Gardening Gone Wild is a great garden blog that has a monthly photo competition. This is my first time entering.
To visit Gardening Gone Wild, go to http://www.gardeninggonewild.com
Gardening Gone Wild is a great garden blog that has a monthly photo competition. This is my first time entering.
To visit Gardening Gone Wild, go to http://www.gardeninggonewild.com
Bats are unique among the animal kingdom, being the only mammals that can fly. The bat family consists of two main groups (fruit-eating megabats and echolocating insectivorous microbats) and over a thousand individual species (they are one of the largest mammal famlies). Aside from sometimes carrying rabies, bats are fairly harmless creatures – except to evolutionists.
The first problem bats present is their ability to fly. The probability of flight evolving separately FOUR TIMES (bats, birds, insects and pterosaurs) is very low. The next problem is the fossil record. Bat fossils have been found, but even the oldest (dated to around 50 million years ago) are annoyingly unchanged. Their skeletons are practically indistinguishable from modern bats. So what have they been doing in the last 50 million years? Surely there have been enough environmental changes to warrant a little evolution?
Of course, evolutionists will probably try to argue that bats are no friend of Creation either, because 500-year-old Noah would have had a hard time running around trying to catch a pair of each of the 1000+ species. But this would be a straw-man argument, because there are probably only two different bat kinds (megabats and microbats) and God would have brought them to Noah.
So, what evidence is there for bat evolution? Quite frankly, none. Bat evolution is a fictional concept with no basis in reality. There is no way, from merely looking at the fossils, that one could arrive at the conclusion that bats evolved.
The “oldest” known bat fossil is Onychonycteris, which is supposed to have lived 52.5 million years ago in Wyoming. It caused quite a stir, because it seemed to answer the question of whether flight or echolocation evolved first. Onychonycteris had fully developed wings, but seemed to lack echolocation. However, a different study suggested that it did indeed possess the ability to echolocate. Part of the confusion is due the fact that the fossil is flattened, making it difficult to determine the bone structure. Also, bear in mind that megabats can’t echolocate either, but that doesn’t make them more primitive than microbats. Their fruit-eating lifestyle just doesn’t require it.
Another difference between Onychonycteris and modern bats is that it had five claws, while modern bats only have two. Evolutionists believe this is because it evolved from some tree-climbing animal (shrews and primates have both been suggested), however it’s just as plausible that the bat itself needed the claws for climbing trees (the length of the arms suggest that this bat didn’t fly as much as other bats).
Until Onychonycteris came along, Icaronycteris (supposed to have lived 52.2 million years ago in North America) was considered the oldest bat. It could echolocate (which means that if echolocation hadn’t evolved yet during Onychonycteris’s time, then it must have evolved during the past 300 000 years, which isn’t nearly long enough for such a complex biological mechanism), and looks almost identical to modern bats. The only real differences are an extra claw, a longer tail (both of which indicate a loss, rather than gain of information in modern bats) and less specialized teeth (this too probably represents a loss of information – the earlier bats would have had the genetic information for a whole range of tooth types, and over time different bat species lost some of this information due to natural selection and became more specialized). Icaronycteris appears to have hung upside down just like modern bats.
Other fossil bats include Archaeoncteris from Germany, Witwatia (a megabat said to have lived 35 million years ago) from Egypt and Palaeochiropteryx, also from Germany and dated to 48 million years ago. None of these bats were substantially different from modern bats.
There are absolutely no fossils documenting the development of flight in bats. All fossil bats had fully functional wings. Of course, the possibility that flight never evolved in the first place doesn’t cross an evolutionist’s mind. But this means they are faced with the problem of no transitional fossils:
“The earliest known bats appear in the fossil record ≈50 million years ago, and they appear suddenly and already possessing the anatomical hallmarks of powered flight (including elongated third, fourth, and fifth forelimb digits).” 1
“Because of the similarity between the forelimb digits of the earliest preserved and modern bats, the fossil record currently can provide little evidence of the evolutionary transitions that led to the elongation of bat forelimb digits and the associated evolution of powered flight in mammals[…]” 1
“The relative length of bat forelimb digits has not changed in 50 million years.” 1
Something as complex as flight would surely take many millions of years to evolve, so shouldn’t there be some fossil evidence of it? The usual excuse given for the scarcity of bat fossils is that “bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats.” 2
In the Creation model most if not all bat fossils were formed during the Flood. It makes sense that there aren’t many bat fossils, because bats can fly and so would be able to escape the flood waters for longer than many other animals, until they eventually died and fell onto the surface of the water, where they could easily rot or be eaten by sea creatures. Many bat fossils have been found with preserved stomach contents, indicating that they died suddenly and were rapidly buried. These were probably bats that got caught in the Flood before they had a chance to fly to safety. In the evolutionary model, it seems odd, if conditions were unfavorable for bats to fossilize, that there would be so many bats with fossilized stomach contents. The only way evolutionists can explain this is “poisonous gas”, which presumably seeped out of a swamp and caused the bats to drop dead into the mud and get fossilized.
Due to the complete lack of evidence documenting bat evolution, scientists are forced to hypothesize about it. The general belief is that bats evolved from a shrew-like creature. After they evolved flight, they developed echolocation as a means of obstacle detection, but eventually used it for hunting as well. When megabats and microbats diverged, megabats started eating fruit instead of insects, and they lost the ability to echolocate.
This is all very well and good in theory, but there are a number of problems. First, there is still a lot of debate surrounding the flight-or-echolocation-first issue (although flight first is usually accepted because of Onychonycteris, and the fact that it is very energy-inefficient to echolocate while stationary). Secondly, some believe that microbats and megabats DON’T share a common ancestor, but evolved separately (which means flight would have had to have evolved FIVE times!). The reason for this hypothesis is that there are certain megabat features that are like those of primates:
“In 1986 Dr. John Pettigrew further proposed that flying foxes most closely resemble primates (Pettigrew p. 1), and that along with flying lemurs who also have their own order but don’t actually fly, they share a common ancestor with the primates.
He based his conclusions on research that showed that primates have unique neural pathways in the brain, having to do with vision, and that these pathways were so unique that it was thought that they distinguish primates from non-primates. Dr. Pettigrew discovered that all flying foxes also have them, […] but that no microbats do. As the flying lemurs also have these pathways, he proposed that they are really all primates, sharing a common ancestor, and that powered flight in bats evolved a second time, later in evolutionary history, only coincidentally resembling that of microbats.
Since then, however, other researchers have challenged his “two-origins” idea (Gibbons p. 34). Studies with mitochondrial DNA have shown that all bats are closely related, and separate from primates. Also, there is a muscle complex in the wings of all bats that is different from birds and all gliding mammals.” 3
To me, the most plausible explanation for the origin of bats is that given in the Bible:
“Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.’ So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw it was good. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” 4
The Hebrew word translated as bird is owph, which more literally means “winged creature” which obviously includes bats. God created them on Day 5 of the Creation Week, complete with flight and echolocation (which would originally have been used for non-predatory purposes, such as obstacle detection) – hence the lack of transitional fossils. Of course, because of their evolutionary worldview, most scientists will never accept this.
1 Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits, http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.full
2 Fossil Record of Chiroptera, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html
3 Bats and Evolution, http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm
4 Genesis 1:20-23 NKJV
The Secret Life of Bats, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/mammals/bats/session1/index.html
Fossil Record of Chiroptera, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html
Bats and Evolution, http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm
Researchers battle over bats’ ability to ‘see’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37156174/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/researchers-battle-over-bats-ability-see/
Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits, http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.full
Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation, http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6241.full
Giant Fossil Bats Out Of Africa, 35 Million Years Old, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304191213.htm
Fossils Reveal Bats That Could Fly But Not Echolocate, http://animals.about.com/b/2008/02/15/onychonycteris-finneyi.htm
Fossilized bat finally gives answer to bat evolution, http://english.pravda.ru/news/science/14-02-2008/104034-bat_evolution-0/
Earliest bat fossil reveals transition to flight, http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight.ars
The Origin of Bats, http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_13.html
Phylogenetic relationships of Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to extant bat lineages, with comments on the evolution of echolocation and foraging strategies in Microchiroptera, http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1629//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B235-0002.pdf?sequence=1
Bats: sophistication in miniature, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/bats.asp
Bat Evolution? – No Transitional Fossils!, http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/bat_evolution_no_transitional_fossils/ (video)
Bat Evolution, http://www.batworlds.com/bat-evolution.html
Bat Evolution, http://www.batconservation.org/drupal/art-bat-evolution
Bat Evolution, http://www.thewildclassroom.com/bats/evolution.html
Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7180/full/nature06549.html
A bony connection signals laryngeal echolocation in bats, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283/full/nature08737.html
There was a time when all human life—whether it had been born yet or not—was considered sacred. That time is long gone. In most countries it is now perfectly legal to have your baby killed at any point during pregnancy—even a few days before the baby is due to be born! If that’s not murder, I don’t know what is.
So, the first thing that obviously needs to be addressed—at what point does the baby become human? The answer is simple: at the moment of conception, a baby is 100% human and to kill it would be murder. As soon as it’s conceived, a the baby’s unique genetic blueprint is formed, and a new person has been created.
Hang on, some people argue, what if the zygote splits and becomes twins? Surely the baby isn’t human until about it’s about 14 days old, when it passes the time when twinning is possible? This troubled me at first, then I realized that it could be answered very easily. God is omnipotent. He has already planned whether or not that zygote will become twins. If it He wants it to split, then He will give the zygote two souls from the moment of conception, instead of one. They will exist in the same body for a few days, but that doesn’t mean much, as few people would deny that Siamese twins are separate people, yet they have joined bodies.
But surely the baby is only human once it no longer requires the mother for survival? Until it’s born, isn’t it just another part of her body, which she can choose to do whatever she wants with? Well, first of all, while a baby requires the mother’s body up till the moment it’s born, it can survive if removed at an earlier stage (and as technology improves, the minimum age a baby can survive being removed from it’s mother’s womb is getting lower). When you stop and think about it, a baby still requires its mother (or at least some form of care
-giver) to survive even after it’s been born! And technically, a woman can’t do whatever she wants with her body. For instance, she’s not allowed to kill herself (sadly, the time is probably coming when suicide will be perfectly legal). So why should she be allowed to kill the life inside her?
Many of the children who are killed (um… I mean aborted) every year would have lived if they had been carefully removed and cared for. Surely that proves that killing them is murder?
Almost all woman who have abortions regret them. Don’t believe me? Click on the Christian Answers link here http://www.christiananswers.net/life/stories-abortion.html to read stories from woman who’ve had abortions. Contrary to what you might think, having an abortion won’t improve your relationship. In fact, 70% of relationships end within 90 days of an abortion. And even if it doesn’t, you and your partner will still be haunted forever by the death of your child.
One excuse used to justify abortion is that all methods of abortion, despite their risks, are less dangerous than a full
-term delivery. Many woman still die from abortions, however (not to mention all the babies that die). And the excuse that a woman shouldn’t have to go through the pain of childbirth if she doesn’t want to is completely unfounded. Not only are doctors able to make childbirth almost completely painless now, but a number of woman who’ve had abortions and given birth have stated that the abortion was MORE painful.
What if a woman is young? What if she has her whole life ahead of her? What if she’s still in college? Or just about to embark upon her career? Surely abortion is justified then? No, it isn’t. In life, there will be many people we’ll find “inconvenient” but that certainly doesn’t give us the right to murder them! So to kill one’s own child just because you want to have a career is utterly indefensible.
But what if the pregnancy poses a great risk to the mother’s health? What if she’ll die without an abortion? We should remember that life and death are in God’s hands. Abortion isn’t the answer. Prayer is. We pray, and pray, and pray and pray that the mother and the baby survive. If one or both of them don’t, then this is very sad, but we at least we can take comfort in knowing it happened for a reason and if the mother was a Christian, then we will one day meet her again in heaven where she and her baby will know no sorrow.
What if the baby will be deformed? Or mentally disabled? Well, that doesn’t change the fact that God has some special purpose in mind for him or her. There are any deform and disabled people around. Should we kill them all? No! Many are very kind, intelligent people who add value to society. Think of Helen Keller. When she was only 19 months old she became deaf and blind. Yet, despite these disabilities, she learned to read and talk. She even went to college and graduated with honors! She traveled the world giving lectures and visited wounded WWII veterans. She wrote a number of books. She managed to live a full life. If it weren’t for her “disabilities”, she wouldn’t be remembered today, and she wouldn’t have been able to inspire and give hope to millions of other disabled people. We have no right to decide someone’s fate based on how healthy they are. God can use ANYONE for ANYTHING He wishes. Life and death must be left in His hands!
What if the mother doesn’t have the means to support the child? Surely it’s kinder to abort the child under those circumstances, so it doesn’t have to go hungry? This isn’t a valid argument. Ever heard the phrase, “The Lord will provide”? He will make sure all our needs are met. Besides, one can always put the baby up for adoption.
If you are pro
-abortion, but have a child, think about this: would it have been perfectly acceptable for you to abort that child during pregnancy? After all, at the time the child would have just been a blob—a mass of cells with no personhood, right? Think about what you would have missed out on if you had aborted the child.
Perhaps you don’t have a child. Think about this: would it have been perfectly acceptable for your mother to have aborted YOU if you would have been an inconvenience to her? No, of course not! You have something to offer society, just like everybody else. Your life has value.
What if Abraham Lincoln’s mother had decided a baby would be too inconvenient, and had had him aborted (abortion, by various different methods, has been around for hundreds of years)? Well, then the chances are history would have taken a completely different turn. Perhaps the South would have won the Civil War. Perhaps there never would have been a Civil War. Perhaps millions more would have died. Perhaps YOU might never have been born. We should never underestimate the impact one person can have on the world. Your baby could become the next Abraham Lincoln, or the next Isaac Newton, or the next Da Vinci. And even if it doesn’t, and just lives an average life, that still doesn’t give you the right to kill it.
I still wonder how anyone can possibly try to excuse the murder of innocent, unborn children. How do the workers at abortion clinics justify cutting up babies and then simply tossing their remains down the disposal? The mother has no right to choose whether or not to murder her baby. That child was made in God’s image and belongs to Him.
There is just no way to justify abortion. Sadly, with the rise of feminism, the mother’s convenience is now considered more important than the life of her child.
“You shall not murder.” Exodus 20:13
“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.” Psalm 139:13-16
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:26-27
“‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you born I set you apart.” Jeremiah 1:5
In practically every book, magazine article and TV program about sharks, you will be told that sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. The hypothesized evolutionary history of sharks is a bit more complex than that, but there certainly haven’t been any major changes to the shark kinds (go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/created-kinds to find the out what a “kind” is) that can’t be explained by simple natural selection.
According to evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record, sharks first appeared in the Ordovician Period (450-420 MYA). Thus, by the evolutionary timescale, they evolved long before the dinosaurs (the order fits with Genesis, as sea creatures were made on day five and land animals on day six, but not the timescale).
A curious thing about the fossil record in regard to sharks: despite some minor differences, sharks appear to have always been… sharks. There isn’t even any fossil evidence of fish evolving from invertebrates – it’s all just speculation. Scientist believe that bony fish and chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish) evolved from agnatha – the first fish. However, there’s no evidence of this. They simply infer it because of their prior belief in evolution. There is also no evidence of sharks evolving from early species of chondrichthyes. It’s as though for billions of years there are no sharks, then one day they appear, fully-formed (that’s not to say that the “early sharks” were the same as the species we have today. More on this later). The fact is, the simplest interpretation of the fossil record is that sharks are sharks and have always been sharks – they’ve simply changed a bit due to natural selection.
An important thing to note when reading long evolutionary fables about shark history is that many of the extinct sharks are known exclusively from their teeth (which are constantly shed throughout a shark’s lifetime and fossilize better than the rest of the skeleton), as cartilage doesn’t fossilize very well. There is so much variation in shark teeth among closely related species that one simply cannot use teeth as a means of gauging evolutionary development. There are a number of exquisitely preserved shark fossils (no doubt buried in Noah’s Flood – even the evolutionists admit that they would have had to have been rapidly buried), but none of them are significantly different from modern sharks. These scanty fossil remains do not attest to evolution. They don’t “tell” us anything about sharks in the past. This is not to say that useful information can’t be gleaned from studying them, but the fact of the matter is we have to interpret the evidence according to prior knowledge and beliefs. The fossils don’t speak for themselves. That’s why a single tooth might be given a complex evolutionary history – the scientists make an assumption based on their preconceived ideas. So although we can often make reasonable assumptions about these fossils, we will never be able to prove them since the past cannot be repeated, and is not available for observation. In the end, we base our interpretations of the evidence on our worldview.
“Molecular clocks” are an example of these underlying assumptions: scientists have used molecular clocks to measure mutation rates in sharks and trace back their divergence points. You see, mutations (which, by the way, DON’T add new information) are copying mistakes in the DNA, and are passed on from generation to generation. Scientists use these mutations as a kind of clock. For example, a species of fish is somehow split into two geographically isolated populations (meaning they can’t interbreed). Over time, new mutations will be accumulated, and each population will have its own set of unique mutations. To find out how long ago the two populations diverged, scientists would need to determine the average mutation rate. Once they did this, they could see how many different unique mutations there were among the two populations, and trace them back to the approximate time of divergence. Sounds all well and good, right? Well, not exactly, as this method involves several assumptions: first of all, they assume that the mutation rate remains constant. However, certain environmental factors can influence the mutation rate. Second, their method of calibration assumes the earth is millions of years old. For instance, geneticist Andrew Martin calibrated his molecular clock for sharks by comparing the DNA of two geographically separated populations of hammerheads who were supposed to have been separated around 7 million years ago by the rise of Isthmus of Panama. The problem is that the dating of the Isthmus of Panama relies on evolutionary principles. If this date is wrong, then it completely ruins the calibration of Martin’s clock.
So, when one has a biblical worldview, how do we explain the origins of sharks, the changes they’ve undergone, and their fossilization?
Well, the origin of sharks is recorded in Genesis: “And God said, ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures[…]’ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds[…] And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas[…]’ And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.” Genesis 1:20-23.
As strange as it may sound, sharks would originally have been vegetarian. This is because in God’s original perfect creation, there was no death (plant’s don’t “die” in the same was as humans and animals. You could destroy a plant, but it would still be “alive” in the sense that the pieces could take root and grow again). Unfortunately, Adam and Eve sinned, causing the whole of creation to come under judgment from a just and righteous God.
After the world was corrupted, animals began eating each other. Whether they were redesigned during the curse or carnivorous behavior developed as a result of natural selection is still a topic of debate. This brings us to the next question – how come sharks look different now compared to fossil sharks?
There are several reasons. First of all, God didn’t create each individual species when He made sharks. He would have created several “kinds” (the shark family seems too diverse to have originated from a single kind). Over time, natural selection (to find out more about natural selection – which is NOT evolution – go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution) caused these original kinds to diversify, and give rise to new species of shark. The sharks we see in the fossil record would most likely have been buried during the Flood of Noah.
Some of these sharks were truly bizarre, such as Helicoprian, which appears to have had a strange spiral tooth arrangement; the megalodon, which grew to a formidable sizw; Stethacanthus, a shark with a strange flat surface on its head and dorsal fin (you have to see pictures of reconstructions to understand just how odd this shark was); Hybodus, which had strange tiny “horns” on its head; and Falcatus, which had a strange backward-facing spine in place of a dorsal fin.
These sharks are often referred to as “evolutionary experiments”. First off, evolution is a supposed to be an unguided natural process, so it can’t “experiment”. However, when trying to explain the incredible design and diversity seen around us, scientists usually end up personifying evolution by talking as if it possesses forethought and purpose. The second problem with this statement is the implications that these sharks were somehow inferior and unsuccessful (a natural assumption for an evolutionist, since they believe that evolution is constantly improving everything). How do we know these creatures were unsuccessful? In a biblical framework, the mostly likely view is that these sharks were the result of natural selection acting on information present in the original kinds, and that these particular types of shark went extinct during or shortly after the Flood. Those sharks that did survive the Flood gave rise to our current shark families (there are a number of still-living shark species represented in the fossil record, such as frilled sharks).
Another important thing to note is that although most current species seem rather boring in comparison to their fossilized relatives, there are still some very weird sharks alive today, such hammerheads, whose name is pretty much self-explanatory; the goblin shark (which was originally known from fossil remains, and believed to have gone extinct 100 million of years ago, until it was caught by Japanese fishermen), which has a long protrusion on the end of its nose; the megamouth, which is the third largest species of shark and whose mouth is out of proportion to the rest of its body; the carpet shark, which is covered in coral-like appendages; the thresher, whose upper caudal fin is very long; the eelike frilled shark; and the enormous whale shark (the largest living fish), a harmless filter feeder covered in white spots and stripes. The shark family is still very diverse – just not as diverse as in the past, which fits with the Creation but not evolution.
When one looks at how well-suited sharks are for their environment, how perfectly designed they are, and how beautiful (in their own, sadly sin-cursed, way) they are, one cannot help but feel awe for their Creator, Who made us as well, and loved us enough to send His only Son to die for us so that we might be redeemed.
Sharks and Rays: Fish With No Ancestors by Robert Doolan, Answers in Genesis.com.
Sharks: Denizens of the Deep by Paula Weston, Answers in Genesis.com.
Recently, I visited the Durban Botanic Gardens (I’ve been numerous times before) and was greeted with a brilliant display of flowering aloes, euphorbias and non-succulent red hot pokers (which are related to aloes). These beautiful plants are an testament to the creativity of their Designer, who originally made them perfect when He created the world. They may be suffering the effects of the Fall (which explains their thorns), but they still hint at the perfection that once existed.
Not only do the plants there give me inspiration for my own garden, but they also remind of a world that once was, and will be again when our Lord returns!
These days, due to the mass evolutionary indoctrination by the media, many Christians have compromised the infallible Word of God, in an attempt to harmonize it with modern “scientific” ideas. Among the most common compromises are the Day-Age Theory, Theistic Evolution, and the Gap Theory.
Many people have written excellent rebuttals of these ideas, showing how they aren’t compatible with Scripture, so I won’t go into them now. I’m simply focusing on a single issue: If God did actually use evolution to create the creatures of this world, could dinosaurs have evolved into birds?
Let’s examine the Genesis:
“And God said, ‘…let birds fly above the earth and across the expanse of the sky.’ So God created… every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and… let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning – the fifth day.” Genesis 1:20-23.
Ok, so birds were created on day five (or whatever you view “day” to mean). What about dinosaurs? Genesis doesn’t mention them specifically, but they would have been created on day six:
“And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according their kinds. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:24-25.
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning – the sixth day.” Genesis 1:31.
So, no matter what you believe the “days” of Creation are, the Bible teaches that birds came BEFORE dinosaurs. Makes it a bit hard for dinosaurs to be their ancestors, doesn’t it? The only way to reconcile this with evolutionary theory is to completely toss out the beginning of Genesis (sadly, many people have done just this; but once you go down the slippery slope of “picking and choosing” what parts of the Bible you want to believe, you soon end up stripping away anything you don’t like, and eventually losing all respect for Scripture).
Finally, of course, I have to point out that dinosaurs (who fall under “wild animals”) are a separate “kind” from birds, and so one couldn’t turn into the other.
The dinosaur-to-bird “theory” is completely unscriptural, no matter how you slice it. I will admit it’s possible some dinosaurs had feathers (this doesn’t make them birds, it just means they had the same Designer using the same structures to accomplish a similar purpose), but they could NOT have evolved into birds.
Hi! I’m a young-earth creationist (YEC) and will be posting about Creation, evolution, the Bible, cacti (a hobby of mine), and lots more.