Creation model

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:52 pm

OK, so I'm trying to get a grip on the Theory of Creation. (Not easy, even the people who claim it exists won't tell me anything about it.)

The question for this thread is how many species were there on the earth at each phase of history? The only figures I have are those of Woodmorappe (8000 species on the ark) and estimates of the number of species alive today (which I will call ">1 million").

So Bishop Ussher gives as this chronology (which isn't a theory, but is as close as I have come up with yet):

4004 BC Creation

2348 BC Flood

1491 BC Exodus

What I want to do is get some idea of the number of species at each stage:

4004 BC: ?

2348 BC and immediately after: ~8000

Present: > 1 million.

Now, it's important to note that there is no mention of massive speciation anywhere in recorded history. So I am assuming that the million+ species alive today evolved rapidly after 2348. Let's say one full millenium just as a round figure.

Also note that I am only considering the 1 million most conspicuous species. It is a real problem of determining how many there are because there are so many species of insect that we don't know about. They say there may be 30 million total species, mostly beetles.

So one question is, how many species were originally created? Just the 8000 on the ark? Or where there more? How many?

This is what I have so far:

Date Event # species
4004 Creation ?

2350 Flood ~8000

1350 hyper-evo >1 million

present >1 million

DanZ

Aximili23 · Post by **Aximili23** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:19 am

Juliod,

Yes, I have heard this type of argument before. Some creationists try to reconcile genesis with so-called "microevolution" or evolution within created kinds, by assuming that, in Noah's time, the number of species was a lot fewer. After the flood, these created kinds were then supposed to have undergone microevolution to give rise to the myriad species we know today. This means that massive speciation must have occurred throughout the last few thousand years, which isn't long at all geologically speaking; so evidence should be present in the fossil record. In other words, despite the demands of creationists for transitional fossils, it is creationists who must demonstrate the existence of transitional fossils to support their half-baked theory.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:15 pm

Is there any mention of how many bacterial species were on the Ark? I agree that the most conspicuous species are a good place to start, especially since it gets us to your most interesting point about how there should be even more transitional forms if creationists are right. Still, most of the diversity of life is bacterial, and a lot of that is in the Archaea. Did Noah have special environmental chambers with hot acidic water for the thermoacidophiles?

I'm also worried about the plants, which Noah didn't pay attention to. It's just like your typical general biology class--the plants always get ignored. I'd guess the squirrels brought lots of nuts, so that takes care of the oaks and walnuts and the like, as long as the squirrels didn't eat 'em all. Probably the mammals had burs in their fur, so that takes care of another bunch of 'em. But who saved the poison oak? and why?

Is it clear (going back to the conspicuous animals) how many "kinds" there are? Were there any "kinds" that Noah didn't have with him? If so, we have to build into the theory enough hyper-evolution to take care of the "kinds" Noah didn't have. This seems to contrast with the several "kinds" that didn't change at all after disembARKing, like sheep and goats. What are the Theory of Creation's rules concerning which species evolved after leaving the Ark, vs which ones stayed the same?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:23 pm

Re: Bacteria and Plants:

The bible doesn't say that Noah took plants or bacteria with him. So we have to ignore them for this discussion.

The creationist position (i.e. Woodmorappe) is that only about 8000 species (representatives of the genera) were on the ark. In this thread I'm not asking whether this is reasonable. I'm just asking about the creationist model.

I.e. How many species before the flood, and how many years after the flood before the total number of species was what we see today?

The rhetorical point is that there is no creation theory and that creationists will not, or are not able to, answer these questions.

DanZ

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:47 pm

To keep it simple...kinds approximately equal genera...That is to say kinds do not equal genera.

But it helps with the understanding.

Prior to the flood there were many more species than animals on the ark...not every species had a boat ticket.

The species that were on the ark represented the "kinds"

The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on the ark.

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746....see below
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe

From the genus rodentia, there were two Agouti represented on the ark. From those two Agouti all the species of Agouti MICRO-evolved.
From the two beavers on the ark...all the different species of beavers evolved...and so on for the list of rodentia.

Agouti,
Beaver,
Capybara,
Cavy,
Chinchilla,
Chipmunk,
Coypu,
Dormouse,
Evolutionist,
Flying squirrel,
Gopher,
Guinea pig,
Hamster,
Jerboa,
Jumping mouse,
Kangaroo rat,
Lemming,
Marmot,
Mouse,
Muskrat,
Packrat,
Porcupine,
Prairie dog,
Rat,
Sewell,
Squirrel,
Vole,
White footed mouse,
Woodchuck,
plus many many more not listed here.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:51 pm

Aximili23 wrote:Juliod,

Yes, I have heard this type of argument before. Some creationists try to reconcile genesis with so-called "microevolution" or evolution within created kinds, by assuming that, in Noah's time, the number of species was a lot fewer. After the flood, these created kinds were then supposed to have undergone microevolution to give rise to the myriad species we know today. This means that massive speciation must have occurred throughout the last few thousand years, which isn't long at all geologically speaking; so evidence should be present in the fossil record. In other words, despite the demands of creationists for transitional fossils, it is creationists who must demonstrate the existence of transitional fossils to support their half-baked theory.

Concerning the blue text above.....the creationist understand that the fossils were a by-product of the flood. In other words, no flood...no fossils.

So tell me why the creationist would expect to find fossils of the animals micro-evolving after the flood? Was there another world wide fossil making flood after Noah and the ark that we missed?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:16 pm

From the two beavers on the ark...all the different species of beavers evolved

How do you explain this happening so quickly?

But in any case, can you supply an answer to the original question: how many species at the creation?

Is there a creation model for how many years it took for the modern species to evolve after the flood? I was assuming a millenium as a round figure.

DanZ

Aximili23 · Post by **Aximili23** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:59 pm

So tell me why the creationist would expect to find fossils of the animals micro-evolving after the flood? Was there another world wide fossil making flood after Noah and the ark that we missed?

Well, your own post answers this:

From the two beavers on the ark...all the different species of beavers evolved...and so on for the list of rodentia.

If you believe even in microevolution, and natural fossilization, then a wide range of transitional fossils dating from Noah's time should be present, which would link those two beavers to all the other different species of beavers. This applies to all of the other animals from the ark as well. After all, a global flood clearly isn't the only process that will result in fossilization.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:16 pm

If you believe even in microevolution, and natural fossilization, then a wide range of transitional fossils dating from Noah's time should be present,

I think the creationiost pseudo-point is that all fossiles date from the Flood, and that there would be none of any of the species that evolved after the flood.

Which means, presumably, that all the animals known only from fossiles must have been alive prior to flood, but not represented on the ark.

I'm sure I will wait in vain for creationists to confirm or deny that interpretation.

DanZ

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:21 pm

Aximili23 wrote:
So tell me why the creationist would expect to find fossils of the animals micro-evolving after the flood? Was there another world wide fossil making flood after Noah and the ark that we missed?
Well, your own post answers this:

From the two beavers on the ark...all the different species of beavers evolved...and so on for the list of rodentia.
If you believe even in microevolution, and natural fossilization, then a wide range of transitional fossils dating from Noah's time should be present, which would link those two beavers to all the other different species of beavers. This applies to all of the other animals from the ark as well. After all, a global flood clearly isn't the only process that will result in fossilization.

Just what part of...there needed to be a flood to form fossils in our geological colum...and there was no world wide flood after Noahs Flood don't you understand???