What were the Original Animals God Created Really Like? - Dr. Todd Wood
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- This video segment is from "Beyond Is Genesis History? Vol 2 : Life & Design," where we explore the fascinating fields of biology, genetics, and intelligent design. Check it out on our website: bit.ly/2QlPtQV.
Biologist Todd Wood introduces us to the concept of 'created kinds' and then talks about how that explains the origin of species we see in the world today.
Dr. Wood has a BS in Biology from Liberty University in Virginia (1994) and a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, 1999). Immediately following his PhD work at Virginia, Dr. Wood accepted a position as the Director of Bioinformatics at the Clemson University Genomics Institute (Clemson, South Carolina). After working for about two years at Clemson University, Dr. Wood accepted a faculty position at Bryan College (Dayton, Tennessee) in 2002. He is now president of the Core Academy of Science.
For more information on Dr. Wood, please go to bit.ly/2N2Oraa.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
🦕 Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
🍃 Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
🌌 Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
🔬 Help support the advancement of creation science: bit.ly/genesis...
In my youth (not yet a believer in The Gospel of Jesus Christ) I also loved biology, (both the study of plant & animal life). NOW as a believer for many decades I love these subjects even more knowing that they were created by The GOD of Jacob (from nothing) & revealing at the same time the awesomeness of HIS imagination, HIS power, & HIS glory. I have no doubt that what we see in the heavens & the earth now only begins to scratch the surface of what HE is capable of. Keep sharing HIS Truths as long as possible. VIA CON DIOS.
Amen!
@The S Word! And you did this all by yourself! No one needs a god! Only the ability to think freely!
@Yeshua's Words! As soon as I can find him, I will be sure to ask him! The bible was written by men who were subject to ignorance and superstition! There is no other evidence! Religion is dead and dying in most of the developed and intelligent world! Most of the western world has rejected it, it still thrives in places like Africa and in your mind!
@Yeshua's Words! There is no evidence for a god, but that doesn't mean he is real! LOL!
@@j.whisper2379 He thrives in my soul, that’s how I know He is real. I know He is. I feel He is. I don’t need to see or hear Him to know He exists. I will pray for you J. Whisper to come to know Him one day too. 🙏🏽🙏🏻✝️
1 Timothy 4:4-5
“For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”
💖✝️💖 Hallelujah Praise the Lord our God for he is so so so good!!
people use that out of context as an excuse to ignore God's commands against eating animals not made for human consumption.
Satan is good?
Matt Casey in that case you should have a second helping of arsenic. I found God created the Black Death that was pretty cool. All those people dying cuz the Bible couldn't explain simply how germs work and how to prevent contagions
@@eduardojones6411 God doesnt condone slavery rape and the killing of your own child. and neither of burnt flesh. looks like you need to reread the Bible.
it is so sad that even in the 21st century, some people believe that humanity evolved from pond scum and want others to believe that because science.
We always think Noah's animals were adults, but they could have been young animals. This would take up less space and less food, and would make some species less threatening. Baby lions are not much of a problem.
I read that elephants don't fully mature until 15 years.
Or it could be all mythology
Exactly plus many of the animals could have hibernated for much of the time
So far, I find nothing to disagree with in this series, whether referring to biology, geography, or chemistry.
And your area of professional expertise is exactly what, Angel?
@@ozowen5961 instead of submitting derision and mockery, try giving examples.
Learning about epigenetics while I was in college blew my mind. I hadn't heard of it in high school.
and there's a reason for that...
The sins of the fathers shall be on the sons for several generations of those that despise Me...
Those that love God can break the chain of automatic physical and spiritual curses when they obey His commands from concerning diet to spiritual matters.
@@josephscala6707 amen
It's like subnet masking, for the computer networking inclined.
@David Davison hi David. The Bible explicitly denies that children are published for the sins of their father (Ezekiel 18:1-20). But it does affirm that parents pass on moral qualities to their children, including weakness. This isn't punishment, but is the law of heredity.
A video like - "What were the Original Humans God Created Really Like?" would be fascinating. We know that the Earth had a very different atmosphere/pressure/oxygen content, (which how dinosaurs and insects were so large). Examining how that environment would affect people would be so interesting.
GreaseMan! LOL! Homo Sapiens have been around for only about 2 hundred thou years ago! The earth is about 4.5 billion years old! How do you explain that?!
@@j.whisper2379 yes humans as we know them have been around for 200k, roughly. But the species we evolved from are much older.
@@rogerherron7718! I did say Homo Sapiens, not Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus or the Australopithecines or the myriad of other ancestors and cousins of modern man denied by creationists!
@@paradiseaaron! What do you consider human! Homo Neanderthal, Denosovan, and maybe a few others were considered pretty much human, along with Homo Sapiens. These were amongst the first humans accepted by the reality of science. None of these lived a million years ago! The earth at that time was not much different than today. We survived through the ice age climate changes of the last 50,000 years or so. There were no humans when the insects were large or there were dinosaurs! Unless you believe the bible. Then all bets are off! LOL!
@@paradiseaaron! And who might your real scientists be?? 90% of all scientists who specialize in Biology, Paleontology, Geology believe what I say. I doubt that the state cares to much what you believe in this regard!
About 7:00, talking about the genome mixing, he's either forgetting or doesn't know yet, but, DNA isn't just a code on a ladder, it's folded in on itself and where it's next to another place of the ladder creates another dimension of coding for different changes, the same ladder of DNA can produce a different look or reveal a hidden trait just by folding a different way at a specific place in the strand.
The "Kind" was a lot more healthy than today's animals and also had great DNA diversity potential. Over time those animals that come from the Kind reduce in genetic potential and some "Kinds" are likely extinct. So we have less potential and not more.
And there were a lot more "kind" to fit into the Ark! LOL!
10:45_11:00🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ he kept it so authentic God bless this man🙏🏾🙏🏻🙏🙏🏿
I guess by telling the oldest lies after we've learned they are completely not true I guess is authentic.
Very good. Most people just don't know how very complex a single cell organism is.
it is so sad that even in the 21st century, some people believe that humanity evolved from pond scum and want others to believe that because science.
Guest today is so enthusiastic about this topic! He loves it! So Awesome 👏🏻
I love this series. I'm teaching science and apologetics right now, and this kind of resource is amazingly valuable. Thank you!
Science and religion does not mix. What you're teaching in pseudoscience, and that's very dishonest of you
Poor kids
@@sodaht2296 you’re pseudoscience
@@timothyramirez6487 Iam pseudoscience?
Ok?
Is genesis history is absolutely pseudoscience :)
@@sodaht2296 maybe I’m pseudoscience....
Watching this channel and the proof of intelligent design with a purpose. How can other " so-called" scientists explain away proof. That's not science.
@David Davison Whereas it's true that these folks don't present proof and only share their opinions, that's not a reason to put others down.
it is so sad that even in the 21st century, some people believe that humanity evolved from pond scum and want others to believe that because science.
What a great series...
agreed!
Agree
Your videos are so fascinating that I can't put them down even to answer the phone! Please keep up this wonderful offering of insight to those of us who have not studied these things. Godspeed.
they are lying to you.
its amazing how much, shameless lies they present in every single video.
i watch this for laughs.
they dont do science, they are doing pseudoscience
@@spatrk6634 they all have PhD in their respective field. One of them got his MA and PhD in paleontology from Harvard University. Do you have any?
@@gerrymoningkey5298 they are all creationist.
not scientists.
deal with it
@@spatrk6634 They're all scientists with PhD. Deal with it
@@gerrymoningkey5298 they are not doing science friend.
i know reality hurts your religious views.
but these videos are pseudoscience.
cheers
The original animals and Adam and Eve had all the genetic traits we see today.
Actually Genesis 7:2 said he should take every "Clean animal" by sevens, and unclean by 2, so more than just 2 Cats.
Tim Orean said:Actually Genesis 7:2 said he should take every "Clean animal" by sevens, and unclean by 2, so more than just 2 Cats.
Ron's response: There is estimated to be upwards of two (2) million species on this planet. Approximately 60 percent of these are insects; about 24,000 are amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of which about 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians and only 5,000 mammals, including whales and porpoises. Some researchers estimate there are only about 300 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,400 species smaller than rats.
CLEAN ANIMALS: Every creature that splits hoof, forming a cleft therein, and chews cud; Everything in the waters that has fins and scales
Insects and winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours and have leaper legs: migratory locust, edible locust, cricket, and grasshopper (all according to their kinds)
UNCLEAN ANIMALS: Animals: camel, rock badger, hare, pig , fish and other swarming creatures in the water that have no fins or scales, Birds and flying creatures: eagle, osprey, black vulture, red kite, black kite, glede, raven, ostrich, owl, gull, falcon, little owl, long-eared owl, swan, pelican, vulture, cormorant, stork, heron, hoopoe, bat, any winged swarming creature that goes on all fours (that is, having locomotion in the manner of animals that walk on four legs). The factors determining which flying creatures were designated ceremonially “unclean” are not expressly stated in the Bible. While most of the “unclean” birds were birds of prey or scavengers, not all of them were. Unclean animals would be swarming creatures on the earth such as mole rat, Jerboa, lizard, gecko fanfoot, large lizard, newt, sand lizard, chameleon, any creature that goes upon the belly, on all fours, or on any great number of feet
@@ronhansen8471 I appreciate your dissertation/explanation, but it wasnt needed. I was not confirming, or denying any claim made by book, just correcting an error that most assume, because they fail to read what is actually claimed.
And then they killed all those extra animals. Because that makes sense
@@darkeen42 no they did not kill all the extra animals. Any air breathing animal not in the ark that could not sustain themselves in an ocean of water died.
@@ronhansen8471 no there were 7 of every "clean" animal to be sacrificed after the ark landed. That's the kind of problem when your Bible constantly contradicts itself there's two completely contradictory accounts of Genesis in the Bible and four contradictory accounts of the Resurrection. You should really read your Bible cover to cover some day and not just the bits and pieces your preacher is comfortable with
Great discussion. Thanks!
Staggering how Great God is ❤❤❤
Thank you Men❤
What a wonderful question. What a sensible answer.
GOD is GREAT. HE is so wonderful. GOD spoke and it came into being. HE is the Supreme being in every aspect and way more than we can comprehend. HE loves us and invites us to "Call unto me and I will answer you and show you great and mighty things you know not of " Start calling JESUS CHRIST is the Way.
Allah Akbar!
Jesus was just a prophet, neither the first nor last. HOWEVER, Muhammad (pbuh) is God's FINAL messenger! Islam is perfect, beautiful, and Supreme. Find Allah and Islam before its too late!
Messiah Yahushua himself never taught that he, a man, the Son of Man, was a part off some Trinity or godhead, both off which are doctrines of LIES, CRAFTINESS, SUBTLETY and GUILE used by the devil to deceive many.
Messiah Yahushua himself taught that he is the Son of the living Elohiym, YAHUWAH Most High, Ahaya asher Ahaya, the ONLY self existent Mighty One of Yisra'el, creator of the heavens and earth.
Are you three guys religion-bots from futurama?
Exactly... animals and indeed people adapt not evolve.
💖✝️💖 God bless you all
All the animals on the ark God sent to the ark so God chose which animals that was going to be on the ark
Lol the ark, you know that's a myth right?
@@j7bsecond540
You are claiming omniscience?
@@ITPalGame no, I'm claiming that the ark story is a myth, based on an earlier myth.
@@j7bsecond540 circular reasoning
@@ITPalGame no, it's not circular but it is reason.
The claim is global flood - the evidence is no such event occurred- I conclude its a myth.
In addition we find the myth is not an original story but is copied almost word for word from an earlier tale.
Primitive tribal stories, man made gods
I often am amazed at how many life forms there are on the earth. I never doubted where they came from. But what I can't figure out is very smart people have their eyes closed. If we evolved from animals, there should be a LOT of dead animals that are part man, part beast.
For many thousand years woman would have had to wonder if her baby will be a human or part ape. Many animals would have died because their animal babies would have had an animals blood. Her body would have aborted it.
Things hatched from eggs would out grow their shells.
Do many failures with the evolution theory..
Lol u have no idea how evolution works or the fossils we have found
You demonstrate your ignorance very well
Adaptation explains it all.
Adoption over large periods of time is called evolution. It's like saying walking 5 miles a day is completely possible but walking 25 miles in a week is impossible
@@darkeen42 Uh okay, so you are conceding that its all adaptation and nothing more?
We have no evidence of any one "kind" changing into another "kind". We only know that life can adapt in the here and now.
@@vgovger4373 what do you think evidence means?
@@vgovger4373 you have to ignore some much of reality to beeline what you do. Why you are holding back humanity with your intentional ignorance. You should go live in the dark ages Christianity created and get out of the modern world of you don't believe the knowledge that created it.
@@darkeen42 give me one example of changing to a different "kind"...that can be observed?
Excellent discussion!
I just did find AND ORDER the complete set of interviews AND the feature film on Blu-ray! THANK YOU!!!
The Russian foxes began to grow *curly tails* - a very un-foxlike trait and one that was not being selected for but which many domesticated dogs have.
@@tyrionlannister3459 - I'm just an armchair scientist capable of reading just as you are. You can read for yourself the stories and reports of these Russian fox experiments and confirm the things I said. It doesn't a geneticist to understand the reports. Even ordinary folk can understand them. Maybe even you.
@@tyrionlannister3459 - Is that really all you have? Weak insults. You, sir, are truly pathetic. Go do some bong hits and stay off the internet. Sheesh.
Really, dude - is your Oculus headset broken?
@@tyrionlannister3459 wow, youtube bullying...now that's sad
I think its good to understanding genetics but I do believe scientists should not step over certain lines and that they should not try to be God or act like gods
Agree. I think the line is that we should not seek to modify or "enhance" God's designs. These designs are God's work and therefore perfect. So that anything that man does to modify them will be a degradation. GMO crops are the perfect example of what NOT to do. Christians should avoid consuming them at all costs.
@@tyrionlannister3459 "transitional species on the course of ongoing evolutionary processes currently" No, Evolutionism is by this stage a completely failed theory and religion. We're still on baby steps in comprehending the huge complexities of the designs of life together with their millions of symbiotic interdependencies, but already the kindergarten concept of "design via random mutation" is completely DEAD.. absolutely impossible in the world that we DO observe around us.
@@tyrionlannister3459 "so I can actually do the work of digging into this myself"
Lol you haven't studied it yet?
"you ha e no clue what evolution is by calling it "evolutionism""
What are you talking about? If you have something to say please say it. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.
"Not all observation is accurate, is the Earth flat?"
Don't be silly. Intelligent observation requires us to use our brains. We've been over that already. The earth does NOT appear to be flat when observed at relevent scale from a suitable position. Without honesty in your arguments and logic Tyrion, you'll never deduct the truth. Next you'll be telling us that black is white, or that murdering children BEFORE birth is morally RIGHT.
"transitional species on the course of ongoing evolutionary processes currently"
No. Evolutionism is by this stage a completely failed theory and religion. We're still on baby steps in comprehending the huge complexities of the designs of life together with their millions of symbiotic interdependencies, but already the kindergarten concept of "design via random mutation" is completely DEAD.. absolutely impossible in the world that we DO observe around us.
Living in Australia, we have some pretty unique kinds of animals 😆
Especially the Platypus and Echidna.
Sure do!
@@hansdemos6510 those “weirdo critters” are perfectly adapted to the extreme climate, terrain and plant life across the continent, so I doubt that would happen by accident or “evolution” as you call it.
@@hansdemos6510 adaptation is not evolution.
@@hansdemos6510 changes in allele frequencies in a population over time is a fancy way of saying MICRO VARIATIONS, funny thats exactly what we OBSERVE, no rock soup to einstein there. You seem to have swallowed the equivocation fallacy.
I'll wait .....
Rabbits, bears, wolves, etc. I can agree with as cases of species adaptation after the flood from one kind. Cats , however, do not appear to be the case. Therefore, I suspect there may have been more than two kinds of cat upon the ark.
That’s interesting, could you evaluate?
@@curbroadshow who said it was 150 feet?
@@curbroadshow Oh I understand now. You made a typo with the 150. Makes sense. I forgot about the cubit measurements so thanks
@@curbroadshow It is a very interesting subject that I’d like to test in real life. But maybe on a smaller scale
@@curbroadshow lol
Our God is an awesome God! Praise him in the name of Jesus Christ!
Very Likable guy. Good stuff
What I find fascinating is that somehow unbelievers find life more special without God. That the possibility of their randomness manifesting at all is beautiful. It just sounds dangerous and precarious to me. You are born through chance, live whatever life you are dropped into as best as you can with no help, and then you die and disappear forever. Not only does that contradict human nature...it's just unnecessarily bleak.
Looking at life through the eyes of the believer is amazing. Every single thing you see is a work of art created by God. We are wrapped up in safety on this planet perfectly suited for us, and since we must die for now, we face it without fear because we look forward to Him. What is so awful and cruel about that?
And the life that exists diversified through evolution
The animal that looks, and acts, most like a human is a chimpanzee or a bonobo monkey. According to these guys, that means we are the same "kind". Somehow I suspect this "kind" thing doesn't extend to humans. At the same time, just because some animal looks, or acts, like another, it doesn't mean they are related. In some cases it is convergent evolution, that is, animals that despite being unrelated have developed many of the same characteristics. In other cases animals can look, and act, quite differently but be closely related. Whales and hippopotamuses, for instance. "Kind" is a concept unknown to science. There really is no such thing.
As asked the last time when discussing kinds, please name three animals that are original created kinds that have no ancestors.
Can you rephrase? Sounds interesting, but the question is unclear, and the direct interpretation I take from it seems a bit confused.
As stated in this video, the created kind were made with a wide range of genetic diversity. Thus, ANY population would produce a wide variety of phenotypes from their starting genotype, as many still do, and as breeders have been able to do with chickens, cows, apples and cabbages. There is no reason to think that any existing species should be unchanged since creation, as those diverse genes are being expressed, shuffled, and sometimes lost. But you ask for created KINDS, and not species, which actually makes your challenge fairly easy. Dogs, cats, cabbages, and apple trees. But then you ask for kinds that have no ancestors, which can't be what you mean, because you would be asking for kinds which we watched God make in our own lifetime. But if you're asking for a species which has no different species in its ancestry, it's not impossible, but as I described, very unlikely and not what we would expect. I hope this helps.
@@Globeguy1337 I will try to explain. Animal that evolve have a common ancestor. By genetics, fossil record and biology common ancestry is found and the lineage of an animal known. If there re reed kinds, for every created kind there should be an animal without ancestry that the kind evolved from. Anyone who wishes to demonstrate the truth of created kinds can do this by showing the original animals as created that have no common ancestry. If it is impossible to find animals without ancestors the hypothesis of created kinds is falsified, meaning common ancestry is a valid concept. We all agree evolution happened in order to explain diversity of the animal kingdom,.
@@cousinbryan3007 according to you God created genotypes. Show any of them. The original genotypes may not be alive today, but as they were alive 4500 years ago if you believe the stories it must be possible to show them. If all you an show is animals that are known to have ancestors, you fail. For instance dogs have ancestors in wolves.
Modern biology as a science is stuck in a rut called 'emergence'. The presupposition of emergence is a product of human literary imagination.
It is amazing to me that this Supreme ever lasting Creator GOD, who is Supreme in every way every aspect, wants to visit with us and is interested in every part of us. To be in HIS presence is everything at once. Powerful yet when HE picks us up and holds us one feels surrounded by love like being bathed in love complete whole love.
Which is what these guys do. They're presenting their opinions and driving Christians apart by being so extra-Biblical.
the idea behind particular traits coming out when they are needed is actually how I was taught animal evolution from the different 'eras' in the 80's. The sizes even went small when there was less oxygen because a small mammal requires less, and as the atmosphere became more oxygenated by plant life the mammals got bigger. thats just how I learned it. I remember watching the films in science class about the horse specifically because we had horses. It might have been discovery way back in the 90's... LOL um - arent meer cats actually in the weasel family?
This is like watching flat earthers trying to disprove the earth being a globe.
I know lol
When animators first created computer based characters they programmed the character like woody in toy story. As programmers got better, in later films like lord of the rings they programmed orks so that the computer could make an army of different looking orks with variations but all looking like some sort of ork.
We also use genetic algorithms to create ecosystems, and simulate evolution of various traits.
Praise GOD THE TRUE CREATOR GOD HELP THE ATHEISTS
The fossil record is really showing the many permutations of a species. If they all existed at the same time and there is a variety of them, then God created many permutations of the same species.
Good work
Before God, any honest people should say: I am nothing. Oh, God, please have mercy on me!
@@velkyn1 Your view is completely wrong. Why? You have to explore of your own will.
@@velkyn1 The greatest man in history is Jesus. He had no servants, yet they called him master. He had no degree, yet they called him teacher. He had no medicine, yet they called him healer. He had no army, yet kings feared him. He won no military battles, yet he conquered the world. He committed no crime, yet they crucified him. He was buried in a tomb, yet he lives Today. Amen！
it is so sad that even in the 21st century, some people believe that humanity evolved from pond scum and want others to believe that because science.
@@HS-zk5nn Yes, they like to spend time here to speak some nonsense than to spend quality time with honesty to explore if God exists, if Jesus is true God, and if ---many ifs are there valuable and worthy to be explored. May them wake up asap!
@@HS-zk5nn They just popped up and said white is black and if you disagree, show them the proof. How and what do you respond to them?
Except liger and tigon males are sterile. The chromosomes from the parents, although the same count because they are the same genus (38 from each as most cats have) don't match up in a way the allows the offspring to produce sperm because they are a different species. That's certainly not the case for modern dogs breeds. You can't compare breed and species and suggest they are the same. They are not.
So why are dog breeds all the same species, but cats display different species across what would seem like breeds? Perhaps (and most likely) because not all cats come from the same recent ancestor like dogs do from the wolf. Or it could be that dogs weren't isolated by breeds. Perhaps if given a few thousand years and long term isolation of breeds they would also lose their capacity to produce fertile offspring between breeds, thus ushering new species as the order of their chromosomes change but their genus remains the same.
Dogs were also bred by humans, cats were bred by their environment, touching back on their aforementioned isolation. Maybe that made a difference. Perhaps at one time, all cats on the planet could produce successful and fertile offspring, but that is no longer the case if it ever was possible in the first place.
TLDR, breed and species are not the same. Can breeds become species given time and isolation? Maybe.
Was there a mating pair of T Rexes on the boat? Where are they now?
Was there an intelligently designed Covid-19 virus on the boat, quietly biding its time until its moment of glory thousands of years in the future?
the age that existed prior to the flood was destroyed, and now we live in a different "order"
@@tyrionlannister3459 what is written.
it is so sad that even in the 21st century, some people believe that humanity evolved from pond scum and want others to believe that because science.
That “not Cat” reminds me of a raptor, mini dinosaur?!!!!
Praise God
I would almost believe that bears are in that dog mold because they act like big dogs sometimes
I thought foxes were separate from dogs/wolves? Dogs are canis and foxes are vulpis. Isn't that two different kinds? Curious.
Remember that it was science that divides the kinds I to these names.
If a single kind of cat and other animals produced the other kinds of cats and other animals, what happened before the flood since the creation? they were not producing other cats and animals till the flood? Were there only original ones of every animal till the flood and didn’t produce until the flood?
👍🏻
Life can not come into reality by nothing And by non living material.
I second that motion!
How are you certain??
@@theshadow4737 It's impossible. For more information, check out these two videos by an organic chemist, who explains why it is physically impossible. ruclips.net/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/видео.html
@@patldennis Science doesn't "posit" anything. Science is not a person. Science is a method of investigation. Investigation and scientific law makes abiogenesis impossible.
@@patldennis Sorry, but you're speaking nonsense. Abiogenesis is not a necessity. It certainly is NOT an observation. No one has ever observed life come into existence from nonliving matter (abiogenesis). It has never been observed, and there is no natural process that could possibly explain its occurrence. Abiogenesis goes against known laws of physics and chemistry. Watch the two videos i linked above.
We were not there at Noah's Ark.
The Flood may have been a Local event,
or a Global event.
In history of the earth there were many huge catastrophes.
I refer to what has been called the four dimensional information functionality of genes.
Birds. Love Birds. I have lots of Wild Ravens
The missing link here is the electromagnetic nature of the living cell and the whole Holy Bible generates a knowledge which is leading us to that deep, and indisputable knowledge. This is why our spiritual attitude is so important...we too can harness our electromagnetic behaviour and take hold of our genetic health, but we need Jesus Christ's version of the, Grand Unification of the Four Universal Field Forces, to do it.
I'm glad Dr. Wood brought up dog kinds because I'm trying to figure out what a created kind is, and I haven't found a resource that explains them in any detail. Since there's clearly a dog kind, I'm curious whether someone can tell me whether there's a wolf kind, or if wolves are of the dog kind. Dogs and wolves share a common ancestor, so by at least some definitions of created kinds, they should be of the same kind. But that should be the wolf kind since wolves lived long before dogs did. That being the case, there should be no conflict with dogs being of the wolf kind because since change over time within created kinds is supported biblically. Is there a wolf kind?
Can someone please help clear this up? Am I missing something?
Hello there! Dr. Kurt Wise (paleontologist) has provided what is probably the most descriptive definition of a created kind that we are aware of. He describes a created kind as "a recognizable group of similar organisms which is surrounded by deep discontinuity and persists by members interbreeding and producing similar offspring." Please click the link to read more about his reasoning behind this definition by clicking here: newcreation.blog/the-biblical-kind/.
In addition, when creationists refer to the "dog kind," this is usually shorthand for the family Canidae. Members of this family include domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyotes. Wolves on their own do not represent a "wolf kind" because 1) they can interbreed with other members of Canidae, and 2) they are not surrounded by deep discontinuity from other members of Canidae. I hope this helps!
@@IsGenesisHistory Thank you for the response, and for the link. The article was a helpful supplement to this video. And I think I have a better feel for how created kinds work, at least for the dog/wolf example. I was thinking of it linearly (i.e. "wolves came first, so it should be called the wolf kind"), but I wasn't thinking about a little later in the video when Dr. Wood said that camels and llamas are both of the camel kind, which roughly corresponds with the family Camelidae. Using that same thinking, it makes sense that wolves and dogs (as well as foxes, coyotes, etc., as you said) would roughly correspond with the family Canidae and be of the dog kind. I feel like that's cleared up, so thank you!
The Bible obviously wasn't written as a database of animal kinds for scientific reference, so I understand the challenge of having to quantify a concept as broad as a created kind. Is there a resource that tracks known created kinds that I can refer to? If there isn't, is it fair to use taxonomic families as guide, and just keep in mind that it's not a 1-to-1 match? The example that I've been giving recently is the NCBI's Taxonomy Browser.(1) I understand there are a great number of created kinds, and that our understanding of them changes over time. It's not so much the accuracy of the information that's in it, but the structure that I'm interested in.
I'm having an exceedingly difficult time understanding how to determine where a newly-discovered animal fits with such broad descriptions of created kinds, especially if it's unusual or unique. Dr. Wood referred in another video to performing statistical analyses on a specimen (physical measurements, genetic analyses, etc.) to determine what created kind it is. That makes perfect sense, except Dr. Wood doesn't say what he compares his data to. He's not using the taxonomic structure, or else he would just refer to it by its taxonomic name, as opposed to using the taxonomic name as an extra-biblical reference to the created kind he's talking about. I also understand (and greatly appreciate) the references to species, families, genera, etc. as methods to help clarify created kinds. But those are intended for illustrational purposes, and created kinds as a concept have to exist on their own support. That support is obviously the Bible/the word of God, and where things get waaaaaay more complicated is when we start talking in details that the Bible doesn't go into. That's why I land on wanting to know whether there's a reference that I haven't seen yet, or if the idea is more that the people who teach created kinds are the ones who understand how they're described in the Bible and that it's meant to be used as a form of interpreted knowledge, if that makes sense.
References:
- (1) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi
@@rachellejones1361 Thank you for the response. Having studied this more, I've found that the Bible provides descriptions of animals based on the authors' understanding of them at the time it was written. It's not a science book, nor was it intended to be one, so it seems it's something of a fool's errand to attempt to square what people thought back then with what we understand today. I was reading it as the unerring Word of God, so it was important to see how it compares to our growing understanding. The only way it makes sense is that the descriptions came from people with a very limited understanding of the animal kingdom. The authors, for example, thought that hares chew cud (Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7), that bats are types of birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), that grasshoppers have four legs (Leviticus 11:20-22), and that snails dissolve into slime (Psalm 58:8). It's about on par with how I imagine a young adult with no education or access to educational materials would describe the natural world. That's understandable if one sees the Bible as a collection of writings from people 2,600-1,800 years ago. It's a much harder sell that that's how an all-knowing being understood his own creation.
@@User0809205 you're just looking for excuses to not believe the snail leaves slime everywhere it goes you're being too literal and it is possible to lose things in interpretation from Hebrew to Greek to English.
@@marcusmuse4787 Too scientific, I guess. The "kinds" argument only makes sense at a very high level. It could never be used to teach biology.
How did the sloths get to south america?
Probably by rafting. Even in modern times, some animals have crossed oceans on mats of vegetation, and there were many more of these floating biomes right after the flood.
If there was a great flood wouldn't it be likely almost all predators would die off or have to kill many species off to survive at first before many could reproduce fast enough to sustain big predators like bears, lions, tigers, dogs even if there was only pairs that is
You are assuming that "big" predators existed immediately after the Flood. The earliest post-Flood representatives in the fossil record of the various kinds of animals that were on the Ark tend to be smaller than many of their modern counterparts. For example, the earliest members of the cat kind (Felidae), like Proailurus as an example, are not much bigger than present day house cats, and the earliest members of the dog kind (Canidae), like Hesperocyon, were the size of present day foxes. They would have little trouble finding food after the Flood in the form of the remains of animals that died during the Flood and small, fast-breeding animals, like insects, rodents, lizards, and birds.
@@IsGenesisHistory Where do you get all of this superstitious nonsense?
@@IsGenesisHistory OK. Proailurus fossils have been found in Mongolia, Germany, and Spain and Hesperocyon was endemic to North America, with fossil finds ranging from southern Canada to Colorado.
If, as you claim, these were the first post-flood ancestors of later cats and dogs, please account for:
(i) the lack of any Middle Eastern fossils (i.e. closer to the Ark's resting place and logically where such ur-kinds WOULD be found),
(ii) the lack of any change to both kinds between the Ark and the distant locations where our sole information about them is sourced and
(iii) the time scales involved to account for the observable variety existing within modern day Felidae and Canidae.
You are misusing properly gained scientific data. In other words. blinding with science, I wonder how many of your flock would bother to check up on the geographical distribution of your fossil examples? At a fair guess, none, especially since you are pandering to a pre-existing conformation bias.
@@alanthompson8515 “(i) the lack of any Middle Eastern fossils (i.e. closer to the Ark's resting place and logically where such ur-kinds WOULD be found)”
You are assuming that the known fossil record flawlessly reflects the biogeography of ancient taxa. This is false. There are several biasing factors that paleontologists recognize will dictate a taxon’s presence or lack thereof in the fossil record. One is geography; many places simply are not conducive to preservation through fossilization. For example, elevated areas (i.e. the Ark’s resting place in the _mountains_ of Ararat) and continental interiors, among others, are places where preservation via fossilization hardly ever occurs. Another factor is population size; obviously, taxa that are fewer in number leave fewer fossils. Canid and felid populations each arose from a mated pair aboard the Ark. For the first decades or centuries after the Flood, their numbers would have been far too small and concentrated in too small an area for there to be much likelihood of an individual from that period turning up in the fossil record. With the passage of time, however, annual increases would have produced a dramatic increase in numbers, consistent with the level of population and geographic distribution evidenced for in the later stages of the Cenozoic fossil record.
“(ii) the lack of any change to both kinds between the Ark and the distant locations where our sole information about them is sourced”
Generally speaking, populations will only speciate when they become isolated from one another and can no longer interbreed. The fact that canids and felids contribute little to the early post-Flood fossil record except for “distant locations where our sole information about them is sourced” suggests that they were few in number and not geographically widespread for some time after the Flood. Their eventual, rapid diversification in the early and mid-Cenozoic, however, suggests that it was only at that point when they had spread and multiplied far and wide.
"(iii) the time scales involved to account for the observable variety existing within modern day Felidae and Canidae"
The span of time allotted to account for the biodiversification of Felidae and Canidae is only an issue if one assumes that creationists must be hampered by the snail-paced rate of change observed in living organisms. However, creationists have long recognized that modern biodiversification mechanisms are inadequate to explain this. Instead, we are in the process of conducting research to determine what alternative mechanisms that may have been involved. For more information on this research project, please click on the link here: newcreation.blog/what-is-the-ekinds-project/
How did the different races begin? Black, Asian, White, Indian?
Good question
In Genesis 1 where God created mankind before creating Adam.
God will have created a variety if mankind depending on where they were to live.
Early humans evolved in Africa. Various migrations took them elsewhere, and they evolved into different human species. However, the only remaining species simply adapted to their new environments and were also impacted by their interbreeding with the earlier forms of the other species. eg: There is not Denisovian nor Neanderthal dna in most Africans (except where Asian and European dna is in the bloodline). Most Europeans have Neanderthal dna. Most Asians, Pacific Islanders and Australian Aboriginals have Denisovian dna.
@@ozowen I disagree. Humans did not evolve from apes. That is only a theory that they did and it has never been proven. “Missing Link” has proved to be a fraud. All of those scientists were trying to prove that humans are insignificant- a random act of nature. That simply is not true.
There’s also been a suggestion that Cats because they have slit eyes, they are the product of genetic manipulation, and that part of them could be reptiles.
I suspect there was more than one example of cat upon the ark.
originally sub cellular and then cellular then cell communities/ clusters then increased complexity.
What I would love to hear about is the DNA or genetic origins on Noah and his family and there ability to repopulate the earth. We never hear about that.
because noah and his family didnt exist and global flood never happened
during supposed global flood event, tens of thousands of egyptians were building the pyramids at the same time.
supposedly underwater
well, in the year 1800 the world population was 1 billion people according to statisticians. So, in only 200 years we've gained 7 billion people and his sons could've married different racial types. If you agree with evolution there should be a lot more people than that now.
So how do you feel about HELIOCENTRIC SUN WORSHIPERS
@@tyrionlannister3459 thought U wanted truth. Froggy. Believer of lies
Satellites 🛰 only on balloons
@@tyrionlannister3459 rivers don’t run uphill
@@tyrionlannister3459 still waiting for a rotation
@@tyrionlannister3459 shill
@@tyrionlannister3459 ZOMBIE. They are winning. I have this bridge for u to buy
The only thing I struggle with is where Dinosaurs fit into all this. If what we're told is true, there were 100,000s of different species. Where do they fit in?
James Species are just varations of the same relative few basic animals kinds so you wouldnt need 100,000 species just maybe 50 of the basic archetypes of the different kinds of dinosaurs
I just wish he would have left some of the big dinosaurs for us to see
Who are these people?
Science deniers
If you have two kinds, chickens and cats that both need to eat to survive, the chicken can peck around and find bugs and seeds and carry on just fine. The cat only eats protein, i.e. chickens. How long can you go without eating? Once one of the cat kind eats one of the chickens, there can be no more chickens. Ever. Never. You need all the carnivores to not eat for as long as it takes for it's prey to multiply enough so that when they start eating there is enough left for the next meal. I don't think so.
dennis g Meat is not the only source of protein. carnivores can eat plants also sea life was not destroyed in the flood so the cats could eat that
👁️👁️⚖️✝️🩸👑🪔🍞💧🚪🌡️😡🌪️🌋👀👂⏳, 7 pairs of the clean animals and 2 of the unclean , And i believe they were all babies
How would all the breeding of cats have happened??? I don't see how??
If all were on the ARK and only these lived after and changed so much , why not before the ark,was there just 2 cats and dogs in the world ,why change so much after the so called flood
Not dogmatic about this but i feel quite strongly that the great dinosaurs were not actually part of the original creation but were genetically engineered and modified. before the flood by this advanced evil civilization and were not permitted into the ark. God had to destroy the human lineage since it also was corrupted with the seed of fallen angels. but Noah and his family found favor since his line was not mingled with fallen angels that would allow the Messiah to be born from humans and not trans humans.
The book of Enoch explains this and even though it is not part of the Biblical cannon it seems to fill in the gaps of Genesis as to what I believe ocurred.
Wouldn't we see migration paths of all of the animals from wherever the ark landed?
Quick erosion probably
there's animals that can travel 100's of miles alone so maybe there weren't so many paths left to be seen?
@@marcusmuse4787 imo the flood DID happen, but the Ark is the perfect metaphor that describes all who survived it.
There were Not dinosaurs on the Ark.....come on man!
how do you know?
@@ITPalGame because they were long dead already and we have no record of dinosaurs in the last 5000 years.
@@vgovger4373 you must be new to this
New to this...Creation / Genesis/ Young Earth Theory.. Found this series recently... People like Kent Hovind had me turned off to being open. Some of the things he says are ridiculous to me. I can't listen to him. I'm open to this though. Something I've noticed... On one hand they said that all trees came into existence fully mature and beating fruit... This one says that different species of animals came about over time... Seems like picking and choosing to fit the "theory"... Would appreciate some thoughts on this.
you are conflating man's definitions & originally created "kinds"
Different people who believe in Special Creation have different ideas and theories. And he's not saying that species came about over time, but that different animals of the same kind are just variations within that kind. Others don't say things like this, they still believe in kinds but think all the different animals in a kind just descended from a common ancestor among themselves, or that all the animals came into existence more or less how they are today. Many other theories too.
This perspective in biology is relatively new in the modern world and small, plus there's not a strong system of consensus like there is in mainstream science, so you see a lot of different ideas going around. It's all united not by a specific theory but the general perspective that there's strong evidence the universe was created and that mainstream views on biology, geology, physics, etc. are flawed and don't account for the evidence.
Did the polar bear really travel all the way from the Arctic to a hot desert in Israel and onto a boat. ?
No, the bears that left the Ark got offspring that spread all over the world and adapted to the circumstances
even rabbits fur can change colors from diet alone and a bear going to that region would become adjusted after awhile.
Would the fossil record show exactly what the animals on the Ark were like since the ones that were saved were taken out of those that were left? If God created a fantastic garden with lots of different trees, flowers, fruit etc., why would he create rather dull looking creatures with only the potential of being beautiful and interesting? Are there giraffes, zebras, elephants, flamingos, etc. etc. in the fossil record? Or is the reason biologists say the kinds were dull compared to their amazing and beautiful descendents that that is what the fossil record shows?
Gloabal flood didnt happen, the ark story is just a copied myth, not real event
The whole world became corrupt, and so the best remnants were spared.
It's possible some aquatic life survived.
There are fossils of early horse kinds, 2ft wingspan dragonflies, giant ferns, etc.
@@j7bsecond540 being omniscient, I'm sure you know that I'm typing this right now.
@@ITPalGame what? Where did I say that lol
95% of the fossil record is from marine life.
I'm wondering what the carnivores ate when they disembarked from the Ark, seeing as how every living thing on planet Earth was dead.
Great question...I'd wondered the same thing.
Suppose they cleaned up the drowned corpses.
@@koeltefonteinThat’s the answer you’d probably get. I can’t imagine the meat would be too fresh after floating around for 100 days in the water. And then you’d have to take into consideration that all of the animals would have to reproduce and produce offspring, all while having no food available. And when the offspring were finally born, they’d be preyed upon by the predators and they’d have to start all over again. It boggles the mind.
Maybe some of these animals learned to catch sea life because sea creatures would have survived the flood.
@@Enigma-2050 seafood everywhere even bears like salmon.
This fits my theory that God is creating now right now from eternity. Each individual is a unique creation.
Yep. And the verse about how God creates us in her mother's womb is not figurative, but what I believe is literal.
As an atheist, watching and hearing this is like being in an asylum for the deranged people.
To claim that all these species evolved from one ancestor of the same genus which emerged from the Ark 4600 years ago, is even more evolution dogma than the evolutionists themselves! Because not even they claim that evolution proceeded that fast or differentiated that broadly so quickly! In fact we have mentions of leopards in Song of Solomon from 3000 years ago and lions from the same time period in 1st Kings 10. So they were already differentiated back then only 1600 years after the flood! All this because they don't believe God brought all the animals aboard the Ark.
In the past, there was a lot more information in DNA, so evolutionary changes were much faster than they are today. When there is more information in the DNA, there is also much more potential for variation. Today, a lot of the information in DNA has been lost because it has been broken down into all the different types. At that time, two animal parents could have had children who had great differences. We actually see this in the Bible. Read Genesis 25:24-26. In this story, Esau and Jacob are born. Esau is very hairy, but Jacob was not. So there were big differences here even for twins.
@@fliegendeskrokodil4369
There is no evidence for that claim. Ancient genomes compared to modern ones do not indicate that claim at all.
Which zoo is that?
Were there pools in the Ark for the pinnipeds??
Where on the Arch only vegetarians, including Noah and family?
Yes. It wasn't until after the flood that God said eating meat was okay. Before then it was plants and fruit for mankind and animals alike.
and only specific types of animals
Ignoring the rule of changing laws in regards to the denigrating creation after the fall, how every woman has a limited supply of eggs she could ever have, with the dwindling gene pool, you will come to false conclusions based on false assumptions.
Going backwards, we can infer that mankind just a few centuries after the flood was far more superior in genetic diversity than now.
Happy 1 year co-vid lockdown anniversary! :D
What were the Original gods that humans (animals) Created Really Like?
If the pandas are in danger in this question's addressed to the godless heathens shouldn't they adapt and evolve? I have no faith in an observation whose results of the observation changes every 80 years
@@hansdemos6510 science is false
@@hansdemos6510 you worship a lie called science got a question for you how come the pandas have an evolved yet do you even know where the big bang came from a Jesuit priest
@@hansdemos6510 silence you atheist godless heathen now go mess with some children antifa can't stand German people that think science is everything
@@hansdemos6510 why is it that you don't put out any videos yourself is that because you're a thief and a mooch that's my observation and hypothesis how about that
Having studied biology and psychology in college eventually made me come to terms with my fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Listening to this discussion makes me glad I did. Like Kurt Wise, Todd has made a deal with the creationist, young Earth devil that no matter how true the scientific evidence is for a very old Earth, he will not change his views because he's afraid of disagreeing with an old sectarian manuscript that he was taught to believe by other deluded people. 🙄
Species are interbreeding forms of animals
They were exactly as they are today, any other thought would be blasphemy, in fact this video probably is when you get down to the core of the question. Heretics.
Mary here. People shouldnt be. Messing with the animals tho...like cross breading. I hate when people mess with animals. Camras on monkeys heads and. And keeping any animal in cages or zoos. Is just wrong....
Psalms 104:30. God distroyed the dinosaurs then he recreated the surface of the earth for man. The dinosaurs lived on the earth with the Angels before man. Fallen Angels messed everything up like the time of Noah he distroyed what the Angels did to the earth, and with it dinosaurs were distroyed by a flood. There were two floods.
Jehovah The Creator God and His creation are incredibly awe inspiring!
Define, "Kind" and I'll listen.
kind is the thing which makes you different from monkey or rabbit or cow
@@johnyameen3036 "Cow" is an ambiguous term. A Female Elephant is called a Cow. A Female Whale is called a Cow. A Female Moose is called a Cow. Female cattle are called Cows. Are they all the same kind? Are they different kinds. Please define Kind.
@@ethelwulfmountbattenderoth2286 yes they are all different kinds as they have
a) different forms
b)different but almost same biological systems
c)different food preferences plus different habitats
but actually a 3 year old can distinguish between a cow and cat and i dont know in which planet do you live where female whales or elephant are called cows
female cattles are cows which have atleast one baby
@@johnyameen3036 I live on Earth and if you included, "Cow" in your statement it shows me that you are not intellectually equipped to tackle this. Google Female Whale or Female Elephant. They are called Cows. Cow is just a name for a female of several species. What we call cattle is essentially man made. OMG, "female cattles are cows which have atleast one baby" I didn't even get to this. WOW, lolwut?
@@ethelwulfmountbattenderoth2286 oh google boy
I doubt the Animal kinds were adult animals!
Wow
An intelligent man trying to prove his position.Very little proof of the animals befeore the "flood" and after the "flood". Did the lions and tigers etc come back exactly the same? Any fossil records to prove any of this? Where do all the exinct animals fit in ? Many unanswered questions.
Million dollar question: how many people would exist in the world if Noah's ark happened? In other words, yes, Noah's ark and the flood is accurate, but if we determined how many people would exist in the world according to when Noah's ark occurred, that would be more proof that Noah's ark is true.
🤣ffs
Think that question might be more realistic as how many could potentially exist instead of how many would exist since we can only guess at how many humans were lost to death before being able to reproduce & and we can only guess at how many children were had by the ones who did reproduce.
there was 1 billion people on the planet in 1800 so we've gained 7 billion in only 200 years if evolution was true there should be a lot more people than that.