Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
donsnow said:
Imho, you base your statement on the late nineteenth uniformtarianist theory, championed by Charles Darwin, that evolution is slow. Robert Gold, a twentieth century biologist, has observed some biological mutations occuring suddenly, not gradually. A lot of current evolutionists accept that the catastrophic theory of evolution (the other nineteenth century theory, contending with uniformtarian theory) also has some merit; I think that the current view accepts that observed evolution has both catastrophic and gradual components.
Click to expand...
So it is your assertion that fish could have redeveloped the ability to live in salt water and then filled up all of said salt water? And of course, whales/dolphins can’t live in fresh water for very long either, aside from the fact that they would have starved to death when the fish died.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but these are the logical conclusion of your statements.
(side note- evolution is actually thousands of times slower than currently thought so it couldn’t account for the diversity of life, but moves thousands of times faster than currently believed when the oceans need to get filled up?)
Imho, that “100% of salt-only species would have been killed off,…” stands as your unproven speculation. I respectfully reply with my unproven speculation, that not all fish were killed off. True, many were destroyed, in the deluge. On the other hand, we’re talking about the most profuse environment of life on earth…the oceans and seas. I submit that many types of fish, both salt and fresh water, survived. Consequently, we do have, “…such a wide variety of temperature specific fish/both salt only and fresh only fish.”
imho.
Click to expand...
Well- we assume the water isn’t salt water. This would dilute the salt significantly. This would kill the fish. Also, the water would be of a certain temperature. This would massively offset the temperature of the water. This would kill all fish that are highly sensitive to the temperature of their environment. Such fish exist to this day.
Please, don’t put words into my mouth. I never meant to imply that. My reply gave the example of my impression, from more than one story about more than one ark,of several arks in different climates.
If I contradict church teaching, then I will retract my opinion.
Click to expand...
God is love,
Don
Click to expand...
That wasn’t my intent- It just seemed like you have took my statement about the ark not being able to sustain say, buffalo and anaconda (maybe those two can scrape by, don’t hold me to that particular example), to be a question of size rather than temperature. Just clarifying.
 
donsnow said:
Hi, Tim190 -

Since amphibious crocodiles are said to have survived from the age of dinosaurs, I’d say some salt water and some fresh water fish did survive the deluge.
Some professor has really given you a hard time, heh?

God is love,
Don
Click to expand...
Haven’t been counting them in my criticism, since Noah could have brought them on the ark- although I suppose the constant cloud cover would have killed them along with most cold blooded creatures. Hadn’t thought of that before, thanks for the heads up.
 
buffalo said:
As the waters receded salt water would have been left. As time went on they became fresh and the fish adapted along with it.
Click to expand...
So every salt water only species, as well as whales and dolphins, have evolved in the past couple thousand years?
 
tjm190 said:
Not even close to enough to completely submerge the Earth in water… and it would take centuries for water to somehow journey there and freeze.
Click to expand...
Volcanoes push land up, water falls down. Tiz why we have very d…e…e…p oceans.
 
tjm190 said:
Says who? Whales and dolphins don’t even have many close relatives that would have served as starting points.
Click to expand...
Science is only theory until it is physicaly proven. Animals can evolve VERY fast.
 
buffalo said:
Adapted. Get it right.
Click to expand...
Adapted is just YEC-speak for admitted evolution. And it doesn’t work on the YEC timeline: for African and Indian elephants and Woolly Mammoths to evolve from the elephant “baramin” and then for the Woolly Mammoths to go extinct, all inside a few thousand years, is absurd. Besides, “baraminology” is a pseudoscience.
 
StAnastasia said:
Adapted is just YEC-speak for admitted evolution. And it doesn’t work on the YEC timeline: for African and Indian elephants and Woolly Mammoths to evolve from the elephant “baramin” and then for the Woolly Mammoths to go extinct, all inside a few thousand years, is absurd. Besides, “baraminology” is a pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
Adaptation is variation within kind.
 
Zundrah said:
Volcanoes push land up, water falls down. Tiz why we have very d…e…e…p oceans.
Click to expand...
A process which requires thousands of years, at which point the island is far from capable of supporting life.
 
buffalo said:
Adapted. Get it right.
Click to expand...
Again, the supposition that some mammal from the ark or a fresh water fist could transition to saltwater only creature in a mere few thousand years is quite ridiculous, no matter how you phrase it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top