Posted on 07/30/2011 9:55:01 PM PDT by Dominic01
What's your opinion about teaching the theory of evolution in public schools?
Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far:
Evolution should be taught in public schools. 39% Evolution should be taught along with creationism. 33% Creationism should be taught, not evolution. 24% I don't know.
I believe that public schools are an evolutionary dead end. They need to be put out of our misery and replaced with Freedom.
It certainly addresses the origins of man and life on this planet...
I thought so when I first started studying the subject but the TOE, common descent or however it is referred does not address the origin of life.
OK micro-evolution is real but after that we part ways.
Incidentally for a long time I thought they knew what they were talking about. Now it appears money and gov backing has corrupted things terribly.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
“It’s the best scientific explanation we have...”
Not exactly. Science can not ‘do’ history since it is not repeatable. On the other hand their is much known information which the gov, schools and media would like to keep from seeing the light of day.
See my prior post on this thread #65 for more info.
I’d guess you have not read much regarding either theory based upon your post.
See my prior post on this thread #65 for more info.
There is much more evidence for a young earth and universe than the gov, schools and media would like for you to see.
See my prior post on this thread #65 for more info.
I looked at your creationist site looking for a concise statement of the “theory of creationism”. I din’t see one, but I didn’t do a thorough search. Maybe you can point me to it so I can see if it’s falsifiable.
Also does it meet these other criteria?
“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”
Maybe you can comment on it.
“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”
Dr Walt Brown PhD [from the 2nd link in post 65] does provide plenty of information both on explaining observations and making predictions [see part II of creationscience.com]. In part I he simply lays out point by point what we do know w/ near certainty about evolution [hint: micro yes, macro no not enough time even w/ billions of years].
On your 1st point please remember the scientific method requires repeatability therefore neither creation nor evolution fall into the classical definition of true science. I don’t recall any stated formal creation theory per se, but Dr. Brown does explain his hydroplate theory [replaces plate tectonics]
Dr. Brown was basically looking at any/all evidence in support of the biblical account. Walt stated how many problems he found w/ integrity and outright fraud while formerly working as an evolutionary scientist. He then began an exhaustive re-examination of the Genesis story he was taught during his Methodist upbringing.
One of my favorite quotes he documents from Darwin himself was the need for [paraphrased] thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils or the TOE completely falls apart.
Dr. Brown includes lots of references both for and against evolution and paints the clearest picture yet. He was also greatly inspired by Whitcomb and Morris book “The Genesis Flood” iirc.
Also the hydroplate theory is the only plausible theory I know of that explains where all the water came from and went to regarding a global flood.
The theory of evolution is just another way for man to describe what’s been hidded he can’t figure out. God hides his ways from the wicked who are then left with their tainted and feeble minds to construct whatever their minds can conceive....regardless if facts can prove or not.
” I don’t recall any stated formal creation theory per se, but Dr. Brown does explain his hydroplate theory [replaces plate tectonics]”
Without a concisely stated theory you don’t have anything since how could you possibly test it. Simply criticizing another theory makes you a skeptic, not a proponent of another theory. If the creationists’ “theory” is what’s in Genesis then they should clearly state so. Then we could test it against reality, such as, was all of the universe really created in seven days 4000 some odd years ago? Was Noah really able to fit a pair of each species in the Ark? Were all the species that ever existed created then? And son on.
I don’t have any problem with someone critiquing a theory and pointing out its shortcomings. That’s all part of good science and how a theory is improved, and even discarded. Science is filled with such cases.
But I have tremendous problems with people who start with a dogmatic belief which they will not alter regardless of what contrary evidence is presented, and insist on calling it a scientific theory simply to insert themselves in the classroom in order to neutralize a legitimate theory that conflicts with their dogma. I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.
Now, the evolutionary theory may very well be incomplete or possibly wrong. I myself have a hard time believing some of it’s aspects, while in many cases it seems to make a lot of sense. But simply because it may be lacking doesn’t make somebody’s dogma right.
Ah please excuse me for answering so quickly and from memory rather than researching each and every of your concerns, and questions. How rude of me [/sarc]!
I provide you the links the least you could do is read them for yourself. What exactly have you read and what do you truly know or believe?
Such a load that I’m making ‘dogmatic’ claims, ‘inserting myself in the classroom’ and then you call evolution a legitimate theory. I’m so glad evolution never does any of those things! [sarc/]
You took 1 sentence from my rather lengthy post out of context in relation to all my other statements. What evolutionary theory?!?! Please show me just one - ha!
The point was no one can truly test creation nor evolution nor provide a formal scientific theory. Where is the evolution theory ever properly completely defined?
Did Darwin define one? Oh that’s right it depends upon who you ask and who you trust.
Where the rubber really meets the road -
PLEASE PLEASE show me evolution’s falsifiable tests for transitional forms?
You completely ignored the part where I told you neither is science because it is history 1st and foremost ~ neither one can be repeated / reproduced.
You want hard and fast theories than stick w/ hard science.
Evolution is not repeatable, contains more lies and outright fraud than all other scientific disciplines combined, and continually has to re-create not just goal-posts but all the rules of the game. Oh and please show me where the scientific method allows one to completely discard and continually dis-regard some/most of the collected datum?
Worst of all is the on-again/off-again evolutionary claim for origins. Most evolutionists today want to start w/ a single cell - poof - that’s 3 billion lines of living, self-reproducing, self-repairing code - rather than re-visit the failed ‘primordial soup theory.’
I never claimed to hold any reservations that public schools nor esp. higher education will allow any creation ideas to be fully explored. This is highly ironic since any scientist w/ integrity wanting to do true science has already dis-regarded the notion of macro-evolution.
Darwin saw a blob of tissue through his microscope over 150 year ago while Watson and Crick saw more complexity in a single cell’s DNA than all the rest of the known universe combined over 50 years ago. Since then the evolution bulb continually grows dimmer but not for want of the credentialed experts wanting to sell their ideas, books, and claim to fame.
Here’s another hint for you - mainstream anything today will not tell you of new facts/discoveries nor esp. concepts that conflict with their paradigms. Or if they are forced to they will include any disclaimers and made up just-so stories to quell the masses.
So it is really a question of cognitive dissonance ~ when science contradicts the bible which one do you consider as absolute truth and/or how far are you willing to roam off the mainstream reservation to find supporting facts, ideas and theories for the biblical accounts?
You concluded with: “I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.” and then the next thought shows how little research you have conducted for either ‘theory’ as you would like to call them.
From my purview there will always be loads of crappy arguments against rather than for the biblical account. Some prefer to be brain-washed by only reviewing one side of the ledger esp. when it is so full of supporting books, articles, documents, ‘facts’, and ‘science.’
Anyone reading this who cares about integrity will read the creationscience link and realize Dr. Brown does provide his hydroplate theory and includes predictions and tests for falsifying. Conversely anyone attempting to explain all of creation or evolution with a mere theory will always come up short.
I won’t hold my breathe waiting for you to read any of the creation links provided ~ I think I see where you butter your bread.
If you had done some true evolution-type research before spouting off w/
“But I have tremendous problems with people who start with a dogmatic belief which they will not alter regardless of what contrary evidence is presented, and insist on calling it a scientific theory simply to insert themselves in the classroom in order to neutralize a legitimate theory that conflicts with their dogma. I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.”
then you would have realized how well this describes supporters of evolution rather than detractors.
Who is dogmatic in their beliefs?
Who ignores contrary evidence?
Who insists they have a theory?
Who inserts themselves in the classroom?
How is it un-christian to defend the Bible and assail
anything 100% contradictory yet purporting to be truth?
You don’t seem to see the forest for the trees. Creationists are busy trying to disprove this aspect or that aspect of evolution not realizing that even if they prove that all of the theory is false IT DOESN’T PROVE CREATIONISM!!!
There’s one reason and one reason only why creationists object to the theory of evolution. It’s their dogmatic (by faith) literal belief in the bible. It’s for the same reason that the roman church jailed Galileo when he had the audacity to say that the earth was not at the center of the solar system - he went against their dogma.
I’m going to go on a limb and predict that you will deny this - i.e., that your main objection to evolution is because you believe in what’s in the bible. Many creationists I talked to do, and that’s the part that I find either disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, or simply blind to their own prejudice.
I’m an agnostic, and I don’t have any dogmatic attachment to evolution or any other theory. If you want to convince me that creationism is a valid scientific theory, first tell me what it is, and then provide scientific evidence that supports it. Telling me all the faults of the theory of evolution doesn’t cut it.
I think the part where scientists claim that we evolved from Lucy, or something very similar to her/him.
For the 3rd time now, neither one is science.
Also I don’t need to disprove evolution, true science has already done that in spades. Even though many ‘experts’ refuse to see and will continue for the foreseeable future.
I gave you links to show you what has been proven scientifically and how all those puzzle pieces fit easily with creation and the biblical account.
“I gave you links to show you what has been proven scientifically and how all those puzzle pieces fit easily with creation and the biblical account.”
I’m still waiting for you to tell me what the creationist theory is. Or, are you now saying that it is indeed Genesis the literal Genesis?
- That the universe, as it exists today, was created in seven earth days? And you have evidence for that?
- How long ago was that? Was it the 4000 or so odd years that a german monk (I think) calculated it to be? And you have evidence for that?
- And Noah, did indeed put a pair of every species of animals on his Ark? Again, how big was his ark? Oh and what about the trees, and the germs? And all the species that have been discovered in the last couple of thousands of years, that noah never knew they existed?
- And which came first chronologically, your belief that the world was created according to Genesis, or your Christian faith? How are the two related? And given your Christian faith could you ever believe in anything other than Genesis?
- Do you admit that the main reason you’re a creationist is because you’re a christian that believes that the bible is the literal word of god?
from AnswersinGenesis.org...
Caring for the Animals on the Ark
by John Woodmorappe
March 29, 2007
According to Scripture, Noah’s Ark was a safe haven for representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals that God created. While it is possible that God made miraculous provisions for the daily care of these animals, it is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles. Exploring natural solutions for day-to-day operations does not discount God’s role: the biblical account hints at plenty of miracles as written, such as God bringing the animals to the Ark (Genesis 6:20; 7:9, 15). It turns out that a study of existing, low-tech animal care methods answers trivial objections to the Ark.
In fact, many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.
How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?
According to the Bible, the Ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals (the maximum number of animals on the Ark, if the most liberal approach to counting animals is applied), assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) were small (the largest only a few hundred pounds of body weight). What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.
It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants and rhinos. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area because it is most likely that these animals were young, but not newborns. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.
What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?
Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.
It is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles for the provision and daily care of the animals on the Ark. Many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.
How Were the Animals Cared For?
We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Studies of non-mechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”
Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential.
Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
How Did the Animals Breathe?
Based on my two decades of research, I do not believe that anything more was needed than a basic, non-mechanical ventilation system. The density of animals on the Ark, compared to the volume of enclosed space, was much less than we find in some modern, mass animal housing used to keep stock raised for food (such as chicken farms), which requires no special mechanical ventilation.
It is reasonable to believe that one relatively small window would have adequately ventilated the Ark. Of course if there were a window along the top center section, which the Bible allows, all occupants would be even more comfortable. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further. However, if supplementary ventilation was necessary, it could have been provided by wave motion, fire thermal, or even a small number of animals harnessed to slow-moving rotary fans.
John Woodmorappe has been a researcher in the areas of biology, geology, and paleontology for over twenty years. He has two B.A. degrees and an M.A. in geology. John has also been a public school science teacher.
Let us begin by reaffirming that God’s Word does indeed reveal, in the plainest possible terms, that the whole globe was inundated with a violent, watery cataclysm—Noah’s flood. All land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures not on the ark perished and the world was re-populated by those surviving on the ark.
How Did the Animals Get to the Ark?
Skeptics paint a picture of Noah going to countries remote from the Middle East to gather animals such as kangaroos and koalas from Australia, and kiwis from New Zealand. However, the Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up (Genesis 6:20). God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done.
We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood. If there was only one continent at that time, then questions of getting animals from remote regions to the ark are not relevant.
Animal Distribution After the Flood
There are severe practical limitations on our attempts to understand the hows and whys of something that happened once, was not recorded in detail, and cannot be repeated.
Difficulties in our ability to explain every single situation in detail result from our limited understanding. We cannot go back in a time machine to check what has happened, and our mental reconstructions of what the world was like after the flood will inevitably be deficient. Because of this, the patterns of post-flood animal migration present some problems and research challenges for the biblical creation model. However, there are clues from various sources which suggest answers to the questions.
Clues from Modern Times
When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually colonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things.
Land Bridges
Evolutionists acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas.[1] Before the idea of continental drift became popular, evolutionists depended entirely upon a lowering of the sea level during an ice age (which locked up water in the ice) to create land bridges, enabling dry-land passage from Europe most of the way to Australasia, for example.
The existence of some deep-water stretches along the route to Australia is still consistent with this explanation. Evolutionist geologists themselves believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors, in the time period which they associate with an ice age. For instance, parts of California are believed to have been raised many thousands of feet from what was the sea floor during this ice age period, which they call “Pleistocene” (one of the most recent of the supposed geological periods). creationist geologists generally regard Pleistocene sediments as post-flood, the period in which these major migrations took place.
In the same way, other dry-land areas, including parts of these land bridges, subsided to become submerged at around the same time.[2]
There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved there. However, living marsupials, opossums, are found also in North and South America, and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent. Likewise, monotremes were once thought to be unique to Australia, but the discovery in 1991 of a fossil platypus tooth in South America stunned the scientific community.[3] Therefore, since evolutionists believe all organisms came from a common ancestor, migration between Australia and other areas must be conceded as possible by all scientists, whether evolutionist or creationist.
Creationists generally believe there was only one Ice Age after, and as a consequence of, the flood. The lowered sea level at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries. Some creationists propose a form of continental break-up after the flood, in the days of Peleg. This again would mean several centuries for animals to disperse, in this instance without the necessity of land-bridges. However, continental break-up in the time of Peleg is not widely accepted in creationist circles.
Did the Kangaroo Hop All the Way to Australia?
How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are sometimes asked mockingly, “Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?” We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question.
Kangaroo
Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world.
We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the flood. Kangaroos (as is true for any other creature) may not have been on any isolated landmass. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one landmass. (”Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”) For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone’s throw of Noah while he was building the Ark.
It may be asked, if creatures were migrating to Australia over a long time (which journey would have included such places as indonesia, presumably) why do we not find their fossils en route in such countries?
Fossilization is a rare event, requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the flood) to prevent decomposition. Lions lived in israel until relatively recently. We don’t find lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesn’t prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. The millions of bison that once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no fossils. So why should it be a surprise that small populations, presumably under migration pressure from competitors and/or predators, and thus living in only one area for a few generations at most, should leave no fossils?
Unique Organisms
Another issue is why certain animals (and plants) are uniquely found in only one place. Why is species x found only in madagascar and species y only in the Seychelles? Many times, questions on this are phrased to indicate that the questioner believes that this means that species y headed only in that one direction, and never migrated anywhere else. While that is possible, it is not necessarily the case at all. All that the present situation indicates is that these are now the only places where x or y still survive.
The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in different parts of the world, most of which subsequently became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than “random” processes in choice of destination), and were subsequently isolated from the placentals, and so protected from competition and predation.
Palm Valley in central Australia is host to a unique species of palm, Livingstonia mariae, found nowhere else in the world. Does this necessarily mean that the seeds for this species floated only to this one little spot? Not at all. Current models of post-flood climate indicate that the world is much drier now than it was in the early post-flood centuries. Evolutionists themselves agree that in recent times (by evolutionary standards), the sahara was lush and green, and central Australia had a moist, tropical climate. For all we know, the Livingstonia mariae palm may have been widespread over much of Australia, perhaps even in other places which are now dry, such as parts of Africa.
The palm has survived in Palm Valley because there it happens to be protected from the drying out which affected the rest of its vast central Australian surroundings. Everywhere else, it died out.
Incidentally, this concept of changing vegetation with changing climate should be kept in mind when considering post-flood animal migration—especially because of the objections (and caricatures) which may be presented. For instance, how could creatures that today need a rain forest environment trudge across thousands of miles of parched desert on the way to where they now live? The answer is that it wasn’t desert then!
The Koala and Other Specialized Types
Some problems are more difficult to solve. For instance, there are creatures that require special conditions or a very specialized diet, such as the giant panda of China or Australia’s koala. We don’t know, of course, that bamboo shoots or blue gum leaves[4] were not then flourishing all along their eventual respective migratory paths. In fact, this may have influenced the direction they took.
But, in any case, there is another possibility. A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation. A good example is the many modern breeds of dog, selected by man (although natural conditions can do likewise), which are much less hardy in the wild than their “mongrel” ancestors. For example, the St. Bernard carries a mutational defect, an overactive thyroid, which means it needs to live in a cold environment to avoid overheating.
This suggests that the ancestors of such creatures, when they came off the Ark, were not as specialized. Thus they were more hardy than their descendants, who carry only a portion of that original gene pool of information.[5] In other words, the koala’s ancestor may have been able to survive on a much greater range of vegetation. Such an explanation has been made possible only with modern biological insights. Perhaps as knowledge increases some of the remaining difficulties will become less so.
Such changes do not require large time periods for animals under migratory pressure. The first small population that formed would tend to break up rapidly into daughter populations, going in different directions, each carrying only a portion of the gene pool of the original pair that came off the ark.
Sometimes all of a population will eventually become extinct; sometimes all but one specialized type. Where all the sub-types survive and proliferate, we find some of the tremendous diversity seen among some groups of creatures which are apparently derived from one created kind. This explains why some very obviously related species are found far apart from each other.
The sloth, a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require much more time than Scripture allows to make the journey from Ararat to its present home. Perhaps its present condition is also explicable by a similar evolutionary process. However, to account for today’s animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have traveled across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.[6] Indeed, iguanas have recently been documented traveling hundreds of miles in this manner between islands in the caribbean.[7]
The Bible suggests a pattern of post-flood dispersal of animals and humans that accounts for fossil distribution of apes and humans, for example. In post-flood deposits in Africa, ape fossils are found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the flood, whereas the Bible indicates that people refused to do this (Genesis 9:1, 11:1-9). Human dispersal did not start until Babel, some hundreds of years after the flood. Such a delay would have meant that some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the apes.[8]
We may never know the exact answer to every one of such questions, but certainly one can see that the problems are far less formidable than they may at first appear.[9] Coupled with all the biblical, geological, and anthropological evidence for noah’s flood, one is justified in regarding the Genesis account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable.[10] Not only that, but the biblical model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions.
Footnotes
S.A. Elias, S.K. Short, C.H. Nelson, and H.H. Birks, “Life and Times of the Bering Land Bridge,” Nature, 1996, 382:60-63.
Note that the region around the north of Australia to Southeast asia is a tectonically active part of the world.
Anon., “Platypus Tooth Bites Hard into Long-held Beliefs,” Creation, 1992, 14(1):13, based on an article in New Scientist, August 24, 1991. A platypus is a monotreme (an egg-laying mammal).
Actually, the koala can eat other types of gum leaves. Australia has around 500 species of eucalypt (gum) trees. Koalas eat the leaves of about 20 species, with the blue gum a favorite. Recent work has shown that the koala’s insistence on eucalypt is actually an addiction to certain chemicals in the leaf which it first eats in the mother’s milk. Bottle-raised koalas can survive on a non-eucalypt diet (see CEN Technical Journal 8(2):126). Also, the giant panda, which normally only eats bamboo shoots, has been known to eat small animals occasionally.
See Origin of Races for an example of the way in which a very light-skinned “race” deriving from a mid-brown one is missing some of the information in the parent population.
Anon., “Hitchhiking Lemurs,” Creation, 1993, 15(4):11, commenting on J. Tattersall, “Madagascar’s Lemurs,” Scientific American, 1993, 268(1):90-97.
Anon., “Surfing Lizards Wipe Out Objections,” Creation, 1999, 21(2):8.
Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, paleoanthropologist, on the video, The Image of God, Keziah Videos.
In recent literature about some of the problems of animal distribution, even within an evolutionary framework, there has been an occasional suggestion that early man may have been a much better boat-builder and navigator than previously thought. Various types of animals may thus have accompanied people on boats across the sea. This should be kept in mind as a possibility in some instances. Animals brought in this way to a new continent may have prospered, even though the accompanying people did not stay, or perished.
For further reading: J. Whitcomb and H. Morris, The Genesis Flood, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1961); J. Woodmorappe, “Causes for the Biogeographic Distribution of Land Vertebrates After the Flood,” Proc. Second ICC, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990, pp. 361-367.
Related questions
Could Noah’s Ark have really held all the animals preserved in the Flood? Answer
Does the Bible claim that the Flood of Noah covered the entire Earth? Answer
Noah’s Flood - Where did the water come from? Answer
Noah’s Flood - Where did the water go afterwards? Answer
[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]
Edited by Don Batten, Ph.D. / Authors: Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, adapted from The Revised & Expanded Answers Book (Master Books, 2000).
Text supplied by Creation Ministries International
Text copyright © 1996, 1999, 2000, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 1999, 2005, Eden Communications
www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200
Gilbert AZ 85299
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.