My creation/evolution theory

[zoegirl]

For example I believe marsupials are a post flood adaptation from the regular placental creatures. A marsupial mole is the same thing as a placental mole. I accept therefore great adaptation within kind. Likewise this YEC guy accepts whales are a land based animal that only adapted to water after the flood.
All the best

How in the world can you dismiss natural selection as the means for change and yet in the very same sentence declare that marsupials "adapted" from placental mammals and whales adapted to water after the flood?!?!?

What is your method for this adaptation if not adaptation based on physiological matches to the environment that allow some animals to reproduce more than others? ?

YOu statements are contradictory and really show that you simply dismiss things purely because you want them to be wrong. You hear selection and immediatley dismiss it because of its connotations and yet allow for some mysterious adaptation that would require change on a incredibly fast time scale, faster indeed than any evolutionist theorizes.

[Robert Byers]

For example I believe marsupials are a post flood adaptation from the regular placental creatures. A marsupial mole is the same thing as a placental mole. I accept therefore great adaptation within kind. Likewise this YEC guy accepts whales are a land based animal that only adapted to water after the flood.
All the best

How in the world can you dismiss natural selection as the means for change and yet in the very same sentence declare that marsupials "adapted" from placental mammals and whales adapted to water after the flood?!?!?

What is your method for this adaptation if not adaptation based on physiological matches to the environment that allow some animals to reproduce more than others? ?

YOu statements are contradictory and really show that you simply dismiss things purely because you want them to be wrong. You hear selection and immediatley dismiss it because of its connotations and yet allow for some mysterious adaptation that would require change on a incredibly fast time scale, faster indeed than any evolutionist theorizes.

Yet Zoegirl I do.
I insist natural selection did not bring changes to creatures by reproductive results and all that jazz.
Adaptation did happen and therefore the mechanism has not been discovered.
I wrote an essay called "Post Flood Marsupial migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
I demonstrate that same shaped creatures are the same. I don't present mechanism but see it as innate and related to stresses. I see marsupialism as simply a response to maintain production for creatures moving quickly to repopulate the farthest places from where the Ark settled.
My essay, if you read it, will introduce you to facts you never imagined. However its simple enough.
The bibles boundaries and the data in the physical world forces conclusions that must overthrow other conclusions.

[zoegirl]

Ah yes, the double standard rears its ugly head. I am expected to read *your* links but you get to conveniently ignore any and all of my links and evidence, dismissing them completely without refuting them.

However, as I am quite willing to investigate matters, I found your paper and posted it below.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most common criticisms that creationists face is that the exclusive marsupial fauna of the Australian region appears to be great evidence against the story of the Ark and animal migration from it.

The fact that only marsupial creatures (excepting rodents, birds, reptiles and insects) and no placental animals live in Australia creates problems for the creationist claim that all dry land animals migrated from the Ark 4500 hundred years ago. How could just the marsupials migrate exclusively to Australia and no other kinds like lions, wolves, rabbits, or moles?

Creationists must address this important matter because it appears logical and evolutionists often cite it. We must be able to give good answers to all questions based on our confidence in the Bible as the accurate account of beginnings. These answers can be interesting and even advance studies in biogeography and biology. A careful examination of fossil and living creatures does provide a persuasive answer that all creationists can boldly and simply assert.

The marsupial nature of Australia is not an anomaly but rather a revelation of the true history of animal migration and adaptation after leaving the Ark. It suits creationists fine.

MARSUPIAL HISTORY A NEW EQUATION

The exclusive marsupial history of Australia need not be an anomaly of animal migration from the Biblical Ark but rather indicates that a new equation needs to be introduced.

I will first list the way science organizes present and past mammals.

Science organizes them according to shared body structure attributes that they believe indicate a common origin for each group. It is the inner skeleton or biological workings that they say indicate relationships of mammals. Other then this they have no evidence of evolution. It is all interpretation of what can be observed in living and fossil mammals.

Wow, what a grand generalization you make. Dismissing the classification scheme completely (without discussing your reasoning. And completely ignoring fossil evidence and DNA evidence.

Now let us examine a selection of the numerous examples of similar creatures from different ancestors as evolution teaches. Modern evolutionary biology and palaeontology teaches that mammals can be divided into great orders, representing present living creatures or others only known by the fossil record. Many of these orders are now extinct as far as evolutionists see it. According to them, all lived from the time of the demise of the dinosaurs to present. Evolutionary geology sees that to be the Cretaceous-Tertiary time division, about 60 million years ago. Creationists view this to be the time after the creatures left the Ark, about 4500 years ago. An order is a division of creatures that, by its body evidence, is believed to have a common ancestor. In the mammal world, this common ancestor was an original, non-descript, rodent-like creature. An order is then divided up by families and then by species.

You've forgotten genus

The animal orders we know today include placental mammals. The orders of placental mammals will not be discussed. They include all present bears, cats (big or small) dogs (big or small), horses, camels, elephants, rhinos, hippos, hyena, tapirs, gazelles, rabbits, moles and all the rest. What is of interest are the non-placental orders found today and in the fossil record.

1. One order known only from the fossil record covered the whole world except for South America and Australia. It is called Creodonta. This order had bear, dog, cat, hyena, and wolverine shaped creatures, amongst others.

2. Another order called Archtocyonia, known only from the fossil record lived in Asia and North America and had bear, dog, and hyena shaped creatures.

3. An order known only from the fossil record called Pantodonta lived in Asia and had bear, tapir, hippo shaped creatures etc.

4. An order mostly known from fossils but include some living forms is called Hyracoidea. These are found living in Asia and had animals shaped like horses, tapirs, and rabbits.

5. An order called Litopterna lived in South America known only from the fossil record had animals shaped like horses, camels, gazelles, rhinos etc.

6. An order called Pyrotheria that lived in South America found only in the fossil record was shaped like elephants.

7. An order known only from the fossil record is called Notounguta. It is found in South America and had animals shaped like horses, rhinos, rabbits, rodents.

8. The order of Marsupialla known from fossil and living animals had representatives in both South America and Australia. In South America there were marsupials shaped like dogs, cats, otters, rabbits, jerboas and kangaroo rats. Also, in Australia in fossil or living form Marsupials were shaped like cats, dogs, moles, mice and others.

In the above descriptions of animals is found the great explanation that is promoted today in evolutionary biology and palaeontology. They call it “convergent evolution.” According to this idea, over long time periods, natural selection causes the same forms of animals to evolve from unrelated ancestors. In every case, they trace the ancestry from an unrelated non-descript rodent size animal. This is the only explanation for the similarity of shape of creatures they insist must be unrelated according to evolution. While looking alike, a placental mole and a marsupial mole have a different reproduction system.

It is not the only explanation. You really to to be clearer and not generalize. Evolutionists accept that an alternative hypothesis would be that a placental mole and a marsupial mole could have evolved from a common ancestor. They dismiss that hypothesis due to the evidence they have. COnvergent evolution was simply one of the hypotheses and the evidence caused them to dismiss the others and accept convergent.

The problem is that this is actually a definition masquerading as an explanation. Giving a phenomenon an evolutionary name does not explain the phenomenon.

In the present orders and the eight orders of animals listed above we can constantly find bear, dog, cat, horse-like creatures appearing in orders of animals that are said to be completely unrelated. This is a most striking thing about the fossil record and about the marsupial situation in Australia today.

The whole landmass of the earth was as it is like in Australia today. It had creatures exactly like creatures elsewhere but totally unrelated according to evolutionary theory.

A totally unsupported statment. You NEED TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR GENERAL STATEMENTS LIKE THESE.

Creationists have a better explanation for the observation that unrelated creatures share similar characteristics. The reason also for the seeming anomaly of an almost exclusive marsupial fauna in Australia today can likewise be explained from a creationist model.

The evolutionary idea is wrong and unnecessary as an explanation. The remarkable similarity of creatures in the fossil record (yet said to be unrelated orders) is better explained by saying that they are designed as the same creatures after all. There has been no “convergent evolution” on such a major and repeating scale but rather these animals with similar morphology are the same kind from the same pair off the Ark. After the migration from the Ark minor or micro-evolution by environmental influences brought relatively minor changes to the geographically separated descendents. These changes would of affected all the creatures in that area in the same way.

So, again, you do not elaborate on your statments. Care to explain?

The small differences in bone structures or reproduction, as in the case of the marsupials, that are used to separate same-shaped animals are not convincing or even prompting evidence of different original ancestors. Instead these changes are only an adaptation to local areas by the same creatures from the same parents from the Ark. Different areas produced different results and this affected all the animals in that area. The animals in that area are not related by their adaptation but only had similar adaptation.

Ok, so what are you saying about the marsupial mole and the placental mole? You seem to be mixing up your examples. In one part of your paper you want to discuss the differences between marsupial and placental. And now you simply are discussing the differences between marsupials

For example: The above descriptions show five orders of unrelated animals (evolution says) Present, Creodonta, Arctocyonia, Pantodont, that each had a bear like creature. These orders covered the world at some point in the past. We as creationists can confidently and simply assert that these are not different orders but instead the same bear kind (from the pair off the Ark) with just different adaptations due to time and place. Only the present bear still exists.

So are you asserting that all of the different apecies of bears today (polar, grizzly, black bear, honey ber, sloth bear....) came from one bear kind form the Ark? In which case, you better start agreeing with selection because that is what you must support

The evolutionist must say these orders are unrelated bear-shaped not the same bear but bear-shaped creatures that evolved from natural selection from different ancestors. This is indeed remarkable! As the list above shows this is a constant theme in the fossil record.

In like manner, all these orders have bear, dog, cat, tapir, horse, hippo, rhino, wolverine, rabbit shaped creatures that creationists insist are from the same ancestor straight off the Ark. These are not actually different orders of different animals with different ancestors but instead the same kind of animals as elsewhere with variation due to area.

Now let's examine the South American fossils. These creatures were much like horses, camels, rhinos, and even elephants. Evolution says there is no relation between them and our present ones and evolutionists would have you believe that convergence created this similarity of form. Note that they do not explain how this could happen; they simply give it by definition.

Absolutely they explain how convergent evolution happened (although you are greatly misrepresenting the evidence from the fossil record. Remeber, because of continental drift, animals can migrate and we can find fossils all over the continents in the same place). COnvergent evolution occurs because two population live in the same environment and are under the same selctive pressures. The marsupial mole and the placental mole would have similar body shape Because of the underground life creating selecvtive pressures to produce the shape of the mole.

Horse and elephant shaped creatures appearing in different parts of the world with no biological relationship between them at all is an astonishing concept.

No they would say that they do come from the same area and migration took place from the continental drift. Convergent evolution is a mechanism that explains organism that are otherwise compeltely unlike each other. (placentas versus pouches)

To say that rather the relationships between creatures is determined by minor bone structures or reproduction styles is not just unproven but unreasonable. Yet that is what evolutionary biology and palaeontology teaches in all their literature.

If you are referring again to the marsupial mole and the placental mole, the reproductive styles are more than just minor!!!

The best explanation is that these South American horse and elephant shaped creatures are in fact the same horse and elephant as our present ones and have the same lineage back to an original pair coming off the Ark. To say that they are a different order on some minor but common characteristics by where they have been found has been the error of present evolutionary biology.

Um, so if the landmass of the earth is just as it was after the flood, care to explain how these animals reached the farthest regions of the globe???

Now let us examine the presumed marsupial anomaly in Australia.

Using the same line of reasoning, creationists can boldly say the Marsupial creatures of Australia are simply the same creatures as elsewhere on the earth now or in the past. The wolf and cat (now extinct) and mole shaped marsupials of Australia are the relatives of wolfs, cats, and moles elsewhere on the earth now and in the past. All are the descendents of the original pairs from off the Ark; likewise the other marsupial creatures of Australia are relatives of past creatures elsewhere on earth either extinct or extant.

The marsupial creatures are not related to each other because they are marsupial. (That's irrelevant). That is just an adaptation or a continuation of some ancient adaptation due to the environment.



Marsupials are the same creatures that filled the earth elsewhere after the Flood. Australia is not a strange aberration to creationists but rather the marsupials are a revelation a greater story or equation of post flood migration and adaptation.

Again, pure assertion, generalizations, and rejection of statements without refuting them.

SUMMARY:

Creation theory has an equal and even more plausible explanation for the seeming anomaly marsupial concentration and exclusivity of Australia in the present and past as indicated by the fossil record. In addition, an equal and also more plausible explanation exists for similar animal groupings in the past, shown in the fossil record, who looked similar to present and past creatures elsewhere but said to be unrelated by modern science. This second matter is not so well known by the public and even well-read creationists.

Present evolutionary biology and palaeontology contends that over great lengths of time natural selection brought about same kind of creatures at different times on different parts of the world from totally unrelated non descript rodent like creatures. These include bear, dog, cat, horse, and elephant shaped creatures with no biological relation whatsoever evolved in numerous places around the world from different ancestral tiny creatures. They call it called convergent evolution. This is a great theme in evolutionary biology.

Actually, you really overstate the case for convergent evolution. Most of what you are describing is simply divergent evolution (you are noticing the similar animals in the fossil record that have diverged from each other to produce the different order) COnvergent evolution is the mechanism reserved for organisms that are vastly different from each other internally and yet have otherwise similar structures. Another example would be two plants that have different genetics and yet, because they both grow in the desert, have similar morphology.

Is this a challenge to scientists in terms of understanding their possible descent? Sometimes. But there are reasons for them grouping plants and animals the way they do and most scientists are honest about possible alternative hypotheses.

Creationists can confidently present a better argument than before for the suitability of present and past animal distribution based on a model accepting the Biblical flood and its aftermath animal dispersal.

Except for the fact that you are not clear in your understanding your opponents arguements. YOu really cannot confidently present a better arguement if you are misrepresenting the opposing arguments.

The fossil record shows same shaped creatures in different areas of the world with minor differences. These creatures while shaped like other creatures in the world have minor similarities to each other in each particular area that they live in. And so a bear and cat shaped creature would have a similar ear bone arrangement or foot arrangement in that area. And while evolution will say that the ear or foot arrangement indicates common ancestry, creation theory can on contrary contend these creatures are just bears and cats the same as elsewhere who due to some influence in the area, adapted some minor ear or foot arrangement. All bear and cat creatures descended from the pairs from the Ark.

So basically this entire paper is simply to say (over and over and over again) that all of the animals were distinct creations. So how is the world is this new to creation science??!?!?!? You have basically said that all animals came from distinct parental pairs from the ark. YOu occasionally throw a bone to microevolution, but insist that everything is simply from the original pair. Your paper brings nothing new to the table other than to misuse evolutionary terms , theories, and mechanisms.

This all leads to the seeming anomaly of Australia with its exclusive marsupial fauna. Australia is not an aberrant anomaly but rather a revelation of the true story or equation of post flood animal migration and adaptation.

Except fo rthe fact that you have not really provided any theory on the migration aspect

These minor similarities of marsupials and bone structures in the creatures of Australia are irrelevant as to their origin and ancestral relationship. The origin and relationship of these creatures is the same as all creatures similarly shaped elsewhere on the earth now or in the past. Marsupial dogs and cats are the same kinds as regular dogs and cats, and likewise related to dogs and cats (in the fossil record but now extinct) also with minor regional body differences that lived in certain places on earth.

MOre of the same...complete dismissal with no arguments, huge generalizations.

[quote="Only the marsupial mole, same as the placental mole elsewhere hints at the common adaptations after the flood.[/quote] And you really have STILL not explained a mechanism for this mysterious "common adaptation"!!!!

The marsupial creatures of Australia are the absolute same ones as elsewhere that filled the earth after the flood. The same body type is the evidence of ancestry and not minor matters as reproduction. The present attempt of science to group animals and their relationships by reproduction methods or minor bone structures has been the error of modern evolutionary biology and palaeontology.

To the organized creationist community I make this contribution believing that it is true. Yet also believing a previous problem can be turned into an exciting example to creationists, Christians, and the scientific world how faith in the accuracy of the Bible and study of what data there is can place creation theory in the forefront and eye to eye with the truth of origins with anybody.

ROBERT BYERS

TORONTO, ONTARIO

[Canuckster1127]

So Teacher? Care to offer a grade for this student's paper?

Here's a stub for a letter home for the concerned parents,

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Byers,

Please find attached a paper Robert recently turned in in my class along with the comments I offered for him.

Robert appears to be very bright and has the ability to communicate his thoughts well in writing. Were this an English Class the paper would have received a passing grade. However, as this is a science class and a large part of what we are looking for relates to the material in the class and not just the student's ability to give their own unsupported thoughts, I'm returning this paper to you and asking if you could give Robert some assistance in understanding why he needs to rewrite it and this time support what he wishes to say with clear evidence drawn from the material in the class. I asked him to do this once before, but while he did rewrite the paper, he just rearranged what he said earlier, repeated it and appears to have missed the point entirely as to how to make a case with well supported statements.

Robert is very enthusiastic and always willing to share his thoughts with the class. If you'd please follow-up and assist him in this area, I think he will be much happier with the results when he tries to communicate with others.

Sincerely,

[zoegirl]

So Teacher? Care to offer a grade for this student's paper?

Here's a stub for a letter home for the concerned parents,

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Byers,

Please find attached a paper Robert recently turned in in my class along with the comments I offered for him.

Robert appears to be very bright and has the ability to communicate his thoughts well in writing. Were this an English Class the paper would have received a passing grade. However, as this is a science class and a large part of what we are looking for relates to the material in the class and not just the student's ability to give their own unsupported thoughts, I'm returning this paper to you and asking if you could give Robert some assistance in understanding why he needs to rewrite it and this time support what he wishes to say with clear evidence drawn from the material in the class. I asked him to do this once before, but while he did rewrite the paper, he just rearranged what he said earlier, repeated it and appears to have missed the point entirely as to how to make a case with well supported statements.

Robert is very enthusiastic and always willing to share his thoughts with the class. If you'd please follow-up and assist him in this area, I think he will be much happier with the results when he tries to communicate with others.

Sincerely,

[Robert Byers]

Zoegirl
Thank you for reading my essay. Its a different case from mere links. I would read any essay of yours also.

This is a new concept to you about things that are unknown to most people.
You missed a rew important points.
No. The bear example is not about the species of bears coming from the ark. They are all one kind and everyone agrees with this. No. My bear example is that URDERS of creatures with species that look just like bears are said by evolution to be unrelated. So a marsupial bear and a creodont bear and our presents bears , while identical, are unrelated since everyone one was a bunch of rodents running around.
unbelievable of what convergent evolution says. Yet they do.
So I say same shaped creatures are the same after all. Therefore the marsupial aberation is in fact a revealation of a different equation. This answers the issue of marsupial migration from the Ark.

[zoegirl]

Finding you essay *was* an effort at research on my part.

And it is just common respect that when you are debating with someone you read their supporting evidence. When I read research journals I examine their sources and, if necessary, read them for more information. This is simple research. In the past you have dismissed reading sources because "you don't do homework"

And I respectfully submit that you really don't read and analyze and refute what people write. You merely object with no suporting detail.

You don't even ACKNOWLEDGE that much of what you wrote was incorrect reporting of what the evolutionary theory states. This is quite a pet peeve of mine. How in the world do you expect anybody to even grant respect to an argument when you don't even fully understand theirs?



Tell me....do you believe that the tectonic plates are shifting?

[Marcosll]

To the original poster:

I read your theory and I think it is incompatible with what we observe. I find it admirable that many Christians try to defend the logic behind what science has discovered and their beliefs.

I have done a lot of research on this subject and there's a few conclusions I have come to about the entire debate:

1) The bible is not perfect. Much information has been lost, much invented by those writing the scripture and much of it has been edited. This applies to the new testament and even more so to the old testament. Blind faith believers will call this heresy but if they spent even 5 minutes studying the history of the bible they would understand it is a fact.

2) Christians are followers of Christ's teachings. Christ's noble teachings of 2000 years ago are still applicable today. Don't be missguided by things like Noah's ark and the flood - they're not essential to Christianity.

[Canuckster1127]

To the original poster:

I read your theory and I think it is incompatible with what we observe. I find it admirable that many Christians try to defend the logic behind what science has discovered and their beliefs.

I have done a lot of research on this subject and there's a few conclusions I have come to about the entire debate:

1) The bible is not perfect. Much information has been lost, much invented by those writing the scripture and much of it has been edited. This applies to the new testament and even more so to the old testament. Blind faith believers will call this heresy but if they spent even 5 minutes studying the history of the bible they would understand it is a fact.

2) Christians are followers of Christ's teachings. Christ's noble teachings of 2000 years ago are still applicable today. Don't be missguided by things like Noah's ark and the flood - they're not essential to Christianity.

I've done probably as much or more research and study as you and appear to have come to a completely different conclusion.

Have you studied source material objectively or are you summarizing secondary material you've examined?

[Marcosll]

"I've done probably as much or more research and study as you and appear to have come to a completely different conclusion.

Have you studied source material objectively or are you summarizing secondary material you've examined?"



I have seen source material with holes in it where words have been "guessed".

Now, I am by no means saying that most of the bible has been greatly altered. What I am saying is that it is IMPERFECT. Many fellow Christians believe the bible is a perfect text, this is not so.

[Canuckster1127]

"I've done probably as much or more research and study as you and appear to have come to a completely different conclusion.

Have you studied source material objectively or are you summarizing secondary material you've examined?"



I have seen source material with holes in it where words have been "guessed".

Now, I am by no means saying that most of the bible has been greatly altered. What I am saying is that it is IMPERFECT. Many fellow Christians believe the bible is a perfect text, this is not so.

I believe the original manuscripts were perfect, but I recognize we don't have them and so there is some work that goes into reconciling different textual traditions. The vast majority of issues are easily reconciled as simple matters of textual transpostions, errors and difficulties. There are a few that are more difficult but not anything that calls major issues or doctrine and certainly not something that is "guessed." Do you have examples you wish to discuss?

[Marcosll]

I too believe the original texts were perfect. In those days people took great care in preserving messages and writing things down exactly.

However, from those original texts to today's modern bible's there is a considerable gap. You could say the vast majority of it has similar or the same meaning but some things have been altered, omitted and added. Knowing which requieres a lot of research that I havn't done.

Further, there is evidence that the bible is based on history. I read somewhere for example, that it is certain that Herod whas the King of Jerusalem approximately at the same time as some of the bible states some events occurred.

Apparently this guy on this program said there are about 11 things which can be precisely corroborated with non-bliblical sources about the life of Jesus.

Here's some interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Canuckster1127]

I too believe the original texts were perfect. In those days people took great care in preserving messages and writing things down exactly.

However, from those original texts to today's modern bible's there is a considerable gap. You could say the vast majority of it has similar or the same meaning but some things have been altered, omitted and added. Knowing which requieres a lot of research that I havn't done.

Further, there is evidence that the bible is based on history. I read somewhere for example, that it is certain that Herod whas the King of Jerusalem approximately at the same time as some of the bible states some events occurred.

Apparently this guy on this program said there are about 11 things which can be precisely corroborated with non-bliblical sources about the life of Jesus.

Here's some interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Your comments only reinforce my original assertion that you are relying on secondary sources for your information and assertions. I have done a great deal of the research and know how to reconcile many of the issues that you're referring to. There is far more correlating history than what you are referencing here. The absence of corraboration on many issues is not evidence of not happening. The Bible itself is historical evidence and there is nothing within it that is proven not to have been historical when the historical evidence.

To put it simply the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Evidence is continually being found in archeological digs and thus far it has only served to corroborate Biblical claims.

[Marcosll]

"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

I am getting so sick of hearing this on so many forums.

Your comments only reinforce my original assertion that the moderb bible isn't perfect.

The fact that you state you have to "know how to reconcile many of the issues that you're referring to" means that there are issues and that one must reconcile them? By reconcile do you mean invent your own explanations to justify the discrepancies?

[Canuckster1127]

"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

I am getting so sick of hearing this on so many forums.

Your comments only reinforce my original assertion that the moderb bible isn't perfect.

The fact that you state you have to "know how to reconcile many of the issues that you're referring to" means that there are issues and that one must reconcile them? By reconcile do you mean invent your own explanations to justify the discrepancies?

Whether you're sick of hearing it or not doesn't invalidate the point.

If you wish to assert in a backhanded manner that the explanations are not sufficient, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate that.

Before you do, I suggest you refer to the board purpose and discussion guidelines. We exist for Christians and honest seekers. If you're here to debate and defend a position on your part that stands in opposition to Christianity, then this is not a place for that.