[_ Old Earth _] Common Creation Question Answered

[John]

Many questions are raised by believers in evolution when presented with the evidence for creation. This article addresses some of these common questions.

How did the marsupials get to Australia?
Noah was charged with building the vessel to safeguard certain animals during the first flood (a massive and complex worldwide disaster) not with distributing them afterwards. Once Noah released the animals on Mount Ararat, natural instincts and climatic conditions determined how the redistribution of the animal population took place. As subsequent generations of animals spread across the globe, territorial prowess or chance movements would send certain groups in certain directions. Those animals least suited for or least able to defend a territory would either be forced further from the landing site or exterminated. A consequence of the worldwide flood was a brief but severe ice age which locked ocean water into vast ice fields. This lowered ocean levels and created a land bridge to Australia. A similar land bridge connected Asia to Alaska during this period of Earth history allowing for the free movement of man and animals between these continents. Land movements during the ice age or the subsequent melting of the ice cut off the connection between Australia and Asia effectively isolating the unique animal life to Australia.

How could worldwide coal deposits form rapidly?
The first effect of the worldwide flood would have been the ripping up of vegetation and erosion on an unimaginable scale. As the water receded from one area, vegetation would have been deposited only to be subsequently buried as the area sank and water brought in more sediment. Thus, layer upon layer of coal would have been formed. Furthermore, it has been shown in the laboratory that vegetation can be turned in to coal in as little as one hour with sufficient heat and pressure. A recent model of coal formation is provided by a study of the catastrophic explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980. This explosion knocked down millions of trees which ended up floating on Spirit Lake. Underneath this floating vegetation mat is a thick layer of peat consisting of tree bark and organic matter. If that organic matter were buried by a subsequent eruption, the result would be a coal seam covered by sedimentary rock. Repeated cycles would rapidly produce a series of coal seams with sediment on top of each seam. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that an enormous global flood would have rapidly created the extensive coal seams we find today.

Is “Survival of the Fittest†part of the evolution ?
Modern evolutionists have tried to distance themselves from this concept due to the obvious negative consequences of applying the principle to the social realm. Denying that survival of the fittest is part of the evolutionary process is akin to denying that one type of animal will drive another to extinction given the right conditions. Contrary to the rosy picture of animal cooperation which evolutionists like to portray, one type of animal has no qualms wiping out another in its quest to propagate itself. Wild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like “survival of the fittest†doesn’t it? Survival of the fittest has always been an integral part of the evolutionary theory.
If we are also animals that have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution; why shouldn’t we extend this principle to the social realm? Why shouldn’t we eliminate weaker classes of humans that compete for what we feel we need? Evolution taken to its logical conclusion leads to a savage world akin to Hitler’s Nazi Germany when the strong determine what is right. It was no coincidence that Hitler was strongly influenced by the writings of Darwin.
It is a slap in God’s face and a distortion of Scripture to believe that evolution, with its driving mechanism of survival of the fittest, would be a loving God’s method for creating and preserving us.

 

[Patashu]

Immediately after noah's ark landed there would only have been one breeding pair for each species. If even one of the two died or was severely impaired by any other animal then the species would have ended right there and then. How was a mass extinction avoided? If none of the species attacked each other miraculously, what did the carnivores sustain themselves on?
Even if none of the species died this way, another problem is raised in the form of genetic bottlenecking. With the incredibly low genetic variation provided by having only two members of a species the species is at incredible risk, because if something threatens one of the members it now threatens all of the members, as none are significantly different in any way so as to be able to overcome the obstacle. Think of the Irish Potato Famine, where because potatoes were so often asexually reproduced allowing for no sexual reproduction and genetic reproduction, a single disease could attack every single potato with equal success.
What incentive would the animals have had to disperse throughout the globe so quickly? In the case of animals which nest or move very little, in fact, how would they have done this?

If we are also animals that have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution; why shouldn’t we extend this principle to the social realm?

Naturalistic fallacy, is-ought fallacy.
The theory of evolution describes what IS. It describes that there is variation among species, members of a species more suited to their environment and conditions are more likely to survive and reproduce and thus their traits become more prominent over the generations, etc.
The reason why this isn't an OUGHT is because the theory of evolution does not prescribe a moral guideline. If we did take it as one we would let nature run its course, would we not? Through murder and genocide we would be per scribing our own fitness metric, saying that X and Y and Z are inferior, but if they were detrimental traits then they should go away naturally.
The theory of evolution was devised to explain natural phenomenon, not as a philosophy nor as an ethical system nor as a moral guideline. It is science and describes an is, not ethics or morality which explain oughts. Please understand this.

It was no coincidence that Hitler was strongly influenced by the writings of Darwin.

Funny thing, that. See, Hitler didn't mention Darwin's name once, nor did he use the phrase 'theory of evolution'. If Darwin was such an inspiration for him why is he never mentioned except under a list of books that are to be banned from his nazi germany?