Australia's Unique Animals

bob_2 · 10-28-09 5:34 pm

John loves to bring up this topic of Australian marsupials as does Elaine. Here's one man's view on the subject: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:AUSTRALIA'S UNIQUE ANIMALS Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. Howdo creationists explain the origin and distributionof Australia's unique animals in terms of a young Earth and a worldwide flood? Explaining the origin of Australia's marsupial population, and especially its uniqueness to that one isolated southern continent, is difficult for evolutionists and creationists alike. Marsupials such as kangaroos, opossums, wallabies, and koalas seem unusual, butmonotreme (i.e., the echidna and the platypus) are even more puzzling. The main difference between marsupials andmost other mammals centers on the reproductive system. Marsupials give birth prematurely and allow the fetus to develop in an external pouch. In other mammals, (excluding the monotremes,which lay eggs), the fetus develops within the uterus and is attached to, and nourished by, the placenta. One of the most interesting fact about marsupials is that they nearly all have non-marsupial equivalents in other parts of the world (see Dobzhansky, et al., 1977, Figure 9.3, p. 267). The kangaroo has a similar role to the antelope roaming the African savanna. Thewombat resembles a badger, and even has a backward-pointing pouch so that it will not fill with dirt while burrowing! There also are many small marsupials that have rodent counterparts. Evolutionists attribute such similarities to "parallel evolution" in both homology (being alike in form) and analogy (occupying a corresponding niche). That is, they believe that these marsupials and their placental peers developed independently; they share similar characteristics, but took two different paths to get there (see Simpson and Beck, 1965, pp. 499-501).Acommon ancestry, combined with similar forces of natural selection, evolutionists assert, will result in the same sort of changes through time. This common ancestor is thought to be the opossum because it is a marsupial, and is found in other areas of the world apart from Australia. According to evolutionary theory, the opossum was a primitive mammal living 200 million years ago on a single southern land mass called Gondwanaland. When parts of this supercontinent divided into what are now Australia and South America, the opossums were separated geographically. Over eons of time, so the story goes, the Australian descendants of the opossum developed into the various types of marsupials seen today. However, in South America, they "evolved" placentas and eventually migrated to North America and Eurasia. These evolutionary ideas suffer from a number of problems, as listed below. (1) There are no intermediate fossils ("transitional") showing the development of the marsupials from an opossum or opossum-like ancestor. Furthermore, to suggest that one type ofmammalcould arise by supposed evolutionary mechanisms is incredible enough, but the chances of having both placental and non-placental forms evolve in the same way, at the same time, and in different regions, are remote to say the least. (2) The humble opossumhas been nominated as the ancestor of all mammals because it is supposed to be so "primitive," having a relatively small brain and no "specialized" characteristics. But the opossum has thrived virtually unchanged in many parts of the world. In general, marsupials are often considered less "advanced" because they lack the complex internal reproductive system of placental mammals.However, they possessmany other characteristics that could give them an edge over their placental counterparts.For instance, a female kangaroo can nourish two young ones of different ages at the same time, providing the appropriate formula from each teat. Unlike placental mammals, marsupials can suspend or abort the embryo deliberately if adverse conditions arise. And, of course, the pouch provides a superior place of protection for the young marsupial. Yes, marsupials are different,but theyare not inferior. (3) The distribution of marsupials is not well answered by evolutionary theories.According to Michael Pitman, "the most diverse fossil assemblies have been obtainedfromSouthAmerica and, later (Pliocene),Australia" (1984, p. 206). That is, according to the fossil record, the marsupials already were well defined as a distinct group before the separation of Australia from other continents. Thus, geographic separation cannot be as significant to their development as evolutionists like to think. An alternate, biblically basedmodelis as follows: (1) It is reasonable to suggest that God created the various kinds of marsupials. Hence, themany varieties of opossums,kangaroos,wallabies, andso on, most likely have arisen since the time of creation. (2) There could be any number of reasons that God created both placental and non-placental forms. One possibility is that marsupials were created for a specific environment. For example, on the African savannas or North American plains, animals migrate to different areas according to the seasons, and range over huge tracts of land in search of better grazing.However, vegetation patterns in Australia do not allow such flexibility. The unique characteristics of marsupials that allowthem to survive in a tough environment are indicative of good design, not blind evolution. (3) Representatives of marsupial kinds went into the ark and were carried through the Flood.Any other varieties not in the ark became extinct with the Flood (they exist only as fossils). (4) After the Flood, marsupials may have migrated to Australia across land connections or narrow waterways. Perhaps there is a supernatural element involving the second point made above. That is, God, having created specially equipped creatures, may have directed them to settle in Australia in particular. If God can arrange for all the animals to go to Noah (Genesis 6:20), then He very well could assist and direct them in their migration from Ararat once they left the ark (Genesis 8:17). (5) There is no need to postulate immense periods of time for wholesale movement of animal kinds over the Earth. Initial studies by Richard Culp showthat there areminimaldifferencesbetweenmanyNorthAmerican, European, and Asian varieties of certain plant and animalspecies (Culp, 1988).Thelack of dissimilarities, and the occurrence of unique animal or plant assemblages in various parts of theworld (not just Australia),maybe evidence for a rapid resettlement in relatively recent times.This would be consistent with the Genesis account.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/marsup.pdf" target=_top>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/marsup .pdf</a>

john8verse32 · 10-28-09 7:09 pm

great campfire tale, Bob.... (3) Representatives of marsupial kinds went into the ark and were carried through the Flood. Any other varieties not in the ark became extinct with the Flood and how did God "call" the marsupials in Oz? email? homing pigeons? but however God did this, the 7 pairs of marsupials were somehow guided to the Middle East. (presuming that the Hebrews could eat them, if they were 'clean", then there were 7 pairs; otherwise, only 2 pairs of "unclean" animals were 'called") So Roos and wallabies, which do not swim, somehow managed to join the platypusies, the wombats, the fresh water crocs, and their cousins, the salties, and jump in with the great white sharks off the coast of Oz, and dog paddle oceans away to the mainland...where they joined with other animals schlepping their way thru the dense jungles of SE Asia....avoiding being eaten by tigers, jaguars and pythons, and finding their own preferred food to eat along the way then on command, they hiked up the gangplank into the ark, somewhere in the Middle East, along with the sloths of Central and S. America, who had to swim the storym South pacific ocean to get there, and who cannot walk on their curly que nails, up into the ark where Noah would feed all of them and siphon and shovel their exhaust out of the bilge, and try to keep the lions and tigers and sabertooth tigers and poisonous snakes from killing them and eating them. the CO2 and methane gas accumulated from all those animals would have killed them all in less than 24 hrs, based on the lack of ventilation provided. And how did God keep the Elephants, the Mastadonts, hippos, and rhinos from recking the place by trying to mate? btw...how did all those fossil rhinos get buried in volcanic ash in the Dakotas with no sign of any flood? its easy to understand why God would not expect Noah to take on all the species of dinos.. especially the meat eating ones... unless... unless.. of course, I forgot...prior to the flood, all the animals were vegans...so why didn't Noah take on a coupla pair of breeding TRexes? not enuf hay bailing equipment to save up grass for an ocean voyage for them, the elephants, the mastadonts, the mammoths, the cows, sheep, goats, etc.? and how did Noah keep all those fresh young eucalpyus branches for the Koalas? and fresh water for everyone? did they grow their canine teeth after the flood and learn to eat meat then? (4) After the Flood, marsupials may have migrated to Australia across land connections or narrow waterways. Perhaps there is a supernatural element involving the second point made above. That is, God, having created specially equipped creatures, may have directed them to settle in Australia in particular but why bless Oz with all the weird animals..and no where else? why send all the sloths only to Central and S. America? yet encourage death dealing mosquitoes and 50,000 species of beetles to settle around the entire globe? and why after opening the door and letting the animals out, after going to so much work to save a few animals, why did God command Noah to slaughter some of them just so He could smell the savory smoke of sacrifice? I mean, why save animals, just to slaughter them later to celebrate saving them? its all so confusing..... especially the part about when it happened (apparently before the Bristlecone Pines started growing, on top of mountains which were raised bp by catastrophic plate tectonics.... so how is it that there are BPines OLDER than the flood?) and where it happened (apparently not in Egypt, cause the pyramids are still there...) and how is it that according to the conclusion of the noah legend, the waters went DOWN...when all of science and Cosquers cave shows that for the last 20 ky the oceans have been rising..as glaciers melted? <a href="http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu1.htm" target=_top>http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/fr- cosqu1.htm</a> be happy, Bob...enjoy your simple explanations. Just keep on being a good person, and don't ask any more questions. You'll make it. and don't worry about Chixulub...or the Shiva Hypothesis....or the geological column... probably won't happen again.

elaine · 10-28-09 7:22 pm

(4) After the Flood, marsupials may have migrated to Australia across land connections or narrow waterways. Perhaps there is a supernatural element involving the second point made above. That is, God, having created specially equipped creatures, may have directed them to settle in Australia in particular. Why bother trying to "explain" the impossible? Since "supernatural" is always the last resort when natural explanations won't suffice. Simply declare it's all a great miracle and be done with it. It's like a child going overboard trying to explain that he didn't really take a cookie from the cookie jar when the crumbs are all over his face. Honesty would be beneficial in simply saying: "it was all a miracle, from the Creation story through the flood and beyond. Otherwise, trying to "explain" it is leaving egg on the face and expecting hearers to keep a straight face while reading it.

don · 10-28-09 7:52 pm

then there were 7 pairs; otherwise, only 2 pairs of "unclean" animals were 'called") I have always thought of the "7" to be three pairs and one extra. This is certainly a minor point, but do you have any textual reasons for viewing the "7" as seven pairs? .

bob_2 · 10-28-09 8:53 pm

John not all your readers may agree with your assumptions about when Pangea broke up and how. So before we start talking about platypuses doing the breaststroke, let's hear about your idea of Pangea breakup and when. Elaine where is that open mind you claim to have and want all us to have with your specualtions or undocumented pieces. BTW, ever learn how to do that??

elaine · 10-28-09 9:39 pm

Bob, what about my statement above requires documentation? It is clearly my personal opinion, as yours is also.

john8verse32 · 10-28-09 9:42 pm

Pangea..... INTERESTING YOU SHOULD ASK... if you have a very short attention span, click here to see the history of continental "drift" in 6 seconds: <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim2.html" target=_top>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim2.html</a> of you have more time, check out how it all happens here: <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html" target=_top>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.htm l</a>

john8verse32 · 10-28-09 9:56 pm

Noah took into the ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kinds of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. sounds like "pairs" to me.... from this presumably inerrant source which tells us everything we every wanted about clean vs unclean....except why: <a href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=531&letter=C" target=_top>http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=5 31&letter=C</a>

john8verse32 · 10-28-09 10:08 pm

even educated Christians today are recognizing that there was no flood... no ark.... no two by two pairs of clean or unclean animals...despite all the pretty pictures: <a href="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm" target=_top>http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm</a> where we read: A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth adapted from the book The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, an evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College A large segment of the evangelical church has unfortunately locked itself into a biblical hermeneutic that requires a global flood and a recent six-day creation and that prevents it from dealing responsibly with God's creative work. I submit that there is something inherently flawed in any hermeneutic that prevents us from reading God's handiwork properly and that repeatedly puts us at odds with the established conclusions of a scientific community that is composed not just of opponents of Christianity but also of confessing Christians In summary, several centuries of effort to locate physical remnants of the biblical deluge have completely failed. Any physical evidence that has been claimed to support a global flood has eventually been demonstrated to have a different explanation. The idea that the flood deposited the world's stratified rocks has been thoroughly discredited by numerous lines of evidence. Many of the individual strata give evidence of having been deposited in such non-flood environments as rivers, beaches, deltas, lakes, glaciers, deserts, and shallow oceanic platforms. Many strata, such as lake deposits and fossil reefs, contain abundant indicators of very slow deposition under environmentally sensitive conditions quite incompatible with a catastrophic deluge. Many strata are overlain by fossil soils and separated from higher strata by erosional breaks that could only have been produced over extensive lengths of time. The fossils themselves are arrayed in progressive order in the geologic column. Many of the organisms lived in environments utterly unlike flooded terrains. Radiometric dating of volcanic ash or lava flows interbedded with fossiliferous strata show that they are millions of years old. Some large masses of igneous rocks injected into the strata took hundreds of thousands of years to cool and crystallize. Many fossiliferous rocks have been metamorphosed, indicating extreme burial that could not possibly have occurred during a year-long deluge. All the evidence of the rocks tells us that they were not produced or arranged by a flood. The views of earth history offered by Woodward, Catcott, G.M. Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and John R. Rice are simply and obviously WRONG In addition to the wealth of geological evidence opposing the possibility of a global deluge, a variety of biogeographical evidence also counts conclusively against such an event. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that human or animal populations were ever disrupted by a catastrophic global flood at any point in the past. Indeed, all the evidence indicates continuous occupation by these populations of points around the globe into the exceedingly distant past. Human beings have been in North America for at least twelve thousand years and in Australia for at least thirty or forty thousand years, long before the biblical deluge could have occurred by any consistent reading of the textual evidence of the Bible. Furthermore, a literal reading of the flood narrative requires us to presume that representatives of tens of thousands of different species left their natural habitats and restricted supplies of food, made their way from all the distant and isolated parts of the globe, crossing oceans, arctic wastes, and any number of hostile environments to arrive at the ark, that these vast numbers of creatures somehow all boarded the craft, which (presumably) already held enough food to sustain them for a year, and then after the retreat of the floodwaters all made the journey back to their respective habitats to replenish the earth. Commentators who maintain that fossils were laid down in the flood must apparently also assume that representatives of all the species in the fossil record, including dozens of species of dinosaurs, were also aboard the ark. Is a literal reading of the flood narrative really so sacrosanct as to induce us to entertain such bizarre scenarios? We need to find an interpretation of the text that does not commit us to a globe-covering catastrophe. Surely the text itself provides clues to a better understanding. Doesn't the fact that the text suggests that Mesopotamian geography was not rearranged by the flood nor the topsoil displaced suggest that it was not a globally catastrophic event? Given the frequency with which the Bible uses universal language to describe local events of great significance such as the famine or the plagues in Egypt, is it unreasonable to suppose that the flood account uses hyperbolic language to describe an event that devastated or disrupted Mesopotamian civilization -- that is to say, the whole world of the Semites? I do not consider it a violation of the integrity of the biblical text to suppose that the biblical flood account uses a major Mesopotamian event in order to make vital theological points concerning human depravity, faith, and obedience and divine judgment, grace, and mercy. The evangelical church serves no good end by clinging to failed interpretations of the Bible and refusing to explore new directions. Christian scholars have an obligation to lead the way toward a renewed reverence for God's truth wherever it can be found. wow...from a Christian writer....who sees the truth too bad SDA's cant admit it because it will undermine even the name!!!

john8verse32 · 10-29-09 8:52 am

my bad..... I just checked with the internet, and not only was it "Pairs", <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2155.jpg" alt=""> but there actually was a flood!!! at least to this former town in Greece....over 5000 yrs ago... about the time of Noah, no? and the ruins seem flooded about 15 cubits deep. <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/divers-get-first-look-at-underwater-city/732031?icid=main" target=_top>http://news.aol.com/article/divers-get-first-look-at-underwater-city/732031?icid=main</a>|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fdivers-get-first-look-at-underwater-city%2F732031 in addition, there is evidence that over the last 20,000 yrs as glaciers have melted that, contrary to the Noah tale that the waters "went down", actually, the waters have come UP!!!! and maybe even inundated the Garden of Eden <a href="http://ldolphin.org/eden/" target=_top>http://ldolphin.org/eden/</a>

elaine · 10-29-09 10:24 am

Gen. 6:19: "From all living creatures, from all flesh, you must take two of each kind aboard the ark, to save their lives with yours; they must be a male and a female. Of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of repitle on the ground, two must go with you so that their lives may be saved." Gen. 7:2 "Of all the clean animals you must take seven of each kind, both male and female; of the unclean animals you must take two, a male and its female." Gen. 7:8: "Of the clean animals and the animals that are not clean, of the birds and all that crawls on the ground, two of each kind boarded the ark with Noah, a male and a female, according to the order God gave Noah." Question: How many of the clean and unclean went into the ark? Were reptiles not considered unclean? Is it possible that there was not a conflation of several writings resulting in the discrepancies? Not until Sinai was there a distinction between "clean and unclean" which would indicate the the category of "unclean" was likely written after that event, maybe both Sinai and the Flood Story were written much later.

don · 10-29-09 12:12 pm

Gen. 7:2 "Of all the clean animals you must take seven of each kind, both male and female; of the unclean animals you must take two, a male and its female." Thanks, Elaine, that answers my question. Not until Sinai was there a distinction between "clean and unclean" which would indicate the the category of "unclean" was likely written after that event, maybe both Sinai and the Flood Story were written much later. Elaine, you wrote: "Not until Sinai was there a distinction between..." History, like science, deals with "data" and the "interpretation of the data". The literal reading of the text asserts a distinction between clean and unclean at the time of Noah's Ark. This is the textual "data". You have chosen to interpret the text based on a certain view re: how the text was created. .

don · 10-29-09 12:53 pm

"Scientific" Criticism and the Bible I have been reading about what various scholars say about Text Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Note this from Alter and Kermode, Literary Guide, p. 3<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2158.jpg" alt=""><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>See <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yz42425" target="_blank">"Behind" the text: history and biblical interpretation</a> by Craig G. Bartholomew, page 6. .

elaine · 10-29-09 3:06 pm

Don, how do you answer the verses in Gen. 6:19 and Gen. 7:8, which directly contradicts the verse in Gen. 7:2? Two verses say both clean and unclean go in by twos, while 7:2 differentiates between clean and unclean. How is one to choose?

don · 10-29-09 7:21 pm

Don, how do you answer the verses in Gen. 6:19 and Gen. 7:8, which directly contradicts the verse in Gen. 7:2? Two verses say both clean and unclean go in by twos, while 7:2 differentiates between clean and unclean. How is one to choose? The verses seem to contradict each other because we don't understand the emphasis intended. In Genesis 6:19 twos are mentioned to stress the need for both a male and a female. Thus, they all came by two's, or "couples".<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:18 "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you. 19" And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20"Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two (both) of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> In Genesis 7:2 the distinction is made between clean and unclean. Thus, sevens and twos. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:2 "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female;<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>But, the sevens were in twos as well, that is, male and female. In Genesis 7:8 the wording seems to revert to that of 6:19<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: 8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground, 9 there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>As it does in verses 13-16, too<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:13 On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, 14 they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. 15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. 16 Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>The account of chapter 7 contrasts between clean and unclean in verse 2 but then reverts back to the "twos" designation for all in subsequent verses. If we keep in mind that "twos" can mean "counts of two" or "pairs" or "both", we will perhaps be less confused. In Genesis 8, the author mentions clean foods again,<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>The author intended for us to know that animals were designated "clean" and "unclean" at the time of the flood. One rule I apply is that the ancient writers were intelligent and they would not preserve a story with obvious contradictions. If the story seems to have internal contradictions, I try to find out what is wrong with my thinking on the information. .

elaine · 10-29-09 8:03 pm

Yes, the author "intended" to mentioned "clean" and "unclean" but when was it first mentioned in the Bible WHICH ones were clean? From the Genesis story, the many animals so categorized go unmentioned. In fact, "reptiles" were considered as clean in the first story. No one claims that Genesis was written immediately afterward, but the first Bible writings were no earlier than several millennia later, and long after the Sinai story of "Clean" and "unclean" was first mentioned.

don · 10-29-09 9:02 pm

the first Bible writings were no earlier than several millennia later, and long after the Sinai story of "Clean" and "unclean" was first mentioned. As far as I know this is unproven. It is a hypothesis of certain "schools" of thought. The texts reporting about Moses mention the "tables of stone" and the "Book of the Law". Different hypotheses have been proposed to relate to the textual information. .

elaine · 10-29-09 9:57 pm

Agreed, there will never be certainty about something so old. The Documentary Hypothesis appeals to me because of the variety of stories about the same events.

jag · 10-29-09 10:46 pm

Prof Friedman in "The Bible with Sources Revealed" presents many other arguments in support of the documentary hypothesis, apart from the obvious doublets and triplets when it comes to some stories in the first 6 books of the Hebrew Bible. The popular perception is that this hypothesis is based on different authors using different names for God - but it is a huge oversimplification and misrepresentation. The hypothesis is very convincing to me too, as it explains many problems no other hypothesis can. I read somewhere an alternative theory, according to which Moses was writing the Pentateuch on clay tablets during the exodus. Wouldn't those countless poor people carrying bagfuls of heavy clay tablets for 40 years in the wilderness be mentioned somewhere? Moses would certainly have been grateful to them, but somehow he forgot to let the later generations know that... not to mention that those books are written from a much later point of view.

george · 10-30-09 3:08 pm

And who's bright idea was it to corral mosquitoes into the ark; or did they, along with other peski bugs, just hover for forty days. But then there's roaches and cut worms and etc. Were those included as clean or unclean, given that John the Baptist opted to use at least one species as food? Yes, I know the SDA version is that locust meant some kind of plant, however...

elaine · 10-30-09 4:14 pm

And whose idea was it to include poisonous reptiles and man-eating animals much more powerful than man? Were all these harmful insects and animals suddenly made ferocious by sin? Did their teeth and digestive structures instaneously change from omnivores to carnivores at the curse of sin? Or, could it possibly be man's explanation of why the world was as they experienced it and tried to come to grips with their condition? Blaming Eve for sin was much easier than simply accepting that the only world they knew was the one they presently lived in. Postulating that there was once a "glorious age" and a wonderful garden of Eden was told in similar tales before the Bible story was written. Listen to the Yale lectures on OT History John gives on another thread here.

elaine · 10-30-09 4:18 pm

This is the link to the Yale lecture <a href="http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/bible-parts-" target=_top>http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/bible-parts-</a> of-the-whole

bob_2 · 10-31-09 6:18 am

Elaine, SIN entered when Adam and Eve sinned, that's what happened. RIGHT?

john8verse32 · 10-31-09 10:25 am

Bob...Elaine's question seems to be if just because a talking snake deceived Eve ..and told her she would not die that very day..which she didn't... that God became angry at even the animals... and lovingly modified some of the herbivores into carnivores, installed canine teeth replacing molars, and whipped up their enthusiasm to go kill and eat other animals instead of grass and veggies that He had originally planned for all.** iow, because God was angry at Eve being deceived, he made innocent animals eat each other. and all this happened almost overnight about 6000 yrs ago. ** but this raises the question of what sharks were supposed to eat before the "fall"? there's no grass and not many veggies in the oceans.... maybe all sea creatures were originally designed/supposed to eat seaweed? and then, because God was angry at Human beings for not listening to Him...he changed all his creatures into a dog eat dog environment... where only the algae use the sun for growth, and then in turn are eaten by plankton, who are eaten by krill, who are eaten by small fish, who are eaten by larger fish..... why did God change sharks into such terrifying meat eaters? didn't He realize how much pain and suffering that would cause some of His other critters? especially the seals.... some of them smarter than American 5th graders.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2173.jpg" alt=""> is this any way for a loving god to treat creatures He has just given birth to? change them from vegetarians into eating each other? when it wasn't even their fault? is this what you call.... ...INTELLIGENT DESIGN???.. (Message edited by john8verse32 on October 31, 2009)

elaine · 10-31-09 10:51 am

Elaine, SIN entered when Adam and Eve sinned, that's what happened. RIGHT? That is a theological answer, not a scientific one. Try again. "Sin" can be, and has been used to excuse all the deplorable things we cannot otherwise account for; an all-purpose, one-size-fits-all theory that Bible thumper consistently use when all their illogical explanations fail.}}}}}}

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 10-28-09 5:34 pm

Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#2 10-28-09 7:09 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#3 10-28-09 7:22 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#4 10-28-09 7:52 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#5 10-28-09 8:53 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#6 10-28-09 9:39 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#7 10-28-09 9:42 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#8 10-28-09 9:56 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#9 10-28-09 10:08 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#10 10-29-09 8:52 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#11 10-29-09 10:24 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#12 10-29-09 12:12 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#13 10-29-09 12:53 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#14 10-29-09 3:06 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#15 10-29-09 7:21 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#16 10-29-09 8:03 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#17 10-29-09 9:02 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#18 10-29-09 9:57 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#19 10-29-09 10:46 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#20 10-30-09 3:08 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#21 10-30-09 4:14 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#22 10-30-09 4:18 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#23 10-31-09 6:18 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#24 10-31-09 10:25 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#25 10-31-09 10:51 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

Board footer

Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals