Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Thanks for the question and comment.
>>Hi Mark I was reading your website on evolution. I personally have no set belief on the matter but was wondering if you could provide you opinion on the following. I do have to admit that I find the biblical creation story more flawed than the theory of evolution.
Concerning the biblical creation story and Noah's flood. With Noah's flood all the earth was covered in water. Which is fine but was the water salty or fresh. It must have been fresh right? cause otherwise the lakes would have remained salty (and we have fresh water lakes) and quite possibly the land. So now the ocean is salty and we have salt water fish and fresh water fish. The only example I know of are pacific salmon that can survive in both fresh water and salt water other than that you can't take a salt water fish and put it in fresh water or vice versa it will just die. So where did salt water fish come from?<<
Its difficult to imagine the earth after creation given the fact we live in the world as it is now. We don't know how large or salty the seas were before the Flood. But obviously many creatures had enough variation in their genes to adapt and survive in the new environment after the Flood. And some became extinct unable to survive a harsh environment. The slow extinction of creatures that we see today is proof evolution is not happening.
There are other migratory species of fish (other than salmon) that can travel between salt and fresh water (striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, eels). So while some fish only live in salt water, others can and are able to adjust to both fresh and salt water within their own life time. Many marine organisms can survive large changes in salinity (star fish, barnacles etc). And many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species (toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring, anchovy, salmon, trout, pike, clingfish, stickleback, flatfish, etc). We are told that in public aquariums fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly. So the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was very likely present in most fish at the time of the Flood. Although, this ability is lost now to many fish - the opposite to evolution. Interesting, the fossil record shows is that huge numbers of marine creatures perished in the Flood - 95% of the fossil record.
>>the bible doesn't record their creation after Noah's flood, did they slowly adapt to increasing ocean salinity (but that's evolution) I thought maybe if you took a salt water fish egg and but it in fresh water it would adapt to it's new surroundings but have been told that this is not so. So you can see why I am a bit confused it would appear to me that a new species of fish was created after God created all the creatures in the sea.<< <
If created "after Noah's flood" that would mean some creatures today would not have had a pre-Fall representative. The bible doesn't mention such a creation and Ex.20:11 would contradict the idea. Not surprisingly few people hold that view.
The bible does record certain earth & creature changes after creation (i.e. plants - thorns and thistles Gen.3:18). And after the Flood the earth dramatically changed – deserts, snow caps, mountains, wilderness, earth-quakes, rampant death, decay, storms, diseases, etc. The fossil record indicates that before the Flood there were larger creatures of all kinds, bigger than today.
So after the Flood some creatures must have adapted for harsher conditions, they had design features useful after the Flood. These adaptive design features were present in the genes of the original creatures, allowing changes in certain environments. E.g., their diet changed, originally animals were given plants for food (Gen.1:29), but today many are wild and carnivorous.
The real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required. For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires — mutations. Or accidental mistakes as the genetic information (the coded set of instructions on the DNA which is the ‘blue-print’ specifying construction and operation of creatures) is copied from one generation to the next.
Such scrambling of information tends to either be harmful or at best neutral. Evolution is basically the belief everything made itself - that natural processes (over millions of years, without divine input or intelligence) have created an increasingly complex array of creatures. According to evolution, there was a time when no creature had lungs, no genetic information (the ‘blueprint’ for living things, carried on the molecule DNA) for lungs - anywhere. Then, at a later time, 'lung information' arose and was added to the world, but no 'feather information' as yet—feathers evolved later.
In other words, for every feature which arises by evolution, there would need to be new genetic information added to the total information in the biosphere (I.e., all the information in all creatures on Earth). Some features could be lost subsequently, of course, so there will not always be a gain, but if microbes turned into magpies, maple trees and musicians, there must have been a massive net increase in information. This is not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information, since it codes for complex structures which have purposeful functions. I find the evolution "story more flawed". Creatures need the code of information perfect at the start or there will be no creature. We know today time destroys information, information is lost in transit.
One final point: Its interesting that salt is entering the sea faster than escaping. The sea is not salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
Each year, the world’s rivers and underground streams add millions of tones of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favorable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age. So the oceans reveal there is not enough time for all the luck evolution demands.
Hopes this addresses your query.