Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

[Petrel]

Well if genetics means nothing to you and you organize animals totally by morphology but do not make any claims as to their relatedness, I would say you are exhibiting the type of consistency I asked for above! This is rather the method I used as a child. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, it didn't stand up to the evidence. I'd be curious to see if or how your opinion on this changes over the next five years or so.

 

[Helen]

Place here smells like a fish factory with all the red herrings Petrel and UTE are dragging around!

Going up to the top of page 13, if this is off it, and down from there, here are some points:

1. "Kind" is not a matter of being morphologically similar nearly as much as being able to interbreed and hybridize. THAT is the clue to being in the same kind. Perhaps there were two original cat populations: one large and one small size. The large cats can all hybridize today and so can the small cats. This is the mark of being in the same kind. The fact that there are intermediate size cats, such as the bobcat does give credence to the possibility that all felines came from an original population.

2. Volvocidae may indeed all be variations of the same kind. I have no problem with that. The Great Dane and Chihuahua are variations of the same kind, too, and they are quite different! However the presumption that variation indicates a universal common ancestor is a pretty wild jump that has no evidence at all.

3. I never said secular science is useless. You were putting words in my mouth. Excuse me while I spit them out. I am very fond of science. I find evolutionary theory completely useless, however, and also quite damaging in a number of ways, scientifically and spiritually.

4. No one is arguing speciation. I have said that so many times I can't even count it, but you two keep bringing it up. We know that when ecological niches are empty speciation is extraordinarily rapid. A year for guppies, fourteen for some lizards...

5. The marsupials didn't just all migrate to Australia. Fossils have been found in South America (not counting our opossum, which still lives all over North America...). So what we see evidence of is that the marsupials migrated south. Those that ended up in South American didn't survive while those that ended up in Australia did. Keep in mind that before Peleg, Australia was joined to Asia and the marsupials didn't have to swim...

6. These two, and many others like them, want evolution to extend beyond variation within kinds. One of the problems they refuse to address is that there is not nearly enough time even in four billion years for this to happen. Evolution says it took about a billion years for the first single celled organisms to evolve into a differentiated cell multicellular organism. Bacteria have a generation span of 20 minutes or thereabouts. Evolution needs changes to be made in as few generations as possible, so let's give the first single celled organisms a generation span allowing only ten generations in a day. That's 3650 in a year. In a billion years, that is 36,500,000,000,000 if I counted my zeros correctly. The minute you get to any kind of an animal that takes just three months for a generation span, let alone a year, like most birds, or ten years like the apes, we have just run out of time for all the mutations necessary to transform one kind into another.

There is only enough time for variation within already existing populations.

7. I would strongly urge Petrel and UTE to follow Petrel's advice and for consistency's sake re-examine the evidence and see what it tells us without the roadblock of preconceived notions getting in the way.

8. Yes, Petrel, it is quite evident that you refuse to accept Genesis as a straightforward account of what happened. That is your choice. You are right that God could have done it any way at all. We are blessed in that He told us what He did. It is your option to believe or not. However you will find, if you do look at the evidence without your evolutionary glasses on, that the evidence itself, without evolution explanations, supports exactly what God said He did, and in the time frame He gave us.

9. Genesis 2 does not state that the animals were created after man. Adam, in his account in Genesis 2, simply states that God made the animals. It is a past tense verb. God did make the animals.

10. There is no intermediate fossil of land to sea animals, such as the whale. There are only interpretations of intermediate fossils, the majority of which are so far-fetched that you have to be a true evolution believer to be willing to accept them without having hysterics laughing.

11. As far as your questions regarding whales are concerned, keep in mind that these internal bits of bone have been defined by evolutionists to be pelvis, legs, etc., because they demand that evolution happened. The fact is that they are no more pelvis and legs than our arms are wings, despite we have the same basic design in terms of numbers of bones that bird wings have.

12. Variation rates would have been rapid at first and then slowed to almost nothing for two specific and distinct reasons. First, with every ecological niche vacant, first after creation and then after the Flood, speciation would have been rapid in order to fill the niches. The second reason, however, is one that evolutionists deliberately ignore. Every time there is a separation of a sub-population from a parent population, due to migration or catastrophe, or whatever, and a new variety emerges, that new population carries a much reduced gene pool than the original population did. Their ability to vary is reduced. Over time that reduction continues with each instance of natural selection and/or speciation. Gradually there are very few gene pools with the ability to vary at all in them. The sub-sub-sub etc. populations have been so concentrated that they can only live in specific areas without dying off.

The fact of original rapid speciation makes perfect sense in light of what we know about speciation and gene pools. Speciation, by the way, is nothing but variation combined with a very particular sense of who an individual wants to breed with. For example, because dogs rely on a sense of smell to induce breeding behavior, they don't care what the potential mate looks like in color or size. Thus, domestic dogs of all sizes and colors and behaviors are considered the same species. Hummingbirds, however, are extraordinarily particular about breeding preferences, as they depend on sight. A spot on the wrong spot means 'do not mate with this one.' Thus, although it takes an expert to tell some species of hummingbirds apart, there are a multitude of species of the critters! Thus, the evolutionary idea of speciation does not depend upon anything but the breeding cues which differ in different types of animals.

So let us simply say that different, distinct populations can arise from a parent population rather rapidly as isolated breeding takes place, thus producing their own unique marks of genetic predominance in each population. Sometimes this does not stand in the way of interbreeding with another population and sometimes it does -- depending on the mating cues of the populations involved.

13. There were about five or six hundred years for initial migration and speciation before Peleg and then from then to now after for differences to become more distinct in separated populations.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Petrel:
I think it should be amply evident by now that I do not think the creation account is a literal, scientific report.

I think God could have made the universe in a femptosecond if he desired, or he could have taken some billions of years. Either way or anywhere in between does not detract from his power.

I would be perfectly happy to accept the biblical account as literal if it were not for the fact that the evidence contradicts it. I must either conclude that God is a liar, the Bible is wrong, or that it was not meant to be taken literally. Since I know God does not lie and I believe the Bible is inerrant, that leaves me with the conclusion that it is nonliteral.

And UTEOTW wrote much the same when he wrote:

Only if you insist on a literal reading. If you do not think that these verses were meant to be literal, then there is no longer a conflict.

How convenient. Then why did Jesus take the Genesis account as literal?

About the creation of Adam and Eve He said:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mk. 10:5-6

Jesus was speaking here in the direct context of marriage between a fully developed man and woman in a developed society. Not to mention the very real marriage between Adam and Eve.

And Jesus believed in the literal Flood:

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Mt. 24:37-39 (yes it says "all")

He also believed in the literal account of Jonah being in the whale or great fish:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth." Mt. 12:40

So why again do you both believe that Jesus the Creator and living God is wrong in His interpretation of OT Scripture?

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Deacon:
The point of the whole thread was to argue for a 6000 year old creation.

Not really. The point of the whole thread was to ask why YOUNG EARTHERS sometimes say 6,000 years and some YOUNG EARTHERS say 10,000 years. Old Earthers were, of course, free to comment, but they were NOT being asked why they believed it to be old.

My question from Post #1

My question is, why do even Young Earth Creationists frequently allude to a time period of 10,000 years? I am mostly interested in the reasons why it might be 10,000 and not the 6,000 that the Bible indicates.

Helen gave an answer that will cause me to do some studying (LXX). Old Earthers can give me an answer that no one seems willing or able to give. That is, if Genesis is not to be taken literally, then what is the proper interpretation and why should I believe you?

 

[UTEOTW]

Just hitting a few highlights...

"Perhaps there were two original cat populations: one large and one small size."

Not possible. Remember the thread you started about the feline mutation that prevents them from having the ability to taste sweets?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/92.html?

This molecular evidence tells us that the large and small cats share a common ancestor.

"We know that when ecological niches are empty speciation is extraordinarily rapid. A year for guppies, fourteen for some lizards..."

Eleven years for guppies and fifteen for lizards.

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/1997fall/stories/horizons.html

Perhaps you are talking of a different study.

The case of the guppies was 18 generations. OK if you are talking about short generation times, but quite a problem if you are talking about animals that take longer to reach sexual maturity. For instance, you either had to have several species of sauropod stuffed onto the ark, with all of their food, or you almost have to have a new species per generation.

As for the lizards, thae article says that "Although the lizards changed quickly, the extent of the change after only 15 generations was not dramatic. "If I showed you pictures of the lizards you probably couldn't tell any difference," says Losos. "In fact, I didn't even see any difference when I was in the field." Only careful statistical analysis revealed the change." Not exactly the kind of changes you expect to see in going to a housecat and a cheetah from the sme ubercat.

Back to the guppies. The main change was in size and the males changed more quickly because they had "more genetic variability for this trait." There is no variability if you have only a single pair of animals.

"Keep in mind that before Peleg, Australia was joined to Asia..."

So you accept Pangaea? Do you accept Rodinia too? It is based on the same kind of evidence.

http://www.scotese.com/method1.htm

"volution says it took about a billion years for the first single celled organisms to evolve into a differentiated cell multicellular organism. Bacteria have a generation span..."

Yes, but...

There is more genetic diversity within bacteria alone than there is between a particular bacterium and a human. Here are some quotes on this subject I ran across from Dawkins (The Ancestor's Tale).

"If animals and plants are treated as a pair of kingdoms, by the same standards there are dozens of microbial 'kingdoms,' whose uniqueness entitles them to the same status as animals and plants."

"Bacteria taken as a group are the master chemists of this planet. Even the chemistry of our own cells is largely borrowed from bacterial guest workers, and it represents a fraction of what bacteria are capable of. Chemically, we are more similar to some bacteria than some bacteria are to other bacteria. At least as a chemist would see it, if you wiped out all life except bacteria, you'd still be left with the greater part of life's range."

The increase in genetic diversity required to give us humans from a single celled ancestor is less than the diversity found in all those bacteria.

"There is no intermediate fossil of land to sea animals, such as the whale. There are only interpretations of intermediate fossils, the majority of which are so far-fetched that you have to be a true evolution believer to be willing to accept them without having hysterics laughing."

So, in the competitive world of peer review, why didn't some of Gingerich's competitors point this out if it is such a stretch?

If the interpretation is wrong, the what is the alternative? Are these more and more "kinds" to be accomodated? And why do the other pieces of evidence line up so well? I am mostly concerned with the genetic testing that agress that whales form a clade with even toed ungulates, just as the fossils also say that they do, and with why whales have dozens of pseudogenes for the same sense of smell as land dwelling animals?

"As far as your questions regarding whales are concerned, keep in mind that these internal bits of bone have been defined by evolutionists to be pelvis, legs, etc., because they demand that evolution happened. The fact is that they are no more pelvis and legs than our arms are wings, despite we have the same basic design in terms of numbers of bones that bird wings have."

You did not mention the genetics nor the ontogeny.

There are quite a few papers that document fully formed legs on the rear of whales. These are not just "internal bits of bone."

Andrews, R. C. (1921) "A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale." Amer. Mus. Novitates. No. 9.

Zembskii, V. A. and Berzin, A. A. (1961) "On the rare phenomenon of atavism in the sperm whale." Nauchnye Doklady Vysshei Shkoly. Series "Biologicheskie Nauki."

Nemoto, T. (1963) "New records of sperm whales with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. No. 17.

Ogawa, R. and Kamiya, T. A. (1957) "Case of the cachalot with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. No. 12.

Abel, O. (1908) "Die Morphologie der Huftbeinrudimente der Cetaceen." Denkschr. Math. Naturw. Klasse Kaiserl. Aka. Wiss. Vol. 81.

Berzin, A. A. (1972) The Sperm Whale. Pacific Scientific Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. Available from the U. S. Dept. of Commerce, national Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.

Hall, B. K. (1984) "Developmental mechanisms underlying the formation of atavisms." Biol. Rev. 59: 89-124.

Sleptsov, M. M. (1939) "On the asymmetry of the skull of Odontoceti." Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 18: 3.

Here is a picture of the leg bones from the first citation.

http://www.talkreason.com/img/macroevolution/whale_leg.jpg

Here are drawings of the pelvis of a whale along with some vestigal legs from a dissection.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/ENLRGRT2.JPG

"Every time there is a separation of a sub-population from a parent population, due to migration or catastrophe, or whatever, and a new variety emerges, that new population carries a much reduced gene pool than the original population did."

But there is no gene pool when you are starting at a bottleneck of only two individuals.

Yes, I know your standard answer of there not being one gene per trait. Here is a link to my response from the last time.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/92/3.html#000033

 

[Helen]

fine, one cat population. That is fine with me.

Different guppy study. I remember one year. The study I remember was not one of size but one of coloration. There are quite a few guppy generations in one year!


If you had read Barry's work the way you said you had then you would know that he references the Biblical authority of one beginning land mass (Gen. 1:9).

More diversity between various bacteria than between bacteria than humans?

Yeah...right...

Dawkins is not someone I would quote if I were you. I can give you quotes of his that indicate that he is willing to buck any evidence at all in order to support his ideas of evolution, not to mention his invention of 'memes.'

Peer review -- the peers are those supporting the views of the editors. This is not even debatable! You are arguing either from deliberate ignorance or dragging more red herrings!

In the meantime, you have hijacked this thread enough. I've gotten mixed up with you more times than I want to count. I KNOW that you will not ever admit you might be wrong, so my main point in responding to you is to show other readers where you are mistaken. This thread has gone on for so many pages now, I doubt more than a couple of other people are reading anymore. Thank you for providing the stage, though.

 

[UTEOTW]

"If you had read Barry's work the way you said you had then you would know that he references the Biblical authority of one beginning land mass."

I have. That's why I pointed out that you accept Pangea. There have been multiple large land masses. The question was whether you accepted the data for all of them or just the last one? There was a link provided that tells how geologists piece together the continents in the past.

"More diversity between various bacteria than between bacteria than humans?

Yeah...right..."

You don't like Dawkins. How about a college biology course.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/bactage.html

"As nucleotide sequences began to be accumulated for bacterial genomes, it became obvious that the bacteria encompass two groups (True Bacteria and Archaea) and that the genetic diversity within each group far exceeds the diversity among the multicellular organisms!

This observation is demonstrated graphically below. The lines represent evolutionary relationships of the various groups among the three evolutionary domains - Bacteria, Archaea and Eucarya. The genetic distance between any two groups is shown as the length of the lines between those two groups. Thus, it is easy to see that plants and animals (an oak tree and you) are much more closely related than are methanobacteria and green sulfur bacteria."

"Peer review -- the peers are those supporting the views of the editors. This is not even debatable! You are arguing either from deliberate ignorance or dragging more red herrings!"

No. Just asking why those most familiar with the work do not raise these criticisms but others with far less knowledge of the subject matter do raise them?

But I am still curious why the genetic data supports the fossil data if hte fossil data is worthless? Both the genetic data that shows whales as part of hte same clade as even toed ungulates and the land animal sense of smell psuedogenes.

"In the meantime, you have hijacked this thread enough."

I think I have only responded to others claims. If subjects outside of the topic of the thread were introduced, they did so. I may have helped it along a bit.

"I KNOW that you will not ever admit you might be wrong, so my main point in responding to you is to show other readers where you are mistaken. "

Most of those who involve themselves in this debate are unlikely to change their minds. You purpose is to show where you think I am mistaken just as I am try to show where I think others are mistaken. If nothing else, I hope to eliminate some of the sillier remarks from the debate and to give any lurkers something to think about. At the least, our opposing opinions can serve as a foil for each other. You are one of the few well informed people who join these debates which always makes it more interesting. I might claw my eyes out if I read one more post about entropy or moon recession.

 

[yeshua4me2]

See why i stopped.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Helen:
Place here smells like a fish factory with all the red herrings Petrel and UTE are dragging around!

Going up to the top of page 13, if this is off it, and down from there, here are some points:

1. "Kind" is not a matter of being morphologically similar nearly as much as being able to interbreed and hybridize. THAT is the clue to being in the same kind. Perhaps there were two original cat populations: one large and one small size. The large cats can all hybridize today and so can the small cats. This is the mark of being in the same kind. The fact that there are intermediate size cats, such as the bobcat does give credence to the possibility that all felines came from an original population.

Well, I'd call that convenient, arbitrary, and a red herring.

It's a red herring because when you talk about ability to hybridize, what you are doing is speaking of genetic similarity while calling it something else. Two species are able to breed if they are genetically similar enough. If the evolutionary history since they diverged separates them too much, they will become too genetically dissimilar and will then be unable to breed.

All of which is very convenient for you, because the definition is incapable of being proven incorrect--it's a logical tautology. If I show you closely related species which are unable to interbreed, then you just move one of them to a new kind.

For instance, if we take the evidence of genetic similarity to determine relatedness (which you obviously accept to a certain extent), we reach the unsurprising conclusion that foxes and dogs are related. However, good luck crossbreeding a red fox and a dog--red foxes have 36 chromosomes and dogs 78. Suddenly all of the genetic evidence that shows wolves and similar canines are related gets tossed out the door and a new type is made up. And then lets consider the foxes more closely. Anyone looking at them would think they are related, and their DNA says that they are, but most of them are incapable of hybridization because their chromosome numbers vary from 36 to 72. So suddenly we have about six ancestral fox types.

So since you accept genetic evidence of relatedness to a certain extent, drawing a line with hybridization is arbitrary and indefensible. I'd appreciate a clear defense stating why it is sensible to draw the line here, rather than a cyclical argument.

(Nifty page.)

 

[Helen]

The ability to hybridize has been a standard mark of the baramin, or kind, since the first baraminology conference, which I attended, five or six years ago. It is nothing I made up.

It is what marks the camel, dromedary, alpaca, etc. as one kind. It is what marks the horse and zebra as one kind. It is what marks the dog, coyote, and wolf as one kind.

It has nothing to do with the theoretical nonsense of one common ancestor, but rather with the current evidence of the Biblical statement of breeding according to kind. It is not a comprehensive delineation, but it is a good start.

Your sarcasm notwithstanding.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

So "Baramin" or "kind" is defined as that which can interbreed or at least make hybreds?

What about whiptail lizards, that do not even use sex for breeding, so that they can't even apply the test? Is every seperate whiptail lizard a seperate "kind"?

 

[Helen]

If you read my post, Paul, I said that the check via hybridization was not comprehensive, but it was a good beginning. I'm not good at playing your games. In fact, I'm sick of them.

Common sense is a wonderful thing. Try it sometime.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

The "games", as you call them, are exercises in sharpening our reasoning. Common sense would say of course, whiptail lizards are really all one kind, and that means the test of hybred is not all inclusive, and it also means we are without a true final definition of "kind" yet, which means we have no way to use that idea scientifically.

It seems like common sense to me to make sure the ideas we bandy about are capable of sharply defined definition.

 

[Helen]

Great.

Please give me the sharply defined definitions of

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus

go for it.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Oh, those are all kinds! Yes, they are the descending various kinds that life follows, each in its turn, as life evolved. I think it would be a common sense thing to say that even evolution theory agrees with the biblical statement that each reproduces from the other according to its kind, when we recognize that these are all "kinds".

But I know what you're saying here. When it comes to kingdoms, can we even say how many kingdoms there are? When it comes to bacteria, does it make sense to try to draw up species, given the way they'll exchange genes between such divergent appearing individuals?

The whole classification scheme originally put out by Linnaeus is only an aproximation of the currently drawn family tree that evolutionists are using these days. Biologists are in debate as to whether to change the classification scheme to bring it up to date. Based, of course, on their desire to have a common-sense based consistency between the theory of evolution and the classification scheme. Its a matter of details that we laymen don't really care about, a matter of using words only, not affecting the underlying truths that the science is aware of.

ANYWAY, it seems to me that regardless, the whiptail lizard example shows we need to ultimately consider a "kind" to be based on genetic similarity, that's really all we've got to go by.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

So what has that got to do with the age of the earth 6,000 to 10,000 years old which is closer, I believe is the original question?

 

[Petrel]

Helen, first of all, I apologize for saying you saw no use for secular science. I was thinking of a different thread and when I checked it I saw it was another poster who had said that secular science is all lies.

Originally posted by Helen:
The ability to hybridize has been a standard mark of the baramin, or kind, since the first baraminology conference, which I attended, five or six years ago. It is nothing I made up.

It is what marks the camel, dromedary, alpaca, etc. as one kind. It is what marks the horse and zebra as one kind. It is what marks the dog, coyote, and wolf as one kind.

It has nothing to do with the theoretical nonsense of one common ancestor, but rather with the current evidence of the Biblical statement of breeding according to kind. It is not a comprehensive delineation, but it is a good start.

Your sarcasm notwithstanding.

Actually, I was being completely serious in that post, not sarcastic at all.

I know that you did not personally make up the idea of kinds, but who made it up does not really change the fact that it is a tautology and it is arbitrary.

You cannot spurn common ancestry as "theoretical nonsense." You speak of kinds above as clades of similar organisms that can hybridize but do not come from the same initial created type of animal. Yet you speak elsewhere of the cats all descending from one or possibly two initial "kinds" of cats made at creation. If you are saying that there was an ancestral horse, an ancestral zebra, and an ancestral donkey created and God just made it so that they can all interbreed even though they aren't descended from a common ancestor, then you can go join JWI with his consistent but not really supportable idea of independent creation for every species. However, if you still support the idea of an ancestral type being created, you still need to explain your grounds for limiting common ancestry to species that are genetically similar enough to interbreed.

If hybridization is not the foolproof method of defining animals descended from an original kind, I think the dilemma of shared genes among dissimilar creatures warrants a closer look at what type of common ancestry is "allowable."

And if you are not joining JWI in cladism but still accept some level of common ancestry and evolution, perhaps you'd care to give me more reason why Volvox cannot have evolved from Chlamydomonas? After all, as Paul pointed out, hybridization isn't a very useful tool in defining kinds in creatures that reproduce chiefly asexually.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

This molecular evidence tells us that the large and small cats share a common ancestor.

Nope. It doesn't tell us anything. It simple lays there as a fact. You have interpretted it as proof of a common ancestor when it may simply be that God created them with a common trait. Nothing except your presuppositions contradict this.

 

[JWI]

Thanks to Petrel for recognizing that I believe in a seperate independent creation for every type of creature on Earth.

I am a simple person who cannot compete with all you more highly educated persons on this thread.

But I believe the word of God. As I said before, I believe the Bible to be straightforward. I believe it is meant to be understood by all. I also do not believe God is misleading. I believe the creation account to be literal.

It has just occured to me why the same persons who do not believe the creation account to be literal also do not believe that Noah's flood was worldwide. But clearly it was.

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

Here it clearly says the whole earth was covered.

" and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered."

It also says that all life that breathed air on the dry earth was destroyed, and that only Noah and those with him on the ark survived.

Yes, I believe in an independent creation for each individual type of animal. I think God created the lion, tiger, and housecat independently. And I believe that Noah had a male and female of each individual type of animal on the ark.

I do not believe in large cats and small cats coming from a common ancestor.

And if the story of Noah's ark is true, this cannot be. And those who believe in evolution know this, because then clearly all the different types of animals would have had to come from these two male and female on the ark.

If this were the case, then evolution would be a very fast process that has taken place in a matter of 5,000 years or so. And clearly this has not happened. If this were the case then evolution would be easily observable.

So, now you have another dilemma. Because you favor the theory of evolution you must not only discount the literal account of creation in Genesis, but you must also discount the literal account of Noah's flood.

That's quite a fix you're in.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
This molecular evidence tells us that the large and small cats share a common ancestor.

Nope. It doesn't tell us anything. It simple lays there as a fact. You have interpretted it as proof of a common ancestor when it may simply be that God created them with a common trait. Nothing except your presuppositions contradict this. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right. We must examine the range of facts that we observe, hypothysize an explanation and then test that hypothesis with additional observations. In this process, we often look for maximum parsimony. That would be the most simple explanation to fit the facts that are observed. Sometimes this process is referred to as applying Occam's razor.

So let me give you some possible explanations. You tell me which one is the most simple, why it is the most simple, reasons to exclude the other answers and what kinds of additional support we should find if your reason is true.

A) The cats with the mutation shared a common ancestor who had the mutation and it was passed down to the modern species.

B) The cat species in question belong to a feline "kind." What we are calling a mutation was an original part of the design and was passed down in the speciation process.

C) The cat species in question belong to a feline "kind." The mutation happened in the population of the orignal "kind" and was subsequently passed down.

D) The cat species in question belong to a feline "kind." The same mutation happened in each species after they had divided through speciation.

E) Each species of cat is a separate creation and they were created with the particular mutation.

F) Each species of cat is a separate creation and the same mutation happened in each separately.

G) Another explanation of your choosing.

Simple question. I beg you to answer.