All posts © Rosa Rubicondior. Contents may be reproduced without permission provided credit is given to the author, it is not altered in any way, the context is made clear and a link is provided to the original.

Income generated from ads will be donated to various charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations. Hopefully religious and other offensive advertising content has now been blocked from this site. Please let me know if you see any.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

Ten Questions for Creationists

Creationists insist their theory of creation is at least as good, if not better, than any scientific theory at explaining the observable facts and that it leaves nothing unexplained. In that case it must easily be able to answer the following questions with little difficulty.

1. Creationists insist that nothing can come from nothing and everything must have a cause, and that this implies a creator. They claim this to be a fundamental law with no exceptions.

Holding to this law, out of what was the creator made and who or what caused its creation?

Alternatively, please explain what your god made the universe from if it couldn't have been from nothing, and who or what created this substance and out of what.

Alternatively, please explain the reasoning behind the implicit assumption that non-existence rather than existence is the default state, in other words, why there would be nothing rather than something.

2. Creationists claim information cannot arise spontaneously as this contravenes the second law of thermodynamics, so this implies a designer. A designer with the information needed to create the universe and everything in it must be at least as complex as the universe.

How did this information arise spontaneously in the designer without contravening the second law of thermodynamics?

Alternatively, please explain the difference between information and meaning. For example, the following sequence of letters read by an English speaker has no meaning:


Read by someone in Lithuania however, it has a perfectly clear meaning. How was the second law of thermodynamics involved in that change?

3. Creationists claim all species went through a genetic bottle-neck of just two (or seven, according to the version being used) individuals which survived a global flood by living on a boat for a while, 6000 years ago.

How did the genetic diversity we see in most species today, including Homo sapiens, evolve in just 6000 years?

4. Creationists claim a global flood killed all living land animals apart from just two (or seven) survivors which lived on a boat for several months. This flood covered the highest mountains so must have been at least 30,000 feet deep (the height of Mount Everest), at which depth no land plants could survive. Also, very few plants survive immersion in salt water for more than a few days. None of them are montane species (which would have been the only ones in water shallow enough to allow enough sunlight through for them to survive for the duration of the flood). Additionally, according to the Bible, God destroyed all living substances that weren't in the Ark.

What did the herbivores eat when they left the boat?

5. According to creationism, just two (or seven) individuals of each species surviving the flood

What did the carnivorous species eat when they left the boat without exterminating very many of the surviving species in the first few days and weeks?

6. Creationism says all living substance was destroyed during the flood. There is no mention of any plant life, including seeds, being on the ark.

While plants were becoming re-established and diversifying, how would the plant-eating species have stayed alive and bred a large enough population to sustain the carnivores, and what would these plants have evolved from?

7. There are approximately 250,000 different species of plant known today. This would require an average of 40 new species every year, yet in the last 200 years, we have only seen a handful of new plant species evolve.

How could plants have evolved so many different phyla, classes, orders, families and species in just 6000 years?

8. Many species of herbivore, such as the Australian koala and many species of butterfly, are specialised in their feeding habits and only eat a small number of plant species.

What did they eat whilst waiting for their preferred food plant to evolve or how did they evolve their specialised digestive systems so quickly once their food species had evolved?

9. At current known rates of mutation in mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) mathematical models show that all humans share a common female ancestor who lived about 350,000 years ago. (Note, this does not imply the first humans arose from a single individual, only that we all share this common theoretical ancestor). For the observed diversity in mDNA to have arisen in just 6000 years, the rate of mutation in mDNA must have been several orders of magnitude higher in earlier times.

What would have cause this very high rate and what cause it to slow down?

10. There have been approximately 240 human generations in the last 6000 years (assuming a generation time of 25 years). There are approximately 6,700 different recognised languages spoken today, and very many extinct ones. This represents approximately well over 28 entirely new language arising on average every generation and yet we have no records of an entirely new one arising in recent history.

How did these new languages arise spontaneously fully developed in earlier times at a rate at which two or more people could communicate in them?

I would welcome answers from leading exponents of Young Earth Creationism, especially those who earn a living lecturing others and who claim their explanation is better than science at explaining the observable facts.

submit to reddit


  1. You seek only the possible... while God does the impossible. The truth is, through God, all things are possible. That is what's so awesome about God and how He does things.

    A lot of the stories in the bible are impossible w/out Him behind it- He is an open book and available to all who seek Him. All the healing, miracles, etc., are only possible through Him.

    All the stuff inquired upon, is made possible because God was behind it all. The afore mentioned in your writings, w/out Him, are impossible and the questions and doubts arise.

    My favorite is when Jesus was tempted for 40 days: Luke 4:2 being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry.

    Only God could have sustained Him.

    1. Exactly! I completely agree with this! The answer to every one of these questions is...


      God didn't want to use his ultimate power to make everyone good, so he used his MAGIC to totally fuck up the world and kill absolutely everyone (except his buddy Noah), then used a shit ton of MAGIC to make it all better again without anybody noticing or bothering to write down how he MAGICALLY re-created all the plants and animals and everything. And it's all COMPLETELY TRUE. Every. Fucking. Word.

      Don't believe me? That's because its ridiculous.

    2. All you are doing is avoiding the questions just by saying, "God did it because God did it." You explain nothing and answer no questions. There is no evidence to support Young Earth Creationism while there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, the Big Bang Theory, etc.

  2. Peter, you cannot site your god as the basis for your argument. This blog post has already challenged you to prove god/creation exists. You're basically saying the definition of a rock = a stone. And the definition of a stone = a rock. You get no where and accomplish nothing.

    You might as well believe everything I say or everything this blog says. You might say "but you're not god". How do you know?

  3. I already stated that w/out Him, they are impossible.

    It is the blogger that is making something that it isn't. The blogger is taking the word of God, eliminating the intents and purposes, and turning the "rock" into a "stone".

    The blogger is asking Christians for an explanation- okay, but with limitations and walls... excluding the Truth of what the word of God is about.

    To eliminate all possible Truths is very unscientific.

  4. Peter. Should we regard this smokescreen as the best cover you have for not actually answering any of the questions?

  5. The comment by alysdexia was removed as it bore no relationship to the subject of the blog. Please do not spam this site with irrelevencies and evidence-free assertions.

  6. "while God does the impossible."

    Convenient way to evade the question huh? This displays exactly why this type of magical thinking can lead to no useful knowledge... with God in the mix absolutely anything is possible.

  7. Peter's trying to swim with cinder blocks tied to his ankles. Sad to see such a struggle with reality...and someone losing it.

  8. It is always interesting to see the rationalizations of the pious as they attempt to square the circle. The powers of this deity have always been just beyond the comprehension of those that submit it as a cover for there ignorance. For instance, in the 6th century BCE iron chariots where even unbeatable to the God of war, Yahweh Sabaoth (Judges 1:19). Before that God, nee El Shaddai, was sharing meat with Abram/Abraham in front of his tent (Genesis 18:1-11), and subletting the Arc of the Covenant--I guess.

    These deities seem to be forever poised just beyond our knowledge at the boundary of the supernatural which seems to be another word for ignorance.

    Good list of questions, by the way. As always. But, do you think you will get any YECs to respond to the points? Me neither.

  9. Beachbum. Well none have so far, though some have offered up the traditional excuses, including the all-purpose fall-back, 'God did it by magic' or words to that effect.

  10. All interesting comments but there is something slightly awry with your mathematics in point 10. I think there should have been only 240 generations (not 1500) in the last 6000 years if the generations are 25 years on average. (I can see how the error happened, but 240 x 25 = 6000.)

    Anyway - this only makes your point stronger.

    Incidentally there have been about 15,000 generations since the common female ancestor.

    1. If we lower the age of reproduction to the earliest possible age of 13 then you still only get 460 odd generations. Not really a lot to bring about the distinctions between Australian Aboriginals and the northern blond haired counterparts from the Netherlands.

      If you consider historical paintings and drawings you'll note that in all cultures there does not seem to have been a lot of change over the last few thousand years either. Egyptian hieroglyphs and paintings of ancient Chinese emperors do not show the amount of dramatic change required to give a 6000 year diversity. You would expect at that rate for there to be a noticeable change in pictures dating back only 500 years!

  11. You're right. I'll correct it.

  12. Sadly, the creationists that I have encountered relish the reduction of the argument to magic. The result is frequently frustration and annoyance that I harbour for a while afterwards. I am left feeling the need for radical expression of anger the more parsimonious they become.
    There are very few 'light on' moments recorded in 'believers' but it would seem useful to highlight these occurences. 'pour encourager les autres'? I have met plenty of clergy who wryly acknowledge their own doubts but who are frightened to shake the columns.. Let's hear from them!

  13. [puts on creotard's hat]
    1 - God is the one exception, which in the only way to prevent the infinite regress, He is Self Existent(tm).
    2 - See answer 1.
    3 - Things were different back then - Scripture tells us Noah lived to be very old, so his DNA must have been special.
    4 - You're assuming the sea was salty back then. A lot of plants must have survived the flood or they wouldn't be here today. God wasn't angry with the grass or trees after all.
    5 - They survived on all the stranded fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
    6 - See answer 4.
    7 - See answer 4, plants obviously survived the flood otherwise there would not be all the species we see today.
    8 - See answer 4.
    9 - Things must have been different back then otherwise DNA evidence would not be suggesting such erroneously ancient dates.
    10 - Yay Scripture!

    [/creotard rant]

  14. God, being omnipotent, could have created the entire Earth and Universe and people 15 minutes ago, with all of the fossil and other scientific evidence intact, including our memories and beliefs.

    Why would God create the Earth and the universe with all of this scientific evidence that points to a big bang and evolution if he did not want us to believe in it? And so, in not believing in science are you not going against God's will?

    One could argue he is trying to test our belief in him. But that would mean God, by giving us contradictory evidence is, is taking away our free will, and is a mean spirited liar. But if he were testing us, then atheists who do the right thing towards their fellow man without the wish for a reward or fear of punishment by God are actually the most holy people of them all.

  15. Absolutely. It's amusing that Creationists, given the choice between the physical evidence they believe their god created and what it says in the Bible they believe their god created, they assume their god lied in the physical evidence. They know this for certain because it says in the Bible that their god tells the truth.

    Presumably, their god only tells the truth when it's in writing. He lies everywhere else.

    Either that, or they are worshiping a book not a god.

  16. Peter Pickett II said: "You seek only the possible... while God does the impossible."

    Indeed! Why should we depend on silly ol' science? Why concern ourselves with reason or logic? Why bother to think at all when we can simply rely on MAGIC?!?

    !!!YEAY, MAGIC DID IT!!!

    Never mind the fact that our computers, and the internet which makes this very conversation possible, are examples of technology, the product of science. Never mind the scientific research and training of the countless medical doctors responsible for so many of us being alive today. Never mind the technological developments in agricultural techniques, construction techniques, communication, transportation, etc, etc, etc, that we depend on daily for our very existence. None of which is the product of religious wishful-thinking. No, let us throw all of that aside and simply assert, without presenting any meaningful evidence, that "God was behind it all".

    Or perhaps, just maybe, there are better ways of thinking. Better ways of learning. Better, more intellectually honest routes to knowledge.

    Each individual must define her/his own priorities. What are yours, Peter? Do you prefer the familiar comfort of belief, or are you interested in the objective truth at all costs? Ultimately, there can be only one objective truth. My personal interests are not in belief of any sort. As Carl Sagan said: I want to know. I want to learn as much as I am capable about the actual-factual, real world without concern for what I might wish to be true. My wishes and desires for the universe in which we reside to conform to my preferred ideas of reality do not inform actual reality in any way whatsoever. Nor do yours or anyone else's.

    If, as you suggest, God is "behind it all", I want to know! But my standard of evidence simply will not allow for any religious dogma to be accepted on faith. For the life of me, I do not understand how anyone could view religious faith as anything other than an intellectual cop-out. Mythological wishful thinking wrapped in an increasingly threadbare blanket of social acceptance.

    If any religion represents the real truth, it should not need our protection from critical dissection. The truth remains the truth. Our goal should be to endeavor to move ever closer to that truth, whatever it may be, without fear, and without sheltering ourselves behind walls of societal expectations explicitly designed to protect religious dogma. We should be willing to change our views whenever new and better evidence is discovered. We should be willing, even eager, to acknowledge honest ignorance. And we should maintain a reasonable degree of skepticism and doubt in the face of so many mutually exclusive religions all claiming to possess ultimate truth.

    Peter, instead of merely asserting that God is the answer, why not try presenting meaningful, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in support of your position? Are you capable of doing so? Is anyone? If not, shouldn't that suggest something to you about your beliefs? To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever produced anything remotely approaching independently verifiable, objective, scientific evidence in support of the "God Hypothesis". Until such time, I must conclude that your beliefs are no more meaningful than those of any other merely asserted religion. In other words: they hold no meaning at all.

    But I am open to evidence...

  17. @Peterpickett 2 Can i challenge god ? I mean gimme a task which u think is impossible without god. Iam an atheist so god wont help me. Ill do the task and thereby disprove you. If i cant do the task you must be able to do it as god is on your side. Please dont talk about going to hell because people in hell cant communicate with people in here .

    The fact is you dont have an answer to such simple questions.
    At a depth of 8km under water not even a Titanium submarine can withstand the pressure. It will get crushed as easily as you can crush an empty water bottle.

    If god wanted to kill the sinners why dint he simply kill them ??? instead why submerge everything???? Very childish of your god.

  18. That's a very good challenge. I wish I'd though of that myself. :-)

  19. Brilliant questions. I wish you would read the Koran and challenge it this way, too.
    Another question I'd like to add is, Why did God wait for four thousand years before establishing Christianity? What happened to the people before then? Obviously none of them were Christians, so where did they go? If all of them went to hell, on what basis?

  20. Another question for creationists:

    Where did fish come from? If the flood event occurred, fish must either have been created afterward, or their entire biological makeup was altered before the flood (and specifically for the flood) and then reverted to its original (and current) state.

    What? Why? Because a flood event which raised the level of the sea by 30,000+ feet would have severely changed the salinity of the ocean and all freshwater bodies of water. None of the aquatic species which are adapted to live specifically in salt/fresh water would have survived in their new environment. Given what we know about evolution, such an incredibly diverse range of present-day marine life could not have possibly evolved in only 6,000 years.

  21. Creationists,fools, who have well -trained eyes with blinders on so as to see only their Truth rather than everyone's reality contribute to wooery!
    The rationalists' fallacy is to think that with more education, less superstition would abound when rather people just get more sophisticated in their superstitions.
    Yet, atheism is progressing!
    Rosa, please use the teleonomic argument, the argument from pareidolia and the atelic one- theists beg the question of wanted outcomes- divine teleology. Google arguments about Him-that square circle to see in full those arguments,please.
    Rosa, theistic evolutionists are just as silly per that teleonomic argument! Teleonomy-causalism-mechanism rules, not some divinity!
    All theism in the wide sense is creationism!

  22. Rosa, Peter, begs the question by using faith. " Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science, as Sydney Hook notes, is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge.
    Reason can move mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance.' Fr. Griggs
    Theists whole argumentation rests on the arguments from incredulity and from ignorance!
    They find it incredible that Existence exists and answer with that argument from ignorance. God explains nothing, being no more than that tautology, God wills what He wills, that is,God did it! Study George H.Smith's " Atheism: the Case against God," Michael Martin's " Atheism: a Philosophical Defense of Atheism, and Martin's three atheist anthologies. Know God = no God!
    Rosa,with attribution, you hereby have the right to use any of my material as you so please! Googling skeptic griggsy, skepticgriggsy, naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy, ignostic morgan and inquiring lynn should give anyone a taste for anti-theism! That is for those serious inquirers rather than the pedantic.

  23. 1) In your question you mention existence and non existence. How do you know that either of these have ever existed? If you cite your perceptions or experience then likewise I can cite my experience of God. If my experience of God is not valid then likewise your experience of existence is also not valid.

    If you say 'well certainly existence must exist' then I can say 'well certainly God must exist' Both statements are equally arrogant. All logic depends on it's assumptions. All systems of logic are either incomplete or inconsistent. There is no way to prove that anything exists. Period.

    People believe in God because of personal experience not because of proof. The same way that you believe that your third grade teacher ever existed. You can not prove his or her existence without the aid of other 'facts' which are equally dubious.

    If you like you can define God as the sum of all things that exist including the laws that govern them, all things that do not exist & all other modalities of exisitance as well... ...then God exisits by definition.

    2) the 2nd law of thermodynamics is only rigorous for systems 'near' equilibrium. It is flawed when considering either hypotheses for the the origin of the universe

    3-10) the story of the flood was passed down by mouth for generations before it was written down. The actual timing and scope could be way off. It could of happened 35,000 years ago and it could of been a local phenomena. When the animals left the flooded area they would find food, etc etc

  24. IOW, you have to convince me there is no such thing as reality in order to justify your superstitious Bronze Age belief in a creator of it.

    And the Bible is wrong, so your belief in it as a source of truth is justified.

    Does it get any better than that or is that it?

  25. Peter - if God exists why does he not regenerate limbs on amputees?

  26. "Creationists insist that nothing can come from nothing and everything must have a cause, and that this implies a creator. They claim this to be a fundamental law with no exceptions.

    Holding to this law, out of what was the creator made and who or what caused its creation?"

    Bog standard and fairly idiotic comment general atheists ask.

    Those unaware of religious discourse.
    I don't think any major religions claim to know much about God.

    "Alternatively, please explain the reasoning behind the implicit assumption that non-existence rather than existence is the default state, in other words, why there would be nothing rather than something."

    Another not very bright question. One you can go

    The answer - no one really knows to

    Definition of "nothing" in physics is different from common meaning of the word "nothing".

    Again you show lack of religious discourse by saying "implicit assumption that non-existence rather than existence is the default state"

    Theology, Science, Religion, Philosophy and etc have attempted to answer this from ancient times.

    All have no absolute answers - but this is not what you imply.

  27. aminriadh.

    Thank you for rehearsing the standard excuses for not answering the questions.

    I'll resist using the word 'idiot' because, unlike those who do, I have no need to try to deflect attention away from my discomfort nor to pretend to knowledge and understanding I don't possess.

  28. Ha ha - the standard response - resort towards "petty insults".

    You simply assume that I ascribe to being a creationist.

    I was merely pointing out that you seem unaware of religious discourse and are wrong to imply that religions tend implicitly ascribe to the views you described.

    That simply is not the case. It would have been better to properly - rather than side-stepping.

  29. aminriadh.

    Your double standards are noted.

    Have you anything worthwhile to offer by way of an intelligent and reasoned answer to any of the questions, or are we to be treated to a mere pretense of knowledge and/or deep wisdom where none exists?

  30. "Your double standards are noted."

    I am kind of puzzled - which double standards exactly. You cannot excuse me of something I am not guilty of.

  31. aminriadh

    >which double standards exactly<

    You called me an idiot then accused me of 'petty insults'.

    Perhaps you're not even aware that the same standards of behaviour should apply to you as you demand of others. Another word for this is 'hypocrisy'.

    I note that you still haven't actually answered any of the ten questions, BTW. Are you still hoping the mere pretence of wisdom will be enough?

  32. I believe in Genies so my answers 1-10 are 'Because the King of Genies could.'

  33. These are all awesome questions that would really just get Fundie's to stumble to uphold their outdated and groundless beliefs. But i used that word beliefs because as a person who was regrettably sent to a catholic middle school i know from have an open forum in my religion class that most regular Christians view religion as just that, a belief. In fact, we were forced to not bring up religion in science and vice versa, not because they didn't want us challenging our own religion, but because they recognized that they are not interchangeable. I am distressed to see so many people on the internet say a lot of religious people are bigots and fools or what not (paraphrasing) when in fact most are regular people who believe in God but recognize the bible for what it is, and collection of parables. stories with a lesson, not to be interpreted literally. That is all, please don't rage at me.

  34. To the anon above me:

    Wait, why do you believe in God if you believe that the bible is fiction? I don't understand.

    If you recognize the source of all support for the existence of the Christian god to be fictional, then doesn't it logically follow that you recognize the Christian god to also be fictional?

    Is it a social thing?

    What do you believe you're praying to, if and when you pray?

    If you call yourself a Christian simply because you believe that Christianity has certain morals and values that you agree with, you can agree with these morals and values without believe in a god, and without calling yourself a Christian, you know that, right?

    That thing that always disturbs me about people who recognize the bible as mythological, is that they still will not give up their title as Christian, and usually are the ones who sit idly, or even support the more devout religious folk whenever they pass laws that infringe upon human rights, or try to distort knowledge and information.

    I don't want to come off as malicious, and I'm definitely not raging here, but Anon, if you're a Christian that doesn't believe in the bible, then... well... what exactly DO you believe in?

  35. question 1: The creator didn't come out of anything at all, but has always existed and always will.
    If the creator has no begininng and no ending, then the universe can be created to be likewise, with no begining and no ending.
    Here's a non-religious science based article from technolgy review / National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, backing up my point (that it is scientifically plausible that time and the universe have no beginning and no end ):
    question 2: For a designer/creator to exert influence don the design of the universe, the designer must exist, in a sense, "outside" of the design itself ( that being the universe ), and in that state / place, none of the necessary laws of thermodynamics, or any other physical law, are necessarily relevant. An analogy would be a video game designer existing in our world, living “outside” of the physical laws and rules of the game he/she designed. Inside the game there can be all kinds of laws and rules that may, or may not, have anything to do with the laws on earth ( Take the game “portal” as one example ) If a creature inside the game ( ie our universe ) was complex enough to be intelligient / sentient, and aware of the game environment,it would still only be able to analyze and measure its “virtual”, in-game environment, and have no understanding of the world the game designer ( God / Creator ) inhabits.

    1. In other words, you have to abandon first cause in order to defend it. This must be one of the most idiotic and infantile of all creationist reasoning.

  36. Question 3. Look up rapid evolution. Scientific fact. Proof:( Non-creationist links:)
    Link 1:
    Link 2:
    Link 3:
    We will evolve / adapt rapidly and dramatically to accommodate survival, and this capability is built-in to creation to allow for survivability in changing environments. The rates of evolution will vary depending on severity of changes in the environment and our survivability in those environments, and will also vary due to “forced” selection ( Breeding / forced marriages / etc ) This rapid change is selection/ evolution within the general species ( humans / dogs / cats etc ). There is no evolution from one species to another.
    4. and 5. :Many plants did go extinct after the flood. But many could have survived. Here's web-page detailing specifically that point:
    There are no known stories in the bible of people, or even other animals, eating meat, until after the flood. Meat eating became necessary and allowable at that point forward. All animals then, including humans, have developed / evolved tolerances to meat-eating since the flood.

    1. How do you explain evolution occurring so rapidly that several new species would need to arise from the previous one at each generation, please?

  37. 6. Seed dormancy and germination, both on the ark and off, explains this. Here's a link ( it is a science based creationist article, but finding a non-creationist scientific article on post-flood seed germination may prove to be difficult ! )
    Obviously, if Noah and his family were preparing to be on the ark with this great selection of animals, they would have brought food on the ark. And if, as mentioned above in the answer for 4 and 5, that food was all plant-based ( fruits and vegetables and grains ), then there was a great deal of seeds of various types on the ark, right inside the food supply.
    Also, a quote from seems a reasonable explanation:
    "The waters of the flood were covered with large floating mats of vegetation stripped from the land surfaces. Some plants would continue to grow on these thick mats. Some birds, and maybe some insects, amphibians and other small creatures may also have survived on these mats. Some of the mats would wash up onto the new shorelines to reseed the land, but most were buried to form the large coal and oil deposits we now find. The buried seeds of many plants would also become exposed during the erosion events at the end of the flood period...
    7. again, look at rapid evolution ( see links in answer 3. ), and the answer number 6. There were thousand and thousand of varieties of plant seeds that would have been carried by mats of vegetation floating on the waters of the flood. Therefore, no need for the extreme evolutionary rate that you are talking about, as a large diversity of seeds for a large diversity of plant types pre-existed. The decrease in development in rapid evolution in the last 200 years could be related to many things, not the least of which could be pollution from the industrial revolution, radiation from open-air nuclear testing, and nuclear disasters ( Chernobyl ) etc.

    1. How quickly do you imagine it would take to repopulate the earth with enough food for the herbivores, and what would they eat for the hundreds of years this was taking, please?

  38. 8. If the plant life has evolved at a certain rate, the insects could also evolve at similar rates to enable their survival. The small number of foods that they have become specialized in eating may not have been the same foods millenia ago as they are now. Some Koala’s and butterflies would die off, and those who were more tolerant to the changes in plant life would pass on their tolerances to the next generations, and the creatures would evolve / adapt to survive at a rate relative to the rate of adaptation of their food supply. This is too simple and shouldn't be in the list of questions.
    9. Already partially answered above. Before the flood there was a population base that contained a much higher level of genetic diversity, and that people in those times lived far longer than now. According to the bible, pre-flood human life-spans were averaging approx 900 years. Likelihood of successful breeding must have been much slower then however, as Adam and Eve were said to have only had 7 offpring, and Noah only 5. Intersting article on pre-flood populations here: The flood itself would have caused a massive loss in available genetic diversity, slowing the process of evolution by reducing the number of people living / evolving, and restricting available genetic material to that of only a small handful of people. Since then, we have also reduced the rate of genetic change through our own practices, including racism ( restriction of inter-racial marriage ),centuries of in-breeding in many cultures, (including the English ), war, industrial and nuclear pollution,etc
    10. Google "the tower of bable story" in the bible. a Quote from this webpage:
    According to Genesis 11 , all humans spoke the same language immediately following the global flood. Those who migrated to the east and settled in the land of Shinar decided to build a city and a great tower out of baked bricks to make a name for themselves. Because there is no archaeological evidence of buildings from antediluvian civilizations, the Tower of Babel was the first major monument ever built of which any evidence might remain. The biblical history of the Babel community shows that they used fire-baked bricks rather than sun-baked bricks. This is significant because this allows increased strength and the possibility of a tremendous structure. It is these fine details of the biblical text that show historical narrative as the structure of these passages. It is also important to note that the Babel community were also building a city in the periphery of the Tower. God intentionally scattered mankind to retard their technological advancement by confusing their speech. The origin of the various root languages is presumably linked to this event. God apparently created several unique languages to scatter humans throughout the world. Current estimates place the number of distinct language families at 94

    1. What selection pressure would keep the populations in sync with the warp-speed evolving plants with several new species arising at each generation, please? Note: extinction is not a clever evolutionary move.

  39. 4 isn't a very good question, as the Bible clearly shows that Noah and his charges stayed in the ark until the plants began to grow again.

    3 I would probably leave off as well. Many people believe that the eruption of Toba created a similar bottleneck, only more like 70,000 years ago. While that gives us ten times the time, and the population was more like 15,000 instead of 2 or 7, that's still a huge challenge. In any case, Creationists don't believe in evolution, so they would say that what came off the ark did not need to and therefore did not evolve between then and the present time.

    1. Since, according to the Bible, God destroyed all living substances not on the Ark, where did these plants come from, please?

    2. The creationists do have a sort of answer here. They have two kinds of "life". Animals and humans (their distinction not mine) are "alive" in the commonly accepted sense whereas plants have a lower order of "life". There's a lot of juggling with Hebrew words to justify the position but the upshot is that plants are not "living substances" and so may not have been destroyed. You'll find a detailed explanation on the website Answers in Genesis. It also explains why all antediluvian people and probably animals were vegetarians.
      Of course the real answer is that none of it ever happened - it's just a story.

    3. So, to be a creationist then, you need to believe all plants, fungi and presumably protista, are dead, and ignore the evidence that they aren't.

      I can see why they get so ratty when you try to get them to look at evidence.

  40. Regarding #1, if it's possible for one god to come into existence ex nihilo, then why not two, or an infinite number? Indeed, the God Hypothesis is untenable.

  41. My first and foremost question would be: is your God capable of creating our exact Universe evolutionarily? If not, then it's surely less powerful than one which is (as envisioned, for example, in Pandeism); if so, then our exact Universe (including, incidentally, all the contravening scriptures within it) could indeed have been created evolutionarily, and you, well you wouldn't know the difference.

  42. The following is a bloggers response to an article on Intelligent Design in the Gaurdian newspaper(1st sept 2005) by American geneticist Jerry Coyne and Prof Richard Dawkins...

    'Why is God considered an explanation for anything?
    It's not-it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'i dunno' dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is they haven't a clue, so they're attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you'll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which of course,explains nothing.'

    How true this is!


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Sorry but the spammers are back so I've had to restrict who can post again.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics