Creation Tidbits – The Macaws

February 9, 2010| Legion of Skills


Creation Tidbits - The Macaws

Macaws are the largest and the brightest in the parrot family. They are easy to recognize, because they are big colorful birds. Macaws live in the tropical parts of South, Central America.  The biggest macaw’s wingspan is around four feet, the smallest macaws wingspan is fifteen inches. Most species are associated with forest, especially rainforest, but others prefer woodland or savannah-like habitats.

Macaw Wings
Macaw Wings by ravi.k

Some of the macaw species are known for their impressive size. The largest parrot in length and wingspan is the Hyacinth Macaw. The heaviest macaw is the Buffon’s, although the heaviest parrot is the flightless Kakapo.

Macaw Cleaning by royal19

Scarlet Macaw - Macaw Mountain Bird Park by Adalberto H. Vega
Scarlet Macaw – Macaw Mountain Bird Park -by Adalberto H. Vega

What’s So Special About The Macaws?

Macaws eat poisonous berry seeds  as a main part of their diet, they also eat a clay that absorbs the poison and provides much needed minerals . The fact that Macaws instinctively eat the clay from riverbanks to absorb dangerous poisons in the food they eat,  is a problem for the evolutionary theory, because the Macaws had to have this instinct not built into them over millions of years, but at the moment they were created, or else the species would not have survived.

Macaws, Tambopata Peru by Bill Swindaman

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:20-22

Macaws At Clay Lick by CB Photography

Macaws over Rio Tambopata, SE Peru by Bill Swindaman

The clay-eating behavior by macaws is not seen outside the Amazon region even though macaws in these areas consume toxic foods such as the seeds of Hura crepitans, or Sandbox Tree, which has toxic sap. One unpublished theory is that these birds also consume other plants containing detoxifying agents such as tannins that neutralize the toxins. God gave the Macaw everything necessary to survive and thrive against these poisonous agents.

Hyacinth Macaws
Hyacinth Macaws by SARhounds

Blue and Gold Macaw
Blue and Yellow Macaw by Express Monorail

How has God equipped you to stand up against the poisonous agents of this world? share your thoughts below in the comments area.


Godserv Designs

Categories: Creation, Insights

28 thoughts on “Creation Tidbits – The Macaws”

  1. cyrus

    Thanks a lot. But isnt that what the Scopes trial was all about. That one of the parties said that the earth was created 5000 years ago. Please help.

    1. loswl Post author

      I know nothing about the Scopes Trial, but as you described it….

      one of the parties said that the earth was created 5000 years ago.”

      We cannot base our facts on what man says, even if that man is a Christian, we have to base our facts on what the Bible says and as I say before….There are actually no verses in the Bible that claims the earth is 5000 years old…..NON AT ALL!!!

      What we do know is that the earth is NOT Billions or Millions of years old as evolutionist would have us believe.

  2. cyrus

    If as losvi comments that human like remains are found in fossils which are millions of years old, thus justifying that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, Could you please then explain the Biblical version which says the earth itself is only 5000 years old, the two points dont reconcile

    1. loswl Post author

      Hi cyrus, thanks for your question….There are actually no verses in the Bible that claims the earth is 5000 years old…..NON AT ALL. But there are Scientist, Historians and Biblical scholars that calculate based on different Scientific and Historical and Biblical facts that the earth could be around 5000 years old and not Millions of years old. The fact that fossils exist, is not an immediate conclusion that they took Millions of years to form. Fossils can actually form quickly under great amounts of pressure and that has been proven true, by modern man. The dating methods used to calculate the age of fossils are very questionable, check out these post if you want to learn more.

      1. Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 9 – The Fossil Records

      2. Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 7 – The Young Earth

      3. Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 6 – Billions of Years

      4. Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 3 – The Age of the Universe

      5. EEvolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 2 – Fossil Evidence

      It is a lot to read but it is very eye opening as to what we have been taught in our school system, we are not taught the truth about what science reveals to us, we are being taught, the made up thoughts of man and his denial of his Creator the God of the Universe.

  3. Just Ben Again

    @ loswl,

    You know what loswl, forgive me for my last impatient post, I was a little frustrated. Let me conclude this conversation with my final comment, that really- it doesn’t matter. To be honest, who cares who’s right? You seem like a nice kid with a real talent in photography and a passion for life. You really love the world, and that is something we definitely have in common- no matter how we view it all came about 🙂

    And after all these posts I’ve decided that this bickering is kind of stupid, we have the rest of our lives to enjoy. And I’d rather we not waste our short time on this planet fighting with each other over a viewpoint. 

    All I should have taken away from this blog in the first place was what we agree upon, macaws are absolutely beautiful creatures. And I apologize for even starting this whole thing. I’m going to go outside and enjoy today, it sunny here and I’m on summer break. God bless you man.


    1. loswl Post author

      Thanks for that Ben, I did not take anything you said personally, we are all entitled to our opinions as far as this topic is concerned. Debating Creation vs Evolution can become heated at times, but as you say we all have things in common and that is a beautiful thing. At the end of our lives when we stand before a Holy and Righteous God, I really doubt that He will ask us anything about Creation vs Evolution, He will most likely ask us about what we believe about His Son Jesus Christ, who He sent as a replacement to die for our sins, so that we don’t have to suffer the consequence. Enjoy your summer break dude! and God Bless you too. 🙂

  4. Ben Again

    I’m sorry, and I promise to keep my language suitable, but you make it hard with the things you write. I just don’t get how you guys believe this, it literally makes no sense. Suddenly out of no-where a big guy in the sky made water previously not here appear from above and below. There is no science, reasoning, or logic in that! There just isn’t. And just to say- your view of how the osmosis and diffusion work is a little off. Any sea dwelling creature, introduced to those conditions in the time allotted would not have been able to adapt. Their cells would have deteriorated and died, and then they would have died. As for the floating plant thing, not unheard of. Floating debris of plant life has introduced species to new lands during storms, but that was in short periods of time. And what you think every insect alive could have floated along like this, without drinkable water? And another thing, how did Noah get all this freshwater for his ark’s inhabitants, catching rain? You think that would be enough to supply 2 to 7 of every animal that ever lived in the entire world ever? That’s just stupid.

    You know in previous posts I got real elaborate in how science, not old writings from a book, backed up evolution. But now I see it’s a little pointless. Creationists have a way of ignoring facts and making up their own conclusion. Your views of how fossils were buried could not be more wrong, your idea that EVERY ORGANISM EVER lived at the same time is illogical, unscientific, unrealistic, and opposite to all real modern evidence. Creation science is a joke- real science uses all facts to draw conclusions,  creation “science” starts with a conclusion, and picks and chooses favorable evidence to support it. That’s not science. The whole idea is a fantasy. Not to mention the evolution of dogs, different human races, crops, etc. is left unexplained. I can’t believe it but just reading your rebuttals are making me question my faith in a god altogether. I’m just amazed, disappointed in the human species, and amazed.

    1. Godserv

      The Lord have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or even He had formed the earth and the world. Even from everlasting to everlasting, He is God.

  5. Ben the Reasoner

    @ loswl:
    1. First of all- Oh really? You can’t pick and choose segments from the Bible? In Exodus 21 it talks about how to sell one’s daughter into slavery and how to treat a female slave or “maidservant” with less privileges then male slaves. Do you believe that? If we can’t pick and choose what we like from the book then what’s so wrong with that sexist pro-slavery state of mind? And you said “if you believe that one part is a myth, then you must then believe that the entire book is a myth and should not be trusted at all” what, why? That’s like saying that a movie based on a true story isn’t entirely accurate so the event it was based off of must have never happened. Where’s the logic in that? Seems to match the logic of your other beliefs.
    2. Referring to your second paragraph, your right, it doesn’t. If you want to get technical then you could say I was raised by a Christian family, and now have faith that is similar, but not identical to Christianity.
    3. Then you go on to list (in more Bible verses that can be interpreted in any way the reader wishes to slant them) all the ways the Bible talks about modern science.
    Here are my interpretations of the quotes, which are just as viable as yours:
    Innumerable stars- There are a whole lot of stars in the sky. Because a man a few thousand years ago could look up at the night sky and understand “that’s a lot of stars, too many for me to count.” does not mean that man was on the verge of a scientific breakthrough in astronomy.
    Dinosaurs- Indeed you could point out that the Behemoth in the description was a dinosaur like a brontosaurus, it could also be a dragon, or monster or any other storybook creature. The fact is, humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist, fossil layers and radiometric/carbon dating prove it. This Behemoth was not a dinosaur, it was more likely another piece of a made up story. Btw, you have yet to explain how predatory dinosaurs and people got along.
    Round Earth Hangs on Nothing- This quote states nothing on the earth’s roundness, and relates the sky to a thin sheet. Apparently back then the belief was that the sky was like the fabric of a tent, a very primitive 2D way of thinking. We now know the cosmos is not a picture blanketing our atmosphere, but a mind-bogglingly deep three dimensional universe.
    Common Blood- Sure this is kinda true. All people did come from a man, or at least on type of man. But what of the lineage before this man, again evolution. But of course that’s not what the Bible says.
    Systematic Currents- This is not an in-depth analysis of currents, the quote just talks about the sea having them. Good job ancient peoples, you’ve noticed how the water moves when you’re out sailing, how observant of you.
    Hydraulic Cycle- Yes, these segments give a pretty good description of the water cycle; which shows that the people of the time put two and two together when they noticed the wetness of fog and how water seems to disappear into a steam as it boils and rises upward. Not far-fetched.
    Disease via Infection of Microscopic Organism- Talks nothing about microscopic organisms, only of how someone can avoid catching an illness; but hey they were onto something. Through experiences people probably figured out how one person could catch another’s illness. How does this basic understanding of disease disprove evolution?
    Life is in Blood- People caught on that once someone was wounded and lost enough blood, they died. The connection here is pretty understandable.
    Sanitation- Based on the age-old and highly commended principle: “Nobody wants to smell your shit, cover it up.”
    4. Here you go again with the old earth proof, it’s there. There is radiometric dating that can date how old sediment is, and using multiple types of radiometric dating eliminates errors that one test could present; kind of like back-up to confirm the results. There’s Radiocarbon dating, which can date fossils accurately based on the amount of decaying carbon found in them. However, unlike radiometric dating, radiocarbon dating only works on things up to 60,000 years old; still older than the Bible falsely claims the world to be by about 54,000 years. And on top of that we can see how long ago certain species lived based on what layer of strata they’re in, if carbon dating is not usable.
    5. About the fish that adapted to a more acidic environment, how is that nonsense? As the environment changed gradually to a lower PH level, so did the fish species’ tolerance for the water. Fish that could not cope with the changing water died off and were bred out of the gene pool, hardy fish bred together to produce even hardier offspring. The result over millions of years and countless generations was a fish with unusually high tolerances to acidic water. It’s not like the fish was tossed into a completely acidic environment right off the bat, it would surely have died out. It takes time to adapt, but life nearly always finds a way.
    6. No, we do see macroevolution, just not as quickly. You’re interpretation of “see it” is being able to watch it happen (in noticeable increments) in one lifetime. And you talk about how evolution or change only happens quickly because it is only beneficial that way, but what about when the environment also changes slowly. Things like global warming, global cooling, desertification, increases in predation, decreases in predation, and extinctions (to name a few) usually don’t happen overnight; they take time. And so creatures evolve to fit the present conditions, if the environment changes too harshly too quickly, species will die out if they are unable to adapt in time. In these circumstances it might be convenient for a species to evolve quickly, but that’s not always possible. Like I said earlier, changes take time and are products of successful traits being passed on through generations in a population, not a product of what one individual may need at one certain time. For Example: If you’re stuck at edge of a cliff with a bear behind you, you might wish you had wings, but you’re not going to magically evolve them right there and then. Evolution in real life doesn’t happen like it does in Pokémon. Individual creatures don’t instantly “poof” into an entirely different creature.
    7. While fossils might not be color-coated and numbered so that paleontologists can see which organisms are related, through similarities (both in structure and in genetics) that form “chains” in evolutionary paths, we can see how modern species evolved. Dating fossils or the stratas they’re located in gives us a time span of when each organism lived. Using common sense and physical evidence we can put two and two together to figure out what organisms are closely related or are ancestors of others (This however only discusses using fossils to understand evolution, and this is a very basic explanation, for a more in depth understanding look up “fossil evidence for macroevolution”). A good resource is:
    And your facts are off. All animals and plants DO NOT appear suddenly in the fossil record, nor do they appear together. In the earliest layers we see very primitive life, and as we go up (and forward in time) we see life transitioning into becoming more complex. As for transition fossils that show species changing over time, we’ve found quite a few, and we have many more to discover. In fact we’ve found a complete chain of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils that clearly show an evolutionary pathway with no morphological “gaps”, represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba – to name a few. We’ve also found reptile-to-mammal transitions from pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammals. Then there’s our collection of hominid fossils ranging from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens, us. And on top of that there are all the legged whale fossils that show early whales were terrestrial and evolved into aquatic animals. These fossil records include transitional pre-whale creatures both structurally capable and incapable of terrestrial locomotion. This shows that whales gradually lost their ability to walk as they became more at home in the water. As for bats, little is known about their evolutionary history, only a few specimens have been found, and their small delicate bones don’t preserve well. But hey new discoveries are made constantly, so it’s just a matter of time.
    8. “The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal would certainly seem to be an insurmountable problem for evolutionism.” Not really, just because we haven’t found a certain fossil yet doesn’t mean we should just give up, refute all evidence, and blindly follow creationism. And because we’ve already found so many transitional fossils (with maaaaany more to discover), evolution’s credibility remains secure. As for your belief; proving against all evidence, dating, records, and logic that your creation myth is reality- good luck with that.
    9. Actually the many types of dating are a pretty fool-proof method of seeing how old the earth is, and I can tell you it’s not 6000 years. Not even close. In fact believing it is, against all of today’s modern science, goes right up there with believing the earth is flat. On that note, did you know the Bible suggests a flat earth scenario? It talks about the earth having edges and ends- Job 28:24 & Job 38:13 Do you believe that- it’s all or nothing remember?
    10. DNA evidence and genetics prove we are in fact related to the great apes, if you want to have a little cop out term like “common designer” that’s fine. I find that to be a sad and desperate act used by a creationist losing the battle against logic.
    11. What authority, that quote is a joke. Oh yes, it spoke with such in depth DNA jargon and scientific intellect when it said:
    “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.”
    Yea that’s not a vague and over-interpreted quote.
    12. We’ll never see one species become another huh? I beg to differ, if you have a dog, or know one, congratulations- your argument’s just been lost. It is a known genetic and historical fact that all species of dogs we see today came (evolved) from wolves. Through selective breeding, humans have taken 90-pound snarling vicious wolves, and in a few thousand years turned them into the likes of tea-cup Chihuahuas. Compared side by side, you’ll notice quite a difference. In fact all selective breeding is, is evolution where natural selective pressures have been replaced with human interference. Your dog is a product of evolution, human induced, but none the less- evolution.
    13. I’m going to skip your other vague Bible verses and cut to how you misquoted Darwin.
    “Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed.” is supposedly a quote from a book called My Life & Letters.
    Darwin never wrote any book by that title. It’s commonly misquoted on many creationist sites. His son edited, a book called The Life and letters of Charles Darwin, after his father’s death; in which you can track down the second half of the “quote” above, but without any trace of the first half.
    On the Ark: Even if the Ark was as seaworthy as you claim, it would not matter. Fitting all those animals would have been a physical impossibility. Genesis 6:19-20 declares that two of each kind of animal was to be collected and brought on board. This is repeated in Genesis 7:8-9, and it is stated that this applied to clean and unclean beasts as well as to birds. But Genesis 7:2-3 specifies that clean beasts and birds were to be taken by sevens. No denying it, all or nothing remember?
    Well, there are approximately 1.7 million species of animal, plant, and fungi. For you I’ll generously guesstimate half of these are “land-dwelling” or could not survive swimming solely in the water (actually nothing could survive the water, we’ll get to that later). That comes out to about 850,000 species. Now if we split this to say half of these beasts were clean, and half unclean, with the math, this comes out to 6,800,000 creatures. HOLY (budumbum) (Deleted). Now ignoring the fact that there is no way Noah could have built a boat big enough to house these organisms, the animals alone would have been enough trouble. One of the biggest factors would be of course, food. Now to give you a glimpse into how impossibly much food would be needed, here’s a list of how much the Dallas Zoo needs EVERY DAY!
    • A ton of hay
    • 35 pounds of fish
    • 50 pounds of meat
    • 100 stalks of celery
    • five pounds of red onions
    • 100 pounds of carrots
    • 25 pounds of spinach
    • 15 pounds of kale
    • 10 pounds of mixed vegetables
    • 150 pounds of sweet potatoes
    • 10 heads of cabbage
    • 48 heads of romaine
    • 30 ears of corn
    • four loaves of wheat bread
    • 24 eggs
    • a pound of yogurt
    • 40 pounds of bananas
    • eight pounds of blueberries
    • 170 oranges
    • 500 apples
    • 36 cantaloupes
    • four papayas
    • 250 rodents (the variety pack)
    • 6000 mealworms
    • 600 wax worms
    • 7500 crickets
    Now this is just a zoo, with barely a portion of how many animals- every one on the planet- would be on the ark. And remember, this is a day, multiply this times the 40 days, plus the extra days needed for the water to drain (where did it go?), and you get all this times 50-60 days. That’s an insane amount of food, and maybe 5% of what was actually needed for all the ark’s hungry passengers. How did Noah gather all this food, and where was it stored? It is physically impossible (adding up the mass of the animals and other organisms on the ship and the mass of all that food) for there to be enough room on this ark if it were the size of the world’s biggest cargo ship. And now the grand slammer, the ark would have also needed to house the entire world’s aquatic species ON the boat, why? -because nothing could have survived the flood waters. Presuming that the flood waters were freshwater (or saltwater) the water that accumulated, plus that of the world’s pre-existing bodies of water, would have created a mix in salinity deadly to all life. That’s right, every single water-dwelling fish, mammal, and microorganism would have bit the dust. And 40 days is nowhere near enough time for any of these creatures to evolve and survive these conditions. It’s actually impossible for the Noah’s ark fable to be true. And there you have it; anything short of a non-scientific, no-evidence, faith-based, (deleted) miracle- would make the Ark and creation both impossible. Case Closed.

    1. loswl Post author

      Ben the Reasoner, first let me ask, please stop placing curse words in your comments, I am sure you are intelligent enough not to use them to make your point and I know I can understand your statements without them. This is a Christian Blog, so please try to keep it clean, thanks.

      Yes Ben, I accept everything in the Bible, just not the way it is interpreted by you. We still cannot pick and choose what we like or dislike and throw it out, with careful study, we can find out the purpose for everything we read in the scriptures, even the hard and gut renching parts, some we may never understand, but we cannot throw it out.

      Relating to the innumerable Stars in the Universe: The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars. The Bible did not say ” there are a lot of stars in the sky” I think we all can see that, what it says is “We cannot count them”.

      Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist Predatory Dinosaurs and man existed the same way predatory lions and man exist together today, they keep their distance. We assume that dinosaurs would attack man and just gobble them up, like in the fictional movie Jurrasic Park, but we have many predatory animals today that actually prefer not to confront man, they keep their distance and attack man only in rare cases. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored or even suppressed by evolutionists. Fossilized human bones (Homo sapiens sapiens) were found in the Qafzeh cave site in Nazareth, Israel. While on an expedition for dinosaur fossils in Niger in 2000, photographer Mike Hettwer discovered hundreds of fossilized humans in the Sahara Desert.
      Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`. In rock formations in Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Kentucky, human footprints that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been found and examined by many different authorities. Obviously, there is a major error in chronology.

      Many different people have found at different times and places man-made artifacts encased in coal! Examples include an 8-carat gold chain, a spoon, a thimble, an iron pot, a bell, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. Many other “out-of-place artifacts” such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails, a strange coin, and a doll have been found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years old; but man supposedly didn’t begin to evolve until 2-4 million years ago. This casts more doubt on the dating methods used.

      Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig’s tooth. The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The `evidence` concerning Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus), later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus man consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape- like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists’ depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are highly questionable. Check the Cambodian Temple picture showing Dino drawings long before the word Dinosaur was even made up:

      Radioactive Dating A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also been constant over the past 200,000,000 years. This bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.

      The public has been greatly misled concerning the reliability and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method, the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium method). Many of the published dates can be checked by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 300 (or almost half) of these PUBLISHED checks, the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error — indicating major errors in methodology. An unanswered question is, “How many other dating checks were not published because they too were in error?”

      The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary order. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called “geologic column.” Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column is found.

      The fact that there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth’s sedimentary strata implies that this entire geologic record must have been deposited rapidly. (An “unconformity” is an erosional surface between two adjacent rock formations representing a time break of unknown duration. “Conformities” imply a continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can always trace a continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments along that path must have been deposited continuously.)

      Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 years old, is unable to extend this accuracy and date organic remains that are more ancient. A few people have claimed that ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to be extended even further back in time, but these people have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites worldwide indicate that the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years could easily correspond to a true age of 5,000 years.

      Macro-evolution We cannot possibly see Macro-evolution, even if it existed, remember that for Macro-evolution to happen, you need millions or possibly billions of years for this process to ever occur, scientifically speaking it would need even more time. A `simple’ protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to `link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20 different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second – a total of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities. For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein), there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to 10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars in the observable universe. Let`s be generous and assume there are 1000 times that many. Let`s generously assume that each star has 10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary for the support of life. We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules). Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`. A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per year. Let`s assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89 tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless to say, an infinitely small number. Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 `Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least. And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average- sized protein has 500 amino acids!

      Global Warming, global cooling, desertification, increases in predation, decreases in predation, and extinctions do not happen overnight, but they DO NOT take millions of years to occur, plus creatures do not evolve to adapt, they have everything to adapt to their given environment, take a fish out of water and it does not evolve to live on dies.

      While fossils might not be color-coated and numbered so that paleontologists can see which organisms are related, through similarities, they are coded even better with DNA.

      From this observable evidence it can easily be seen that ALL the creatures still living today have not changed after “millions of years”. They have somehow mysteriously forgotten to evolve and look identical to their fossil counterpart. Natural History museums spend very little space in their exhibits to let the onlooker understand that there are hundreds of fossilized creatures that are assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old that are actually living today, and they have not changed.

      Another thing that is strangely missing from these displays are all the intermediate creatures that should exist (if Evolution is true) between invertebrates and vertebrates, fish and amphibians, the amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and the birds and mammals, and of course, monkeys and man. In the gaps between all these taxonomies, should we not see billions of intermediate creatures that have gradually changed from one species into another as Evolution claims? We should find ample evidence of transitionary fossils, but mysteriously it is absent in the evolutionary presentations.

      Actually my facts are not off, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities appear throughout. There are only man-made charts that show gradual changes between the layers to fit the evolutionary theory. One theory believes that dinosaurs or lizards have evolved into chickens but both are found in the fossil record. We also find many other birds with fully formed feathers, even the famed Archaeopteryx which is claimed by some to be an intermediary between birds and lizards. However, the Archaeopteryx is a fully functional bird with fully formed aerodynamic wings and feathers. That is quite a leap from a lizard. Remember you need to find millions if not billions of transitional species, these should be easy to find, if they existed.

      I saw that program on the Discovery Channel where selective breeding was done to eventually, have the snarling wolves become like tea-cup Chihuahuas or something like that. But this is not any proof for evolution, that is just interbreeding, which can be done within species and has been done throughout history, especially with farm animals, pets and in agriculture with different plants. Interbreeding does not take millions of years to occur, it can be done in a very small observable amount of time very successfully.

      The Noahs Ark Predicament I applaud you for your well taught out presentation on the Ark on how it could not be possible to hold so many animals.

      It is estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” of animals were on the Ark. What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are over 400 dog breeds all belonging to one species (Canis familiaris), so many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”

      Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than, say, 50,000 animals were on the ark” (Morris, 1987).

      Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some, the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much, relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

      What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised, and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.

      With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah’s Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273, March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”

      Calculating Space requirements on the Ark Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smallest measurement of cubit, 17 inches, we end up with 1,278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925 cubic feet could store 125,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving over 1.5 million cubic feet of free space (see –

      The Ark would not need to support the world’s aquatic species and you presume that some aquatic animals would not survive. If you watch the Discovery channel enough, you would remember a couple programs where alligators are sometimes found swimming in salt water, sharks and dolphins sometimes get lost in fresh water and in none of these instances did they suffer any harm or die. If you have ever been where fresh water rivers, run into the sea, you will notice that life still exist in that location and some of the salt water fishes swim up into the fresh water areas without dieing or losing any of their “fishly” abilities. I have actually seen this for myself in Jamaica and was amazed. All the fresh water in the world cannot dilute the salt water, their is just too much salt water in the world for that to happen.

      All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. – Eccl 1:7

      There would not be a “rise in Salinity in the flood waters therefore whatever fishes survived would be quite ok.

      I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree 🙂

      1. NiceeRoman

        Love this conversation
        @Ben the Reasoner & loswl, Just want to interject and point out that I’ve seen small fish, jelly fish and crabs swim from fresh to salt water at the point where a river flows into the sea. The water at the edge of the flow is not as salty but it is definitely saline – with a storm, my guess is that the fresh water, due to it’s difference in density would lay on top of the salt water for a while until it’s fully mixed and it’s possible for the fresh water fish to live a considerably long period in it. Many fresh water fish would die due to the salinity after a while, but they would not all die.

        If you put a freshwater fish into saltwater, most fish would lose weight (from losing water from its body) and eventually die. Approximately 2% of all 21000 species of fish actually move from freshwater to saltwater or from salt to fresh at some point in their lives, the move would kill any other fish. But even with these special varieties of fish, the move must be gradual so their bodies can adjust, or they too, will die from the change. ~ Tom F Ihde

        This gain and loss of weight in the fish when they move from different saline solution is due to processes known as osmosis and diffusion – basically water moves from less salty to more salty areas. This is why high blood pressure people can’t consume too much salt. If too much sodium is in the blood, then more water and more pressure on the blood vessel.

        The slow mix of the less dense fresh water with the more dense salt water would give some fish’s body time to adjust.

        Some aquatic creature like eels and salmon, can move freely between the two at certain stages of their lives. To do this they have special mechanisms of excretion and absorption of salt and water. ~ ProfBill Therefore not all aquatic life would die

        Also remember, that during the flood, water came from below and above. Most water, I’ve seen that is below the ground is fresh water, so therefore I would assume that the sea would become diluted a bit – it’s kinda hard to do that though I think, because there is just so much salt in the sea, it’s incredible.

    2. loswl Post author

      I did some further research on how fishes could possibly survive the great flood waters. This is what The Institute for Creation Research says:

      “How could they (fishes) survive (the flood), particularly both fresh and saltwater forms?

      As a matter of fact, most of them didn’t survive. Over 95 percent of all fossils are marine creatures. They died and are fossilized by the trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay.

      Obviously, they didn’t live in the environment in which they died. They were transported by rapidly moving water and then buried in sedimentary deposits. But how could any have survived?

      In the complex of events and conditions that made up the Flood, certainly there were pockets of fresh water at any one time. Remember, it was raining in torrents, and we can expect that the rain water was fairly fresh. Many studies have shown that waters of various temperatures, chemistries, and sediment loads do not tend to mix; they tend to remain segregated in zones. It would be unlikely for any one area to retain such zones for very long during the tumult of the Flood, but on a worldwide scale, some such segregated zones would have existed at any given time.

      The pre-Flood oceans were likely somewhat salty, although not as salty as now. Furthermore, we don’t know the tolerance levels of pre-Flood fish for sediment, salt, and temperature. Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish were even more adaptable.

      There is also the possibility that great amounts of vegetation were dislodged from the pre-Flood continents and remained intertwined as floating mats during the Flood. Many creationists feel that the decay and abrasion of these mats are responsible for our major coal seams, but underneath these mats the turbulence of the surface waters would have been lessened. Perhaps many fish found shelter and nutrition under them, as insects may have on the mats themselves.

      Even though there is much we don’t know about what went on during the Flood, we can see that there is at least a plausible answer that can be proposed to such questions. There is no reason for Christians to doubt the truth of the great Flood. Even difficult questions have answers.

      Link to the Entire Article:

  6. Ben The Reasoner

    @ loswl – Hey I respect your openness to defend your belief; but please, relax and let me explain. Thank you for numbering your thoughts too, I’ll answer them down the line.

    #1. Well, “Christian- Catholic born and raised, at the Sunday school where I spent most of my days; learning ‘bout Jesus, n’ Judas- that fool, but mem-rizing scripture was makin me drool.” In short, I believe the first testament to be mostly true, as people were there to witness it. But I believe the Old Testament to be a collaboration of fables told orally throughout the years, particularly Genesis. I think the writers were doing their best with knowledge at the time, and the stories serve more as metaphorical lessons than factual events. As far as God goes, unlike Genesis, he can’t be disproven. So I have faith; plus don’t you think that a universe as large and old as ours, with all its amazing qualities: The cosmos, matter, life- had to start somewhere long long ago?
    2. Done it already, when’s the last time you watched the Discovery Channel?
    3. Yes- microevolution happens quite rapidly, that’s how Staphylococcus strains developed resistance to penicillin so fast between the 1940’s-60’s. Bacteria, like all other organisms, are constantly evolving; that’s why we have to keep manufacturing new antibiotics. Macroevolution however is harder to watch in the course of one life time because the creatures involved in it take longer times to mature and reproduce. And you can’t have one person watch over millions of years. But I can say that fossil records put some pretty strong evidence towards it. In the deepest layers of rock found on earth we see no signs of life. As we continue to go up the ladder of strata we see very simple organisms, the further we go up, the gradually more complex they become. This shows that certain organisms existed at separate times, not all at once. No human fossils have been found in any layers but the most superficial, proving life existed far before humans, and that humans have only come about very recently in an evolutionary context. Radiometrically dating these stratas (In multiple ways to eliminate faulty results), we can see that the further down one goes into the earth, the older the sediment gets (common sense). And as far as “there it is” hard evidence goes, we can justify that the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old- with a “B”. Also, as for evidence we are related to apes: did you know that people like us and great apes are only two chromosomes apart? Apes have 48 chromosomes; humans have 46; which begs the question: Where did the chromosomes go? Scientist assumed that somewhere along the line the two chromosomes had fused, but it was just an assumption. You see, all chromosomes are made up of two telomeres, which are found at the end of the chromosome, and one centromere found in the center. If two chromosomes had fused, what we would expect to see was a chromosome with three telomeres (one on each end and the middle), and two centromeres (one of which likely inactive). Well guess what- we found it; and it’s called “Chromosome 2”. Showing somewhere along the way humans and apes split off into their own evolutionary routes. We do however share a common ancestor, and are related to the great apes; like it or not, you can’t choose family. So be nice to Chim Chim next time you visit the circus; technically you’re distant cousins. On another note; there are porpoise pelvic bones. This dolphin, whose genes for producing back fins (which evolved from legs), that should have been dormant, became active again through a genetic mutation; the kind of mutations that drive evolution. It’s kind of neat.

    Coincidence? Not likely, I doubt God put the legs there for fun to trick his children into believing evolution. Unless he’s trying to deceive us, which wouldn’t make him very worship-worthy now would it?

    4. Nope, of course not! Humans aren’t some “final product of evolution” evolution has no pre-written destination; very simply, it just happens. Evolution molds organisms to be better suited to their environment through elimination of the least-well suited. This is a part of evolution called natural selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. In example, (and this is just to show you a simple illustration) a mutation the genotype of a certain individual in a population of Thomson’s gazelle caused the creature to have noticeably longer legs. This individual was able to run a bit faster than its shorter-legged brethren. And while certain members of the shorter-legged population were preyed upon (eliminating them from the gene pool), this gazelle (and the majority of other longer-legged gazelles) survived. This majority went on to reproduce, and gradually through generations and the processes of natural selection, you end up with a population of antelope that have longer legs than their ancestors.

    5. I wouldn’t know, and neither would anybody else. When’s the last time you and God had a conversation about what he could and couldn’t do. And if he did make the world in 6 days, why make such an overwhelming amount of evidence against it? Why make fossils? Why make radiometric dating possible? Aside from that, here’s a huge hole in your logic. Let’s say beyond evidence you were totally right. Does that mean there were dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? Can you imagine that- giant carnivorous reptilian beings in a peaceful paradise, yea that would’ve been swell. And don’t even start with that “they only ate meat after Adam and Eve sinned” crap. Aside from their obviously carnivorous tooth structure, you mean their bodies instantaneously changed to eat meat instead of fruit; requiring a complete and instant change in there digestive system. And you thought my evolving macaws were farfetched. The Flintstones is not a documentary, stop treating it like one.
    “And the Lord said unto Adam, ‘-you think the tree is bad, wait till you see the raptors.’
    Adam was naive however, and did not see the wisdom in God’s word. But Eve said ‘Oh [deleted] [deleted] is that!’, and God said, ‘See?’, but all the raptors said was ‘CacAWWWWW!’. Then they proceeded to pounce on Adam and gobble up the remainder of his ribs.”
    -Psalms of Logic

    6. Where was I? Playing poker with Darwin and Satan. (Joke, it’s my humor.)What kind of a question is that?

    7. If you ever flip on Animal planet you’ll figure out that most female birds have a thing for choosing the handsomest of the mates, or the most colorful, or the one with the nicest display or dance. This is obvious in the mating rituals of birds of paradise. Truly an example of the fittest surviving, as the females find beauty an appealing quality; they also want the strongest and best looking males to mate with to ensure successful offspring. It’s natural selection at work, and it’s quite possible the beauty of the macaw was achieved through many generations of picking the more attractive of mates. It’s practically selective breeding without human interference.

    8. Because it is nonsense, it’s a myth with no evidence at all whatsoever to support it. In fact there’s only evidence against it. It’s illogical to think the whole world just poofed here a couple thousand years ago. The wrong ones or “fools” are the people who believe it as literal fact. God did not write the Bible; and can you blame the people that did write it? They were guys in a desert 2,000 years ago, they were doing the best with the knowledge they had, old stories. God did not create the creation story, people did.

    Here you start renumbering so let’s go to the second #1.
    1. No, that’s not at all what evolutionists believe. Evolution has nothing to do with origin, (although they do seem to go hand in hand, as one splits off from the other). Origin is cosmology; evolution is biology, very different. Also I liked how you worded that, “created the heavens and the earth in 6 days”, sounds like a fancy way of saying “poofed it”.

    2. Uh, that statement you made there is the complete opposite of fact, evidence shows things died over millions of years, not by the instantaneous pressure of one big flood. If that were true all fossils would be found in one layer of sediment, or all over varying strata layers. Instead organisms that lived in certain periods are found in different stratas. Besides Noah’s ark has been proved an impossible feat, and there is absolutely no geological evidence for a mass instantaneous flood. Also on the subject of the ark, there are soooo many things that don’t work in that story, so many in fact I’d rather not explain. Here’s a link:
    3. No, some genes are just manipulated over generations to produce new traits (ie… legs to wings, legs to fins. See “Chromosome 2” that I mentioned earlier). Fossil/chromosomal evidence show’s it. And I don’t think you quite understand evolution, you’re correct- you will never ever see a lizard magically transform into a bird. That is because individuals don’t change as much as a population or species does over time. Certain mutations brought about in individuals can carry on through the gene pool to affect the evolution of the population; but it doesn’t happen overnight. Also you’re going from the idea that a modern animal like a lizard evolved into a modern day bird; this is also a misconception. Modern organisms did not evolve from other modern organisms; they share common ancestry with previous organisms.
    In another place you mention the differing bases of DNA, I’m aware of how that works. Organisms have evolved different structures overtime to better suit them to their niches, therefore they would have a DNA blueprint somewhat unique to their own build, and how does this disprove evolution?
    Here you mention some vague Bible verse that goes into no detail and can be interpreted in any way the reader likes, the Bible makes no specific mention of differing DNA. The people who wrote the Bible had no idea what DNA was, differing flesh went about as far as “Tastes like chicken- it’s bird flesh.”
    Lastly, you relate changing macaw stomachs to car engines; a well thought out analogy, so props; but kinda off. Again, evolution effects a species or population, not so much an individual; but individuals to contribute to the population’s evolution. If it’s a bit beyond you I understand, but you can Google the basics yourself. Who says macaws couldn’t evolve stronger stomachs; some being more resistant than others? And eating clay that contains poison diluting minerals is a learned behavior, something that was picked up and caught on. God didn’t just poof a knowledge of this into them, much like we weren’t born knowing the rules of football.
    To conclude, evolution IS verifiable, and it makes sense. And understanding this doesn’t make you a bad person, it makes you an intelligent one. Accepting evolution as the-fact-that-it-is is not refuting God. And ignoring the facts doesn’t make them go away. I too am not in the business of insulting, I just hope to God this blog is in the business of learning what is truth and what is fiction. Peace be with you- Ben.

    1. loswl Post author

      Firstly, you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it is either you believe all of it or none at all, if you believe that one part is a myth, then you must then believe that the entire book is a myth and should not be trusted at all!!

      Let me respond to a few things you said….Being born into a Catholic family, going to Sunday school and learning about Jesus and Judas etc, does not automatically make you a Christian, it may make you a christian culturally, just like if you were born in a Muslim family that would make you a cultural Muslim. When I say Christian, I mean a person who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, came to earth, died for your sins and resurrected the third day and after that, went back to heaven with a promise to return, in turn have you asked him to forgive you of your sins, basically I am asking you if you are Born Again.

      So you think that the Old Testament is made up of fables? and the writers were not that knowledgeable? Well did you know that the Bible authors wrote about many scientific things that are only discovered in the 18th -19th century? let me list a few.

      Innumerable Stars in the Universe: (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12) Dinosaurs (You won’t find that name in the Bible because it is a new name invented by A 19th century English biologist named Richard Owen) Genesis 1:21, Job 40:15-24 Round Earth hangs on nothing Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7 All people have one common blood Acts 17:26 Systemic Ocean Currents Ps 8:4-8. Job 38:16 Hydrolic Cycle Eccl 1:6,7, Job 36:27,28 Desease Caused by Infection of Microscopic Organism Num 19:14-16 Lev 6:27,28 Life is in the Blood Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14 Sanitation Deuteronomy 23:12,13 etc, etc..I will make a blog post.

      I love the Discovery Channel and Animal planet, I watch them a lot! But I do not believe what evolutionist say, they use the words Billions and Millions of years without any real tangible proof, a couple months ago, I was watching Animal planet and they found a particular fish that swim in very acidic water [ ], and they concluded that it must have taken millions of years for the fish to learn how to swim in this very acidic water…now that to me is nonsense!

      Micro-evolution or adaptation or changes within species is the only thing we see happening in nature, so yes, Staphylococcus strains can develop resistance to penicillin in a fast period of time which makes a lot of sense, because a specie has to adapt fast for protection, not over millions of years. For example (I have experienced this) If you walk a lot outdoors bare feet for a while the bottom of your feet will become hard and it won’t hurt as much as the first time you walked outside without shoes, it happens very fast not slow over millions of years. It makes more sense for protection and adaptation to be fast not slow, that is a good protective system.

      Fossil record does not give any proof for evolution, let me explain why. All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuous transitional stages. While some of these fossilized organisms have become extinct, many have persisted right up to the present time in what appears to be essentially their original form, showing only a limited range of variation. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of “pre-bat” ancestors. Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore limbs and “backward” facing hind limbs. (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!) Even the distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats.

      The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal would certainly seem to be an insurmountable problem for evolutionism. More importantly evolutionist would need to find Millions or Billions of these transitional stages…Good Luck with that.

      As far as rock strata dating is concerned, evolutionist dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates over a century ago—when only a few fossils had been found! Although it is called “fossil evidence,” circular reasoning is the basis of the evidence used to prove evolution to be true. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil—any fossil. No possible way. The evolutionists do not even try to do so. Instead, they date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be! I have heard sometimes two different dates given for a certain species while watching Discovery Channel, that is strange or they say, Oh! this animal was “designed” to have this or that ability…Designed! in Evolution!! Go figure?

      The fittest survive because they are fittest or, to say it another way, the survivors survive because they survive; therefore they are the fittest. But all they do is survive; they do not evolve into something different!

      We are not related to Apes, we just have the same Designer, who is God. Scientist today determine that the DNA itself is exactly the same across every living thing on the planet, utilizing the same 4 letter code comprised of the same nucleotide bases. Chemically every living thing on the planet has the same DNA molecule, but the composition of the organisms is different because putting the bases in different orders allows the construction of different proteins and enzymes. Surprisingly the Bible spoke with such authority about the difference that is contained in the code of every living thing.

      “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” 1 Corinthians 15:39

      I guarantee you this, you will never, ever see one specie change to another. What you will see is traits being shared within species. The fact that living things inherit traits from their parents has been used throughout history to improve crop plants and animals through selective breeding. However, the modern science of genetics which seeks to understand the process of inheritance, only began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century. The Bible spoke about this process of inheriting traits in the book of Genesis, here are two examples:

      ‘Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.” Genesis 1:11

      “And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:25

      If you are going to have faith in the theory that Charles Darwin made up, (its fine to make up theories) read some of his writings, here is a quote.

      “NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed.” – Charles Darwin

      1. loswl Post author

        Relating to your comments about the Ark ….Research by staff members of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon, showed that the ark “could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 meters. The craft was entirely possible for ancients to build and would have been very seaworthy. We’ve always wondered how they could have made the Pyramids, but we must admit, the Ark never seemed like that big of a deal to make. The ark has the same cargo capacity of a modern cargo ship. The ark had a volume of 1.4 million cubic feet and a gross tonnage of 14,000 tons. This is the equivalent of 522 railroad box cars. The ark could have carried over 125,000 sheep-sized animals. Interestingly, there are less than 18,000 species of land animals alive today. Also, the average size of most animals is less than that of a sheep.

        A scale model of the ark was tested in a special tank at Scripps Institute of Oceanography at La Jolla, California. The tank was capable of generating giant waves with respect to the model boat, thus simulating severe sea conditions. The waves were much larger than would be experienced in the ocean. The ark proved impossible to capsize. Due to the rectangular shape, it proved capable of righting itself, even to 90 degrees. This is unheard of on an ocean-going vessel. Most vessels will develop severe stability problems at more than a 60 degree list. The Ratio of the ark is 30 x 5 x 3. It turns out that this design is a perfect design to prevent capsizing in rough seas. No one knows the exact nature of the design, but we cannot say that the ship was not sea worthy, in fact it could stand up to any given tidal events.

        1. jbarry

          ‘Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA. ~ Sarfati, J

          DNA is not everything:
          I suggest that further research is required in order to sort through this evidence, research that will also find differences inherent within the chimp kind. Indels can easily be viewed as intrinsic differences between kinds. The DNA sequence is not all that distinguishes different kinds of organisms—as geneticist Steve Jones was quoted in Creation as saying, ‘We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.’ Evidence has certainly emerged that ‘DNA is not everything’; for example, mitochondria, ribosomes, the endoplasmic reticulum and the cytosol are passed unchanged from parent to offspring (save for possible mutations in mtDNA). In fact, gene expression is itself under the control of the cell. Some animals have undergone extremely dramatic genetic changes, and yet their phenotype has remained virtually identical. Such epigenetic marks ‘can dramatically affect the health and characteristics of an organism—some are even passed from parent to child—yet they do not alter the underlying DNA sequence.’ This evidence lends great support to reproduction after kinds (Genesis 1:24–25; 1 Corinthians 15:39), as structures present within parents are preserved in their offspring. ~

          Micro evolution such as that seen in the Staphylococcus cannot be used to reason the evolutionary theory – which says humans and animals and for that sake, all living things, evolved from one common ancestor to all the millions of variety we have among us – plants, animals, flying and swimming creatures, light producing insects, light producing fishes, infectious viruses and bacterias, insects, worms etc, etc.

          The Staph changes as it faces a bombardment upon itself, to protect itself (greater protection) against that which attack it, but it will never rise up to change to another type of cell – it will only change to become a more resistant cell (produceable in the lab like all true scientific studies are done). Same with humans when faced with the common cold etc – we become resistant to each strain of cold we catch – our bodies are made to become resistant and fight off bacterias and viruses that infect us and we have a very acute immune system that have been doing so against the cold and other deadly viruses (some more deadly than other, unfortunately:) – but, yet the influenza virus is still an influenza virus – and we are still humans.

          1. loswl Post author

            Well said 🙂 Here is some information on that supposed “dolphin feet”, which has nothing to do with evolution. “Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. Upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall.” —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

            Some “vestigial” examples cited by evolutionists are of organs for which no purpose is known at this time. The point is that the so-called vestigial organs are considered evidence for evolution only if one has a bias for evolution. A question to ask your teacher is: “How is it determined that a vestigial organ is a remnant of evolutionary ancestry rather than an organ of unknown function at this time ?

            “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”—*S.R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.

            There are so many fraudulent findings in the evolutionary science, how can you ever trust what they report, especially given the fact that they report findings without a review from he wider scientific community?

            “In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the “Biogenetic Law”: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.”

            ““To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity” (Bowden, Malcolm, 1977, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).”

            “To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.”—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120”

            “During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).”

            “However, the embryonic fraud lives on. “Although Haeckel confessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist” (New Scientist, 9/6/97, p.23). After seven decades, there is no excuse to continue this fraud in the books.

            1. Stephenson

              Does that mean there were dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? Can you imagine that- giant carnivorous reptilian beings in a peaceful paradise, yea that would’ve been swell.

              Evolution cannot be trusted, they always told us that Dinosaurs were extinct billions or millions of years ago and they never lived with man, yet we find drawings sculpture of dinosaur on an ancient Cambodian temple way before dinosaurs were dug up from the ground:

              See Image:


              At least two very significant books testify to the authenticity of the stegosaurs carving. Ancient Angkor was first published in Thailand in 1999 by River Books Ltd., Bangkok. A small picture of the carving is seen at the bottom of page 143. On page 144 we read, “Along the vertical strip of roundels in the angle between the south wall of the porch and the east wall of the main body of the gopura there is even a very convincing representation of a stegosaur.”

              The large, beautiful 320 page book, Angkor, Cities And Temples, by the same author and photographer, includes a half page picture of the stegosaur sculpture. On page 213 the author describes it as “an animal which bears a striking resemblance to a stegosaurus”.

              Scientist found soft Tissue and blood vessels in Dinosaur bones. Supposedly after “68 million years” in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive.

              Now they are trying to tell us that soft tissue and blood vessels were preserved for over “68 million years” uuuuum, interestingly foolish!

              Read Full Story:

  7. Ben the reasoner

    Oh come on. I’m by definition Christian but I don’t believe in all this creation nonsense! The world didn’t just poof here a few thousand years ago; and neither did the macaws. They evolved like everything else! Fossil records, genetics, and DNA similarities between species proves it. The birds only got this beautiful through natural selection, the female picking the more appealing of the mate. And as for not being able to evolve a digestive system that could detoxify what the parrot ingests, who says that’s far fetched? What if the birds started eating the berries in small quantities initially, and the ones with the strongest resistance (who didn’t grow ill and die) went on to breed. After so many generations, the population would consist of birds whose bodies were quite resistant to the poison. Just theorizing how the birds adapted, personally I think it makes a lot more sense than “poof” instincts. Educate yourselves people, knowledge is a beautiful thing.

    1. loswl Post author

      Hi Ben The Reasoner, thanks for reading the post and leaving your comment. I have a couple questions for you….

      1. What do you mean “I’m a Christian by definition?” never heard anyone put it quite like that?

      2. When last have you read your Bible?

      3. Have you ever seen something in the process of evolving?

      4. Did evolution stop? If so why?

      5. Do you think God is not powerful enough to Create the World in 6 Days?

      6. Where were you when God was creating the Universe?

      7. How does natural selection cause something to become more beautiful? beauty is not a protective mechanism.

      8. Why do you call Creation nonsense? Are you calling God a fool?

      Let me make a few statements based on what you said…

      1. The world did not just “poof” here,neither did the macaws… that is what evolutionist believe. Christians believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. He had a reason for everything He created.

      2. “They evolved like everything else!” What proof do yo have for evolution? The fossil records only shows that a lot of animals, plants, fishes and people died under great pressure very quickly, not over millions of years.

      3. Genetics only show that traits can be shared within a specie, animals and humans do not evolve new traits, you will never, ever see a lizard evolve to be a Bird, never!! But you will see different types of Birds, different types of lizards, etc.

      2. DNA similarities goes a little further. The fact that living things inherit traits from their parents has been used throughout history to improve crop plants and animals through selective breeding. The Bible spoke about this process of inheriting traits in the book of Genesis, here are two examples:

      “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.” Genesis 1:11

      “And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:25

      Scientist today determine that the DNA itself is exactly the same across every living thing on the planet, utilizing the same 4 letter code comprised of the same nucleotide bases. Chemically every living thing on the planet has the same DNA molecule, BUT, BUT, BUT… the composition of the organisms is different because putting the bases in different orders allows the construction of different proteins and enzymes. Those differences are HUUUUGE!!

      Surprisingly the Bible spoke with such authority about the difference that is contained in the code of every living thing.

      “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” 1 Corinthians 15:39

      4. “What if the Birds started to eat the berries in small amount and did not have the system already built in to digest it?”…The same thing would happen if you ate it…you would die!! Basically speaking animals do not evolve to eat poisonous berries, they would actually go and eat the good berries instead, we would have a lot of evolving going on today.

      Ask your self this question, what would happen if you poured water into the gas tank of a car, the engine would die, just think about it, the creator of the car designed it to operate on gas, not water. Evolution says the car would have to somehow magically evolve to start using water, that is a fairy tale found in movies like X-Men, don’t get me wrong, I love the X-Men movies, but it is just a fantasy made up by a man called Stan Lee…Evolution by a man called Charles Darwin…Do you trust man over God?

      I won’t comment on your “Educate yourself” comment, we are not in the business of insulting on this blog.

    2. Godserv

      You can’t call yourself a christian (follower of Christ, the creator) and don’t believe in the creation. Why? Jesus (The Word) created everything. See John 1:1-3

      1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

      And if you do believe there is a God, that is good, but not enough either for you to define yourself as a Christian (follower of Christ) See: James 2:19

      James 2:19-21
      19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[a] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

      Hebrews 11:6
      But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

  8. Adalberto H. Vega

    Mark, the ‘like’ button is not working, it says ‘error’ and when clicking the error link it says: “You failed to provide a valid list of administrators. You need to supply the administrators using either a “fb:app_id” meta tag, or using a “fb:admins” meta tag to specify a comma-delimited list of Facebook users.”

  9. Birdman

    These are the most gorgeous birds in the world and very smart. I think God is so wonderful to have put them here as a lesson for us. The best thing we can equip ourselves with is the word of God, the Holy Spirit and the love for the things of God.

    1. loswl Post author

      Amen Birdman, the Macaws are truly smart, I remember going to Bush Gardens in Tampa and there was a Macaw sitting on a tree, I went up with my camera to take a picture and he/she just came in front of the lens and strike a pose, was very funny and cool. Thank the Lord for creating these beautiful creatures indeed, let us know that God is not boring and what a glorious place heaven will be 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

/* login popup on wp-login link newolam\wp-content\theme\olam\footer.php line-64 */

Discover more from Inspiks Market

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading