mainstream scientific community. ;)

 

Well, considering it's from the Discovery Institute - we'll assume they ought to know their own mission best. Would you agree?

[KingM]

And I'm pretty sure the grammar rules are firm.

 

Which reminds me. Is it grammatically correct to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction? I've never received a straight answer on that one. ;)

[KingM]

Well, considering it's from the Discovery Institute - we'll assume they ought to know their own mission best. Would you agree?

 

Just putting a little levity into the thread. The other is from Creation Ministries International, which is another proponent of ID. I don't think ID is a monolithic entity, but a general theory about human creation, which means that it isn't "owned" by any one group. Or am I wrong?

[lionfamily1999]

After reading that thread on fake term papers, maybe all diplomas should come with fine print. :tongue_smilie:

You'd think after all the ivy league graduates that publically turned out to have a box of rocks for brains we'd all know better.

Which reminds me. Is it grammatically correct to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction? I've never received a straight answer on that one. ;)

I's had a publik skool edukayshun. So far, I'm only on FLL 4, give me time ;)

[susankenny]

Just putting a little levity into the thread. The other is from Creation Ministries International, which is another proponent of ID. I don't think ID is a monolithic entity, but a general theory about human creation, which means that it isn't "owned" by any one group. Or am I wrong?

 

well, they may be a "proponent" of ID but that doesn't necessarily indicate an accurate representation. the discovery institute is the authority on ID. i'm not implying that you or anyone else here should agree with the discovery institute by any means...but at least we'd all be discussing their work from the same understanding.

[Lovedtodeath]

Just putting a little levity into the thread. The other is from Creation Ministries International, which is another proponent of ID. I don't think ID is a monolithic entity, but a general theory about human creation, which means that it isn't "owned" by any one group. Or am I wrong?

CMI are very much Young Earthers...

[Melissa in CA]

 

Now, you may think the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can tell you if you applied for a job as a paleontologist and you said, "It's a shame that the tyrannosaurus didn't fit on the ark," your resume would be dropped into the round file faster than you could say "Seven Days of Creation."

 

C'mon now, every serious YEC knows that the earth was created in SIX days, and that the T-Rex would not have been placed on the ark as full-grown adults, but young with lots of growing left to do. ;)

Sheesh, even *I* would drop that applicant in the round file. :lol::D

[MSNative]

http://www.biologos.org/ is making one. Dr Francis Collins (Author of THE LANGUAGE OF GOD) is a founder and was also homeschooled.

 

I cannot *wait!*

 

Very interesting site. I hadn't ever heard of it. My children thank you, too, since my 5 minute break has now turned into 45 minutes. Ah, the perils of the internet.

 

Thanks for posting this.

[Lovedtodeath]

Do you mean all the way back to the origins of life, or do you mean holes and all, in depth?

 

If it's the second case, good luck with that. They won't even teach grammar in depth anymore. :glare: And I'm pretty sure the grammar rules are firm.

No not holes, per se... they would need to teach what evolution is actually about. Random mutation and Natural Selection. (Though evidence shows that mutation is not random... biology actually uses a different definition of random then what you will find in the dictionaries.) Instead of saying that the whale developed or evolved the ability to hold their breath underwater while suckling, for example... A random mutation gave a whale the ability to hold his/her breath while suckling, this individual survived and mated while the others did not. Mutation and Natural Selection are the basis of evolutionary theory and they are not taught in school. Why aren't they?

 

And I am sure that we all agree that they need to at least get Lamarck's ideas and frauds from 1850 out of textbooks. (They were there when I was in school anyway).

[Melinda in VT]

No not holes, per se... they would need to teach what evolution is actually about. Random mutation and Natural Selection. (Though evidence shows that mutation is not random... biology actually uses a different definition of random then what you will find in the dictionaries.) Instead of saying that the whale developed or evolved the ability to hold their breath underwater while suckling, for example... A random mutation gave a whale the ability to hold his/her breath while suckling, this individual survived and mated while the others did not. Mutation and Natural Selection are the basis of evolutionary theory and they are not taught in school. Why aren't they?

 

And I am sure that we all agree that they need to at least get Lamarck's ideas and frauds from 1850 out of textbooks. (They were there when I was in school anyway).

 

Bolding mine. These ideas were taught in my school, both high school and college.

 

And Lamarck's ideas were discussed as wrong in my high school text book back in the 1980s.

[Lovedtodeath]

Bolding mine. These ideas were taught in my school, both high school and college.

 

And Lamarck's ideas were discussed as wrong in my high school text book back in the 1980s.

That's good!

 

Why not teach these things before High School? They can teach a simplified version of mutation and natural selection, instead of drilling the word evolution into their heads with no explanation what so ever. My 5 year old could watch X-Men, she knew what a mutation was. :tongue_smilie:

[Melinda in VT]

That's good!

 

Why not teach these things before High School? They can teach a simplified version of mutation and natural selection, instead of drilling the word evolution into their heads with no explanation what so ever. My 5 year old could watch X-Men, she knew what a mutation was. :tongue_smilie:

 

I didn't get any biology before high school. I didn't really hear evolution mentioned in school before my biology class.

[Spy Car]

 

And I am sure that we all agree that they need to at least get Lamarck's ideas and frauds from 1850 out of textbooks. (They were there when I was in school anyway).

 

Lamarck's ideas on the inheritance of acquired traits was included in our high school texts, but it was not presented as valid science, rather as a hypothesis than proved to be largely invalid and it was contrasted with Darwin's Theory of Evolution with an eye to making Darwin's Theory better understood.

 

We actually were required to write a short paper on this, and it was among the science assignments I enjoyed most, as it firmed up in my mind what the ToE really postulates, and the contrast with Lamark helped in that understanding.

 

Bill

Edited November 17, 2010 by Spy Car
Autocorrect victim

[lionfamily1999]

No not holes, per se... they would need to teach what evolution is actually about. Random mutation and Natural Selection. (Though evidence shows that mutation is not random... biology actually uses a different definition of random then what you will find in the dictionaries.) Instead of saying that the whale developed or evolved the ability to hold their breath underwater while suckling, for example... A random mutation gave a whale the ability to hold his/her breath while suckling, this individual survived and mated while the others did not. Mutation and Natural Selection are the basis of evolutionary theory and they are not taught in school. Why aren't they?

 

And I am sure that we all agree that they need to at least get Lamarck's ideas and frauds from 1850 out of textbooks. (They were there when I was in school anyway).

I agree with removing the frauds.

 

We did learn about natural selection, but not mutation (then again, it might be my age). What's interesting is the debate concerning natural selection/survival of the fittest. I know I push this book like I wrote it, "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" covers that. They talk about male deer that sneak off with females while the stronger deer fight it out. Humans alone are full of examples of natural selection gone crazy. I mean, if we followed survival of the fittest, we should be much more fit. We can point to medical science for extending our lives, but does anyone think it is because we only mate with healthy people?

[Lovedtodeath]

We actually were required to write a short paper on this, and it was among the science assignments I enjoyed most, as it firmed up in my mind what the ToE really postulates, and the contrast with Lemark helped in that understanding.

 

Bill

That is awesome. My students will be assigned this paper. Concerned citizens should be asking for this.

[Spy Car]

That is awesome. My students will be assigned this paper. Concerned citizens should be asking for this.

 

I hope they enjoy it as much as I did :D

 

Bill

[Marylou]

C'mon now, every serious YEC knows that the earth was created in SIX days, and that the T-Rex would not have been placed on the ark as full-grown adults, but young with lots of growing left to do. ;)

Sheesh, even *I* would drop that applicant in the round file. :lol::D

 

 

I think he does that intentionally to see if folks are actually reading his posts! :D

[KingM]

I think he does that intentionally to see if folks are actually reading his posts! :D

 

That's right, it's a test for the job applicants. Bonus points if the applicants can explain what the baby tyrannosaurs and other little predators were eating on the ark and for the decades following that when the prey species were reestablishing their populations.

[Spy Car]

That's right, it's a test for the job applicants. Bonus points if the applicants can explain what the baby tyrannosaurs and other little predators were eating on the ark and for the decades following that when the prey species were reestablishing their populations.

 

Manna? :D

 

Bill

[monk17]

:lol: I saw somewhere where a scientist from Poland was saying that in this respect (the examination of ID) were are not as free as they are. They're allowed to look into whatever theories for the origin of life they want, we get chucked on our butts for mentioning it.

 

As far as the theory not being taught in school....... well, what school isn't teaching it? The ones here do.

 

Pickup a high school biology book from your local high school and see how many pages have anything written about Darwin or evolution. I've looked at three different ones and there hasn't been more then 2 pages. They all looked like they had been written by the discovery institute. Texas decides what's in school books and they want as little as possible about evolution, what is included is usually hogwash.

 

I'm here in sunny Tallahassee Florida and the school I checked is a top rated high school in the state.

[kiana]

Manna? :D

 

Bill

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[lionfamily1999]

Pickup a high school biology book from your local high school and see how many pages have anything written about Darwin or evolution. I've looked at three different ones and there hasn't been more then 2 pages. They all looked like they had been written by the discovery institute. Texas decides what's in school books and they want as little as possible about evolution, what is included is usually hogwash.

 

I'm here in sunny Tallahassee Florida and the school I checked is a top rated high school in the state.

That's so ironic, because we're almost the worst in the state and there's an entire chapter on Darwin and the finches, followed up by everyone's favorite horse evolution chart and a chapter on the evolution of specific species. Absolutely nothing about God... which is really ironic, because the people here tend to Baptist, even the teachers.

[Wheres Toto]

That's right, it's a test for the job applicants. Bonus points if the applicants can explain what the baby tyrannosaurs and other little predators were eating on the ark and for the decades following that when the prey species were reestablishing their populations.

 

Ask and the information is bound to be out there somewhere. :tongue_smilie: I read that some creationists feel that based on Genesis and Old Testament laws all animals were plant-eaters only. Only after God lifted the restriction on eating meat did they become carnivores (which did not require evolutionary changes since it was only a change in behaviour). ;) I also saw one explanation that all the animals hibernated while on the ark. Both are mentioned at the Institute for Creation Research website.

 

Over the few thousand years since God gave permission for man to eat meat the environment has degenerated significantly, and many animals and birds have become carnivores because plant food has become scarcer and less nutritious. They were not created as carnivores.

[Melissa in CA]

Manna? :D

 

Bill

 

:lol: Ok, even *I* thought that was funny. :D