The better half of the joke

[Eloi]

... is that evolutionists not only say that some animal species come from previous ones, but they also say that each plant species comes from another previous one (or that they used to say BEFORE)... This, after, according to them, plants stopped living in the water to start living on land... kind of like when fish ceasing to be aquatic to become semi-terrestrial amphibians ... or humans stopped living in caves to start building houses

Did you know this part of the story? It is never ending.

Do you think that the millions of years that the planet has existed are enough for so many SUPERDUPERULTRASLOW transformations that these scientists talk about?

[Purple Knight]

Creationists do NOT regard a view of evolution that promotes that all species originated from one living thing billions of years in the past. Creationists only accept that every living ting is unique but that they remain true to their kind and are incapable to becoming a new and different kind. Horses remain horses, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, and beetles remain beetles. There may in actually be only a few hundred different kinds of beetles. The rest are all variation of the same.

I'm just curious and not using this as an attack at all. Given that you think this, would you be prone to dismissing it out of hand when scientists now claim that hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs? They place closer to cats even than weasels or fossas.

It's certainly something that appears ridiculous on the face of it. Hyenas appear markedly canine and they chalk it up to convergence. To me, it means, if the claim is actually based in reality, that hyenas diverged from ancestral cats before they started to look like cats. To someone who believes in the flood and that one kind does not become another, I imagine it means the claim is probably just mistaken.

Don't get me wrong, I kind of think the claim doesn't pass the smell test and tend to doubt it myself.

My ultimate point is, we can use this as a predictive test. If someone pops a live hybrid pup out of a canid and a hyena, or molecular geneticists end up reversing the claim, which someone who does not believe one kind of animal can ever become another should have always rejected, that's a point for your way of thinking.

And I'll give you this one for free (this is actually an area of minor expertise for me): There actually might only be one kind of cat. The pumapard is the one that really shouldn't have been possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrids

[LittleNipper]

Creationists do NOT regard a view of evolution that promotes that all species originated from one living thing billions of years in the past. Creationists only accept that every living ting is unique but that they remain true to their kind and are incapable to becoming a new and different kind. Horses remain horses, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, and beetles remain beetles. There may in actually be only a few hundred different kinds of beetles. The rest are all variation of the same.

I'm just curious and not using this as an attack at all. Given that you think this, would you be prone to dismissing it out of hand when scientists now claim that hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs? They place closer to cats even than weasels or fossas.

It's certainly something that appears ridiculous on the face of it. Hyenas appear markedly canine and they chalk it up to convergence. To me, it means, if the claim is actually based in reality, that hyenas diverged from ancestral cats before they started to look like cats. To someone who believes in the flood and that one kind does not become another, I imagine it means the claim is probably just mistaken.

Don't get me wrong, I kind of think the claim doesn't pass the smell test and tend to doubt it myself.

My ultimate point is, we can use this as a predictive test. If someone pops a live hybrid pup out of a canid and a hyena, or molecular geneticists end up reversing the claim, which someone who does not believe one kind of animal can ever become another should have always rejected, that's a point for your way of thinking.

And I'll give you this one for free (this is actually an area of minor expertise for me): There actually might only be one kind of cat. The pumapard is the one that really shouldn't have been possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrids

The hyena may have always been just what it is --- a hyena. Let's face it, Noah and his family were on the ark and that doesn't mean that there were not a pair of gorillas, chimps, and baboons. The point is that evolutionists have made multiple species of every kind. They have different subspecies of chimps for example, which they also divided into 2 species... Now there it is likely that there were only 2 chimps on the ark. Look at man. It seems very likely that among Noah's sons some may have liked warmer climates. Those that would enjoy less sun moved North and over a few thousand years of inbreeding the fairer skinned became dominate there. Of course GOD may even have interacted to produce darker skin tones to protect individuals from the UV rays of the sun over time. I do believe in GOD and I feel that HE remains proactive --- HE isn't indifferent or HE would never have bothered to sent the MESSIAH to die for our sins. I believe GOD is working even now and that what's happening was predicted in GOD's Word.

[Clownboat]

The hyena may have always been just what it is --- a hyena. Let's face it, Noah and his family were on the ark and that doesn't mean that there were not a pair of gorillas, chimps, and baboons.

There are nearly 70 species of hyena in the fossil record with only 4 still roaming the earth. I just don't have the required ability to stick my head so far in the sand as to ignore what we know in order to believe one of many religious stories penned by man.

The point is that evolutionists have made multiple species of every kind.

Your words are false and reek of desperation. That is not how we get new species. We get new species via changes in the genetic material of a population over time.

They have different subspecies of chimps for example, which they also divided into 2 species... Now there it is likely that there were only 2 chimps on the ark. Look at man. It seems very likely that among Noah's sons some may have liked warmer climates. Those that would enjoy less sun moved North and over a few thousand years of inbreeding the fairer skinned became dominate there. Of course GOD may even have interacted to produce darker skin tones to protect individuals from the UV rays of the sun over time. I do believe in GOD and I feel that HE remains proactive --- HE isn't indifferent or HE would never have bothered to sent the MESSIAH to die for our sins. I believe GOD is working even now and that what's happening was predicted in GOD's Word.

I feel as though I just read the beliefs of a flat earther.

Do you have any evidence for this super advanced form of evolution that you believe happened to get us from a pair of monkeys to the 334 species we now have on this planet in just a few thousands of years (not to mention the 350,000 species of beetle and 11,000 species of bird)? Surely you can do better than offering up what you believe (GOD may have done this and GOD may have done that) happened can't you?

[Purple Knight]

The point is that evolutionists have made multiple species of every kind. They have different subspecies of chimps for example, which they also divided into 2 species... Now there it is likely that there were only 2 chimps on the ark.

I will admit that this happens sometimes, just that I know about. A serval and a domestic cat are considered separate species, but they can mate successfully and F1 females are fertile immediately, and further down the line, you start getting fertile males. To me, if there is a truebreeding population of Savannahs, this means that servals and domestic cats were always the same species, and the fact that male F1s are not fertile is just a hiccup. It does point to speciation occurring, however, because if you can have one hiccup, you can have more, and more, until there's no way to pop out a hybrid.

I still think it's important to get the ark thing down to something that is testable. And making hybrids is a good way to test, even if it's not always possible when it ought to be. Just as a canine-hyena hybrid would support the idea that there aren't as many kind of animals as evolutionists think there are, even if it could also be possible that hyenas were simply always hyenas, there might be some hybrids that would disprove the opposite. For example, I think religionists would probably all lose their Bibles the next day if it turned out that a chimp-human hybrid was possible, since humans are supposed to be special and above the other kinds. If it happened, it would prove we were just another animal, like all the rest. Would you say this is accurate?

[brunumb]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #102]

How do you get over the fact that the minimum viable population (MVP, look it up) for a species in the wild is far more than just two? Given that, and the state of the planet after the devastation of the flood, virtually no species would have survived after disembarking let alone repopulated the planet.

[LittleNipper]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #102]

How do you get over the fact that the minimum viable population (MVP, look it up) for a species in the wild is far more than just two? Given that, and the state of the planet after the devastation of the flood, virtually no species would have survived after disembarking let alone repopulated the planet.

GOD selected the humans and animals. GOD designed the ark for Noah and the various animals HE sent to Noah to be saved. GOD shut the door to the Ark and protected everything inside throughout the storm. You don't believe in GOD, do you?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #102]

How do you get over the fact that the minimum viable population (MVP, look it up) for a species in the wild is far more than just two? Given that, and the state of the planet after the devastation of the flood, virtually no species would have survived after disembarking let alone repopulated the planet.

GOD selected the humans and animals. GOD designed the ark for Noah and the various animals HE sent to Noah to be saved. GOD shut the door to the Ark and protected everything inside throughout the storm. You don't believe in GOD, do you?

The gods it seems, were invented as concepts to provide a place for us to go when we die (and as a way to see loved ones again, as a way to punish the wicked and as a way for leaders to get their tribe to attack another tribe). This is evident throughout virtually all human history (that humans invented differing god concepts).

Therefore, why would anyone pick a god to believe in? That is a better question then, "you don't believe in my god concept, do you"...

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BC - 65 AD
(Yup, he lived during the time when the Christian religion was being created and splitting off from Judaism. Coincidence?)

[LittleNipper]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #102]

How do you get over the fact that the minimum viable population (MVP, look it up) for a species in the wild is far more than just two? Given that, and the state of the planet after the devastation of the flood, virtually no species would have survived after disembarking let alone repopulated the planet.

GOD selected the humans and animals. GOD designed the ark for Noah and the various animals HE sent to Noah to be saved. GOD shut the door to the Ark and protected everything inside throughout the storm. You don't believe in GOD, do you?

The gods it seems, were invented as concepts to provide a place for us to go when we die (and as a way to see loved ones again, as a way to punish the wicked and as a way for leaders to get their tribe to attack another tribe). This is evident throughout virtually all human history (that humans invented differing god concepts).

Therefore, why would anyone pick a god to believe in? That is a better question then, "you don't believe in my god concept, do you"...

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BC - 65 AD
(Yup, he lived during the time when the Christian religion was being created and splitting off from Judaism. Coincidence?)

JESUS the CHRIST claimed to be GOD. Satan has been trying to destroy Israel since Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To this very day, nations have been trying to destroy Israel because Satan realizes that all the prophecies of the Bible rest upon the continued existence of Israel. Christianity is a personal relationship with GOD through the sacrifice of LORD JESUS CHRIST by the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT. Nothing else is necessary. Not even Seneca.

[brunumb]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #102]

How do you get over the fact that the minimum viable population (MVP, look it up) for a species in the wild is far more than just two? Given that, and the state of the planet after the devastation of the flood, virtually no species would have survived after disembarking let alone repopulated the planet.

GOD selected the humans and animals. GOD designed the ark for Noah and the various animals HE sent to Noah to be saved. GOD shut the door to the Ark and protected everything inside throughout the storm. You don't believe in GOD, do you?

It seems that you don't believe in addressing the questions posed to you. Are you suggesting that God made special arrangements or applied a little God-magic in order for the animals to survive and multiply in a completely devastated environment? Just add one more impossibility on top of all the others that demolish this ridiculous piece of fiction.

[LittleNipper]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #102]

How do you get over the fact that the minimum viable population (MVP, look it up) for a species in the wild is far more than just two? Given that, and the state of the planet after the devastation of the flood, virtually no species would have survived after disembarking let alone repopulated the planet.

GOD selected the humans and animals. GOD designed the ark for Noah and the various animals HE sent to Noah to be saved. GOD shut the door to the Ark and protected everything inside throughout the storm. You don't believe in GOD, do you?

It seems that you don't believe in addressing the questions posed to you. Are you suggesting that God made special arrangements or applied a little God-magic in order for the animals to survive and multiply in a completely devastated environment? Just add one more impossibility on top of all the others that demolish this ridiculous piece of fiction.

I'll tell you that GOD was/is in control and did what was necessary for their survival. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then they are up a creek without a paddle. GOD either exists and can do anything or GOD doesn't exist and we shouldn't exist either.