Spirituality
08 Aug 15
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustOh I get it, your mixing man's view on how long the earth has been here to judge if the
Well, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz. I doubt whether there were either of them in Eden for Adam to name.
Or do you think that they were there?
And that is only the mammals. Do you think Adam named the beetles, the aphids, the snakes and scorpions indigenous to South Africa, or does the word "animals" in Genesis 2 only refer to mammals?
scripture means what it says. Why bother looking at the text?
10 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustAdam named all the animals that God brought to him. Obviously, he did not give them English names, since there was no English language at that time. It also seems obvious to me that he couldn't have named every species of animals we have today, since there were only kinds of animals then. 😏
To those whi take Genesis literally, here is a question for you:
When Adam named all the animals, did he also name the kangaroo, the sabre tooth tiger and the African Wild Dog?
The Near Genius
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo just how big was this Eden thing? It must have been thriving with dinosaurs and giant turtles and alligators and dodo's and Emu's and alpaca's and moose and elk and wildebeast and lions and tigers and elephants and mastadon's and Triceratops and mice and shrews and ants and maggots and bats and chickens and tapirs and Rhino's and ostriches and worms and ameba's and the like. So if predators didn't predate, what did all those animals eat? You do realize vegetarian animals need a LOT of territory to be able to survive on grass and leaves, right? So wouldn't Eden have to have been the entire planet?
Adam named all the animals that God brought to him. Obviously, he did not give them English names, since there was no English language at that time. It also seems obvious to me that he couldn't have named every species of animals we have today, since there were only kinds of animals then. 😏
The Near Genius
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are right, the distribution of animal species as we find them today merits a separate thread. Maybe I will tackle one on this subject later.
. So why do you think they accept the findings that elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago if they already reject most of science anyway?
This one was basically to determine how YECs explain the "Adam named all the animals" verse in Gen 2.
The "How do I know that ALL the animals (birds and beasts) were not originally all in Eden?" response is actually not worth an answer. But here is one anyway: Many animals, e.g. the lemurs of Madagascar and the Gorillas of tropical Africa and the camels of the desert, require specialized habitats, which makes co-habitation which each other in a relatively small area like the G of E impossible. So yes, I maintain that it was impossible for ALL the animals of the world, even only beasts and birds, to have been represented in the Middle East area.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustAgain, you forget that YECs believe in super fast evolution since Noah in which most of the animals we see today are descended from a much smaller set of 'kinds' that were on the ark. What existed in the garden of Eden could have been completely different. Remember too that there were no carnivores, so presumably many animals were very different. Also, disease causing organisms, etc would not have existed prior to God cursing the earth.
So yes, I maintain that it was impossible for ALL the animals of the world, even only beasts and birds, to have been represented in the Middle East area.
I think that you are not taking YEC beliefs literally.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhousePlants were created first to be for food. So I am sure God knew He had to make enough plants over the whole earth to feed all the animals. But the Garden of Eden is described as just a small portion of earth that God prepared especially for man. What exact animals were brought to Adam we do not know because we are not given a list of what he named them.
So just how big was this Eden thing? It must have been thriving with dinosaurs and giant turtles and alligators and dodo's and Emu's and alpaca's and moose and elk and wildebeast and lions and tigers and elephants and mastadon's and Triceratops and mice and shrews and ants and maggots and bats and chickens and tapirs and Rhino's and ostriches and worms and ...[text shortened]... ble to survive on grass and leaves, right? So wouldn't Eden have to have been the entire planet?
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustThat is because you have abysmal reading comprehension, as Duchess would say. 😏
You are right, the distribution of animal species as we find them today merits a separate thread. Maybe I will tackle one on this subject later.
This one was basically to determine how YECs explain the "Adam named all the animals" verse in Gen 2.
The "How do I know that ALL the animals (birds and beasts) were not originally all in Eden?" response is a ...[text shortened]... mals of the world, even only beasts and birds, to have been represented in the Middle East area.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes we know what animals Adam named.
But the Garden of Eden is described as just a small portion of earth that God prepared especially for man. What exact animals were brought to Adam we do not know because we are not given a list of what he named them.
All the animals that the ancient Hebrews (who were around when the Torah was written) were aware of.
10 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know about the teaching of super-fast evolution from Genesis "kinds" into the species we have today.
Again, you forget that YECs believe in super fast evolution since Noah in which most of the animals we see today are descended from a much smaller set of 'kinds' that were on the ark. What existed in the garden of Eden could have been completely different.
I think that you are not taking YEC beliefs literally.
Quite frankly, I just think that YECs have not thought through the implication that this kind of evolution is far more difficult to swallow than the gradual change over long periods that true evolution envisages.
If, for example, all the cat species in the world today evolved from one pair (being an unclean animal) in the ark, in a matter of less than 6000 years, this is so fast that since recorded history, numerous new species should have evolved.
Also, the 22000 species of beetles in SA should at least form two or three new species every year.
Do YECs really believe this? KJ, is this true?
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustNot sure why you'd think it is harder to believe, that a preprogrammed process would take
I know about the teaching of super-fast evolution from Genesis "kinds" into the species we have today.
Quite frankly, I just think that YECs have not thought through the implication that this kind of evolution is far more difficult to swallow than the gradual change over long periods that true evolution envisages.
If, for example, all the cat species ...[text shortened]... ast form two or three new species every year.
Do YECs really believe this? KJ, is this true?
an existing strand of DNA and have it alter itself to fit the environment it was in is more
difficult to swallow, than believing without a plan, without a design, without help nothing
could mold something into the life we see today.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI was actually talking about the TIME element involved.
Not sure why you'd think it is harder to believe, that a preprogrammed process would take
an existing strand of DNA and have it alter itself to fit the environment it was in is more
difficult to swallow, than believing without a plan, without a design, without help nothing
could mold something into the life we see today.
One YEC argument is always:
- that we don't need the millions of years, but
- that evolution has never been observed.
My point is that evolution SHOULD have been observed if the changes that you postulate happened so extremely quickly, i.e. in times of recorded history.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayTrue, evolution does not postulate a master plan or final design, but environmental forces acting on random mutations. That is how evolutionists explain all of life today.
... than believing without a plan, without a design, without help nothing could mold something into the life we see today.