Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
You're right. It's impossible for the world to have been created millions or billions of years ago by the process of evolution. Who ever believes in that poppycock of evolution belongs in an insane asylum.
[SUP]1[/SUP] (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
[SUP]1[/SUP] (To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:there is none that doeth good.
[SUP]0[/SUP] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[SUP]21[/SUP] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[SUP]22[/SUP] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[SUP]23[/SUP] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[SUP]24[/SUP] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[SUP]25[/SUP] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[SUP]1[/SUP] (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
[SUP]1[/SUP] (To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:there is none that doeth good.
[SUP]0[/SUP] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[SUP]21[/SUP] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[SUP]22[/SUP] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[SUP]23[/SUP] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[SUP]24[/SUP] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[SUP]25[/SUP] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts:
essence: (spirit, ever-present, immortal, holy, eternal, self-existing, all powerful, invisible, self-sustaining, all-knowing, unified, tracencent)
character: (Holy,Good,faithful,patient,righteous,honest,loving,just,fair,forgiving,pure,consistent,merciful....more)
... to say about the image of God than just the simple fact that he is Spirit. ( I do not know, He may be whatever He wants to be)
Man:
Possesses a spirit.
Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree.
Man was created as a holy and righteous being.
He was created as an eternal being, ---- endowed with wisdom (not agree).
He was created with the capacity to love, to dispense mercy, kindness, goodness, compassion, and justice.
Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it.
This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such,
man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.
Question: if all this good attributes comes as part of the creation of man in the image and likeness of the essence and character of God,
Where the bad bits comes from? God as Well?
essence: (spirit, ever-present, immortal, holy, eternal, self-existing, all powerful, invisible, self-sustaining, all-knowing, unified, tracencent)
character: (Holy,Good,faithful,patient,righteous,honest,loving,just,fair,forgiving,pure,consistent,merciful....more)
... to say about the image of God than just the simple fact that he is Spirit. ( I do not know, He may be whatever He wants to be)
Man:
Possesses a spirit.
Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree.
Man was created as a holy and righteous being.
He was created as an eternal being, ---- endowed with wisdom (not agree).
He was created with the capacity to love, to dispense mercy, kindness, goodness, compassion, and justice.
Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it.
This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such,
man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.
Question: if all this good attributes comes as part of the creation of man in the image and likeness of the essence and character of God,
Where the bad bits comes from? God as Well?
Last edited:
That is a good question. Whatever is bad in man's behavior comes not as the result of divine attributes but from a distortion of them. Man was also created as a free will being just as God is. When we get to the garden scenario and the fall of man I will have much to say on this. For now just focus on how the nature of God is reflected in the creation of man as it was before the fall of man. This was the ideal. This is where man stood as the perfect representation of his Creator. What happens after sin enters the world of man is different matter entirely.
V
Thank you, dear Percepi. I understand how I used the word theory incorrectly. I appreciate you alerting me to that.
Although I can nod in agreement to much of what the video states regarding organisms developing & diversifying over time, I cannot agree with the statement, "Humans and modern apes share a common ape-like ancestor." I'm just not convinced.
But I certainly enjoyed viewing this video and thank you for taking the time to post it.
Although I can nod in agreement to much of what the video states regarding organisms developing & diversifying over time, I cannot agree with the statement, "Humans and modern apes share a common ape-like ancestor." I'm just not convinced.
But I certainly enjoyed viewing this video and thank you for taking the time to post it.
Yes, atheists when proven wrong normally resort to empty rhetorics, demagogy and terminology to evade answering the tricky parts of their belief system. Just as you admitted in your next post "we dont have a definite answer yet". This is because you wont accept the Biblical answer, and that's okay, we all have a choice; but dont call these scenarios scientific. They are not. Things that are explained within natural laws, even fictiously like in theoretizing in math are all science. But if things contradict natural laws they are MIRACLE by definition.
Whether we call things this or that way, it's correct both ways: life does not emerge out of something inanimate, to say it differently as you objected for my innacuracy because I said "something dead". It's correct either way you want to call it, life does not emerge out of something inanimate. You also had objection that I was addressing abiogenesis when we're talking about evolution. But that supposed pre-ancestor of man had to come from somewhere. If God did not create us, then he had to progressively come from that soup - where else?
Speciation aka adaptation is proven science. What is not proven science is one-kind-into-another progression, such as, reptiles into birds - these things have NEVER been proven, with all these fossils laying around that atheists are examining to prove the theory. There has NEVER been found ANY transitional fossil from one kind to another. Never. So called microevolution or speciation of a kind (such as wolf and dog probably originating from the same kind, or one species of bird developing into another) is somewhat observed, and also Biblical, but that's speciation and adaptation, not evolution. Furthermore, there has NEVER been proven addition of new genetic information to create a more complex organism. Only corruption and loss. A man is incredibly more complex than amoeba: to supposedly create another kind, an insane amount of new information must be added, and this information must function together well enough during the process that the organism survives and stay strong to pass it on. Even given billions of years this simply does not happen by natural laws. Genetic mutations only cause illness and death, that's all, and else is just adaptation aka speciation, different color of hair, taller growth, thicker eyelids for people adapted to snowy areas... this does not ever create another kind of organism, just species within the same kind. Evolution theory proponents use the misnomer evolution for adaptation in order to claim that kind transitioning is also a proven fact, when it is not. This confusion of terms is not very scientific.
Why do men think the laws of nature are in place? They are in place so when something out of these laws happens, man might know that it is supernatural and caused by interference of someone/something out of the universe Which/Who is above these laws, that all the matter subjects to. So man can understand and know it as a sign of divine origin, and that it's not just a "normal" thing. To be pulled by gravity is natural and normal. To suddenly start flying and defy the laws of nature, like say, Jesus ascended, and this not be repeatable event for other men under specified conditions, is a miracle, not science or laws of nature. Same goes for abiogenesis, creation ex nihilo (in Biblical version, it's actually by the Word of God) and complex organisms from scratch (in atheist version, without an intelligent designer involved, to comply to your request that "accident" is a wrong term). This is why the Bible says that atheists have no excuse!
Btw, when we're talking about the laws of nature, something just hit me, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of a system never decreases, but, will spontaneously evolve toward maximum entropy.
The result of spontaneous evolving of things causes only more disorder and chaos. Yet this universe is full of laws that the whole matter subjects to. Not to even venture much into what this tells about theory of evolution which believes that it is possible for a functioning complexity to spontaneously evolve into an even greater order of functioning complexity.
I'll try to be more precise:
-SOMETHING EMERGING OUT OF NOTHING (smashingly breaking laws of physics)
-LIFE EMERGING OUT OF INANIMATE SOURCE (which is the basis for theory of evolution to work on because you have to have that imaginary ancestor of man come from somewhere; again completely defying natural laws)
-COMPLEX FUNCTIONING SYSTEMS (ORGANISMS) THAT PROGRESSIVELY EMERGED INTO GREATER AND GREATER COMPLEXITY, ALL FROM SCRATCH THROUGH MUTATIONS, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGNER INVOLVED (defying the law of entropy)
This is what atheists actually believe - no matter if a term might be not 100% accurate here and there, but I did try to be accurate. To me, it's unbelieveable how great faith it takes. Atheists believe in greater miracles than Christians.
Whether we call things this or that way, it's correct both ways: life does not emerge out of something inanimate, to say it differently as you objected for my innacuracy because I said "something dead". It's correct either way you want to call it, life does not emerge out of something inanimate. You also had objection that I was addressing abiogenesis when we're talking about evolution. But that supposed pre-ancestor of man had to come from somewhere. If God did not create us, then he had to progressively come from that soup - where else?
Speciation aka adaptation is proven science. What is not proven science is one-kind-into-another progression, such as, reptiles into birds - these things have NEVER been proven, with all these fossils laying around that atheists are examining to prove the theory. There has NEVER been found ANY transitional fossil from one kind to another. Never. So called microevolution or speciation of a kind (such as wolf and dog probably originating from the same kind, or one species of bird developing into another) is somewhat observed, and also Biblical, but that's speciation and adaptation, not evolution. Furthermore, there has NEVER been proven addition of new genetic information to create a more complex organism. Only corruption and loss. A man is incredibly more complex than amoeba: to supposedly create another kind, an insane amount of new information must be added, and this information must function together well enough during the process that the organism survives and stay strong to pass it on. Even given billions of years this simply does not happen by natural laws. Genetic mutations only cause illness and death, that's all, and else is just adaptation aka speciation, different color of hair, taller growth, thicker eyelids for people adapted to snowy areas... this does not ever create another kind of organism, just species within the same kind. Evolution theory proponents use the misnomer evolution for adaptation in order to claim that kind transitioning is also a proven fact, when it is not. This confusion of terms is not very scientific.
Why do men think the laws of nature are in place? They are in place so when something out of these laws happens, man might know that it is supernatural and caused by interference of someone/something out of the universe Which/Who is above these laws, that all the matter subjects to. So man can understand and know it as a sign of divine origin, and that it's not just a "normal" thing. To be pulled by gravity is natural and normal. To suddenly start flying and defy the laws of nature, like say, Jesus ascended, and this not be repeatable event for other men under specified conditions, is a miracle, not science or laws of nature. Same goes for abiogenesis, creation ex nihilo (in Biblical version, it's actually by the Word of God) and complex organisms from scratch (in atheist version, without an intelligent designer involved, to comply to your request that "accident" is a wrong term). This is why the Bible says that atheists have no excuse!
Btw, when we're talking about the laws of nature, something just hit me, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of a system never decreases, but, will spontaneously evolve toward maximum entropy.
The result of spontaneous evolving of things causes only more disorder and chaos. Yet this universe is full of laws that the whole matter subjects to. Not to even venture much into what this tells about theory of evolution which believes that it is possible for a functioning complexity to spontaneously evolve into an even greater order of functioning complexity.
I'll try to be more precise:
-SOMETHING EMERGING OUT OF NOTHING (smashingly breaking laws of physics)
-LIFE EMERGING OUT OF INANIMATE SOURCE (which is the basis for theory of evolution to work on because you have to have that imaginary ancestor of man come from somewhere; again completely defying natural laws)
-COMPLEX FUNCTIONING SYSTEMS (ORGANISMS) THAT PROGRESSIVELY EMERGED INTO GREATER AND GREATER COMPLEXITY, ALL FROM SCRATCH THROUGH MUTATIONS, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGNER INVOLVED (defying the law of entropy)
This is what atheists actually believe - no matter if a term might be not 100% accurate here and there, but I did try to be accurate. To me, it's unbelieveable how great faith it takes. Atheists believe in greater miracles than Christians.
Thank you, dear Percepi. I understand how I used the word theory incorrectly. I appreciate you alerting me to that.
Although I can nod in agreement to much of what the video states regarding organisms developing & diversifying over time, I cannot agree with the statement, "Humans and modern apes share a common ape-like ancestor." I'm just not convinced.
But I certainly enjoyed viewing this video and thank you for taking the time to post it.
Although I can nod in agreement to much of what the video states regarding organisms developing & diversifying over time, I cannot agree with the statement, "Humans and modern apes share a common ape-like ancestor." I'm just not convinced.
But I certainly enjoyed viewing this video and thank you for taking the time to post it.
This is not reasonable, mutation is random and could bring any result, most of the time negative, but here and there something positive, and if this is transmitted you have evolution. speciation is just evolution but seen a much larger time-frame, see the camel and the llama, the llama have cousings to, Huanaco, vicuna, alpaca. this animals are in the verge of becoming different species.
Also hybrid animals are a prove of evolution, the prove is in that they mostly infertile, means they are close but not that close.
It show how speciation is turning into evolution. you can not say a camel is a llama, but they below to the same family.
There is not intermediate species,???? you want to see a chicken with the head of a pig? that is silly, but you see hundreds of cases like the camel, lama, vicuna, alpaca , huanaco, .... cat, tiger, lion, leopard,cheeta.... wolf, coyote, dogs..... lemur, monkey, apes....
Also hybrid animals are a prove of evolution, the prove is in that they mostly infertile, means they are close but not that close.
It show how speciation is turning into evolution. you can not say a camel is a llama, but they below to the same family.
There is not intermediate species,???? you want to see a chicken with the head of a pig? that is silly, but you see hundreds of cases like the camel, lama, vicuna, alpaca , huanaco, .... cat, tiger, lion, leopard,cheeta.... wolf, coyote, dogs..... lemur, monkey, apes....
I'm not an atheist but the evolution of birds is thought to have begun in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropoda dinosaurs known as Paraves.
Everybody knows that (because Wikipedia says so).
But did you know that horses used to be the size of a small dog?
Try riding that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZThquH5t0ow
Everybody knows that (because Wikipedia says so).
But did you know that horses used to be the size of a small dog?
Try riding that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZThquH5t0ow
...And these are not functional new kinds of organisms...
Again speciation/adaptation (beneficial changes that might get transferred, the transition species-to-species that nobody is debating) is being confused with with transition kind-to-kind (mutation to that transitional length only brings organism to illness or soon death, as evidenced by the world around us)...
Again speciation/adaptation (beneficial changes that might get transferred, the transition species-to-species that nobody is debating) is being confused with with transition kind-to-kind (mutation to that transitional length only brings organism to illness or soon death, as evidenced by the world around us)...
I never did this, so how is this relevant?
We don't have a definitive answer as to how life came to be. But we don't have to know how life occurred to understand that evolution is true.
1. How do you know?
2. You have no problem believing man was made from dust.
It doesn't matter if God created the first cells from nothing or if the first cells formed naturally. Evolution is true regardless of our origins.
(A few) transitional fossils
[video=youtube;TTOla3TyfqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ[/video]
I'll admit that I am ignorant of any examples, only because this is something I have not personally looked into.
Just because you say it can't happen doesn't mean it really can't.
Mutations only cause harm? What do you think selective breeding is?!
You talk about adaption as if it somehow relies on a different process as evolution. Spoiler alert: It doesn't.
Scientific laws don't exist. We refer to certain phenomena as laws, sure, but it's reality that dictates the laws. It's not the other way around.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. This has been debunked over and over and over again, simply because people like you don't understand what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics actually states.
Calling evolution spontaneous doesn't prove your point what-so-ever. In fact, saying evolution is spontaneous is probably the most vague thing you've said so far.
And the majority of scientists who happen to be Christian as well.
I literally laughed at this asinine statement. You claim evolution is faith based, but all you did was go, "I DON'T GET IT. THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE A MIRACLE." Every single criticism you provided is based off ignorance and misconceptions. Evolution isn't faith based what-so-ever.
Evolution is FULL of frauds, even though there are only a handful of examples creationists ever use. And guess who exposed those frauds? Scientists who accept evolution! That's right! Whenever a fraud appears, scientists correct themselves! Go figure!
Just because one person is a fraud doesn't mean everyone is a fraud. And let's face it, creationism is interchangeable with fraud.
We don't have a definitive answer as to how life came to be. But we don't have to know how life occurred to understand that evolution is true.
1. How do you know?
2. You have no problem believing man was made from dust.
It doesn't matter if God created the first cells from nothing or if the first cells formed naturally. Evolution is true regardless of our origins.
(A few) transitional fossils
[video=youtube;TTOla3TyfqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ[/video]
I'll admit that I am ignorant of any examples, only because this is something I have not personally looked into.
Just because you say it can't happen doesn't mean it really can't.
Mutations only cause harm? What do you think selective breeding is?!
You talk about adaption as if it somehow relies on a different process as evolution. Spoiler alert: It doesn't.
Scientific laws don't exist. We refer to certain phenomena as laws, sure, but it's reality that dictates the laws. It's not the other way around.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. This has been debunked over and over and over again, simply because people like you don't understand what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics actually states.
Calling evolution spontaneous doesn't prove your point what-so-ever. In fact, saying evolution is spontaneous is probably the most vague thing you've said so far.
And the majority of scientists who happen to be Christian as well.
I literally laughed at this asinine statement. You claim evolution is faith based, but all you did was go, "I DON'T GET IT. THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE A MIRACLE." Every single criticism you provided is based off ignorance and misconceptions. Evolution isn't faith based what-so-ever.
Evolution is FULL of frauds, even though there are only a handful of examples creationists ever use. And guess who exposed those frauds? Scientists who accept evolution! That's right! Whenever a fraud appears, scientists correct themselves! Go figure!
Just because one person is a fraud doesn't mean everyone is a fraud. And let's face it, creationism is interchangeable with fraud.
BTW, evolution is gradual. You don't have a dinosaur that gives birth to a bird. There is no single point in which one species evolves into another. Imagine if we took a picture of you every 60 days from the age of 1 to the age of 60. At which point did you become an adult? There is no single point, it's gradual!
From wikipedia.
File:Ferrariofsanfrancisco/0587/86583c663d121f51e2feaa3d7724ededx.jpg A "Zonkey", a zebra/donkey hybrid
Hercules, a "Liger", a Lion/Tiger hybrid
A "Jaglion", a Jaguar/Lion hybrid
A mule, a Domestic Canary/Goldfinch hybrid.
References
DNA Discovery Reveals Surprising Dolphin Origins
Categories:
File:Ferrariofsanfrancisco/0587/86583c663d121f51e2feaa3d7724ededx.jpg A "Zonkey", a zebra/donkey hybrid
Hercules, a "Liger", a Lion/Tiger hybrid
A "Jaglion", a Jaguar/Lion hybrid
A mule, a Domestic Canary/Goldfinch hybrid.
- Hybrid Iguana, a single‐cross hybrid resulting from natural interbreeding between ben ten alien wildmut and a Australian feather serpent since the late 2000s.
- Equid hybrids
- Bovid hybrids
- Dzo, zo or yakow; a cross between a domestic cow/bull and a yak.
- Beefalo, a cross of an American bison and a domestic cow. This is a fertile breed; this along with genetic evidence has caused them to be recently reclassified into the same genus, Bos.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
- Zubron, a hybrid between wisent (European bison) and domestic cow.
- Sheep-goat hybrids, such as the Toast of Botswana.
- Ursid hybrids, such as the grizzly-polar bear hybrid, occur between black bears, brown bears, and polar bears.
- Felid hybrids
- Savannah cats are the hybrid cross between an African serval cat and a domestic cat
- A hybrid between a Bengal tiger and a Siberian tiger is an example of an intra-specific hybrid.
- Ligers and Tiglons (crosses between a lion and a tiger) and other Panthera hybrids such as the lijagulep. Various other wild cat crosses are known involving the lynx, bobcat, leopard, serval, etc.
- Bengal cat, a cross between the Asian leopard cat and the domestic cat, one of many hybrids between the domestic cat and wild cat species. The domestic cat, African wild cat and European wildcat may be considered variant populations of the same species (Felis silvestris), making such crosses non-hybrids.
- Fertile canid hybrids occur between coyotes, wolves, dingoes, jackals and domestic dogs.
- Hybrids between black and white rhinoceroses have been recognized.
- Hybrids between spotted owls and barred owls
- Cama, a cross between a camel and a llama, also an intergeneric hybrid.
- Cetacean hybrids
- Wholphin, a fertile but very rare cross between a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin.
- In 2014, DNA analysis showed the clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) to be a naturally occurring hybrid species descended from the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba). [SUP][1][/SUP]
- A fertile cross between a king snake and a corn snake.
- At Chester Zoo in the United Kingdom, a cross between an African elephant (male) and an Asian elephant (female). The male calf was named Motty. It died of intestinal infection after twelve days.
- Cagebird breeders sometimes breed hybrids between species of finch, such as goldfinch x canary. These birds are known as mules.
- Gamebird hybrids, hybrids between gamebirds and domestic fowl, including chickens, guineafowl and peafowl, interfamilial hybrids.
- Numerous macaw hybrids are also known.
- Red kite and black kite: five bred unintentionally at a falconry center in England. (It is reported[SUP][weasel words][/SUP] that the black kite (the male) refused female black kites but mated with two female red kites.)
- Hybridization between the endemic Cuban crocodile (Crocodilus rhombifer) and the widely distributed American crocodile (Crocodilus acutus) is causing conservation problems for the former species as a threat to its genetic integrity.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][clarification needed]]][/SUP]
- Saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) have mated with Siamese crocodiles (Crocodylus siamensis) in captivity producing offspring which in many cases have grown over 20 feet (6.1 metres) in length. It is likely that wild hybridization occurred historically in parts of southeast Asia.
- Blood parrot cichlid, which is probably created by crossing a red head cihclid and a Midas cichlid or red devil cichlid
- A group of about 50 hybrids between Australian blacktip shark and the larger common blacktip shark was found by Australia's East Coast in 2012. This is the only known case of hybridization in sharks.[SUP][3][/SUP]
- The mulard duck, hybrid of the domestic pekin duck and domesticated muscovy ducks.
- Killer bees were created in an attempt to breed tamer and more manageable bees. This was done by crossing a european honey bee and an african bee, but instead the offspring became more aggressive and highly defensive bees that had escaped into the wild.
- In Australia, New Zealand and other areas where the Pacific Black Duck occurs, it is hybridised by the much more aggressive introduced Mallard. This is a concern to wildlife authorities throughout the affected area, as it is seen as Genetic pollution of the Black Duck gene pool.
References
DNA Discovery Reveals Surprising Dolphin Origins
- Voloder, Dubravka (3 January 1012). "Print Email Facebook Twitter More World-first hybrid sharks found off Australia". ABC News. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Categories:
Liger= Feline kind! Not change from one kind to another
Jaglion= as above..not speciation.
Cross between a cow and bull-- that is Aurok kind interbreeding.. not speciation. Not one kind becoming another-- which is what is put forward by dinosaurs becoming birds..and us from the birds!
The sharks.. interbreeding.. that is the shark kind.. that is not a new kind. That isn't a shark becoming a pig or something like that.
Beefalo- same situation as crossing cow and bull- it is the Aurok kind. Like variations on dogs.
This has no conflict at all with a Young Earth.. creationist view point. It is God programming species who can interbreed and have variation.
So again.. you can't interbreed a cat with a dog. That is different kinds. Canine vs Feline.
No examples of macro-evolution here.
This is all adaptation.
