I think it is a stretch to simply look at speciation in the context of large and small ducks. Did all ducks come from an duck "kind" or did all/most birds come from an avian "kind"? I think if you acepted the ark to be filled with all animals of the sub-species level, you would still have too many animals to put on the ark. If, on the other hand, you had only primary species, then you would be in the dilemma of having a large amount of intra-species evolution that is on such a large scale that it does not seem plausible. I am not saying God could not do this, but I see no direct evidence from scripture that He did.
I may believe that all "ducks" came from 1 Kind of duck, but compared to what evolutionists, believe that we came from slime, i find my idea much easier to believe, now i am curious what you as an OE believes, even if as you mention ahead (which i will get to) that the day "yom" means one day, and it was only later that god made "the first day", this only takes care of...the age of the solar system and our earth, land animals still have not been introduced, and when they are, there is no more places for you to put gaps of time, even if you could! the flood dates have no gaps in them so i then ask you what do you suppose happened on the ark? you yourself are stuck to belive in some sort of mass speciation!
I looked at the AIG article and it really does not aswer what I see as the fundamental questions. I think this article might be a good read for you. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml
i found this article kind of scary, your article goes on to say that fish would of had a very hard time to survive during the flood, this is true, they would have, but in an OE flood, nothing is different, we still see a global flood that would have been hard for the marine habitat, furthermore it goes to say that the ark couldn't withstand the punishment of the condition implied.. check out AIG's view of noahs ark...the thing is a tank!http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-ark
Mind you that I (nor this author) is doubting the legitimate literal interpretation of scripture. We are just recognizing that the story that the AIG proponents tout as legitimate has a whole lot of issues that are not addressed. As I read the AIG article, I noticed the usual transition of anyone who doubts thier theories is automatically labeled with the secular evolutionists. Their quote:
"We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview."
What i read here, is that their idea is equally valid, and the reason it is rejected is because THEIR depiction is not in with the "secular evolutionary worldview"
they are saying that evolutionary thinking has taken over a lot of peoples minds, which it has, and i agree, is your model not a creation model? then it does not deal with what they consider the majority, although you are right, they do disagree with the OE idea. As do i? but again, its not about biblical authority that's all! this simply my, and AIG's take on it.
The reason AIG's models are rejected is that they really don't make any sense. Other Creation models do make sense and are not rejected on scientific grounds.
They don't make sense? they fit within my interpretation of the biblical time scale, and leads us perfectly into todays time. I see no issue, i am not playing the "i don't see it, so i wont recognize it" card, i sincerely understand and agree with models i read.
Thanks for the directions to this article. I have seen it an read it before. The issue is whether the Bible is simple or simplistic. I would claim that the Bible is simple in its message but it is not necessarily simplistic in its approach. To give a short lesson on why this is an issue, let's take the Hebrew word for day (yom) in Genesis 1. While it can be a literal 24 hour day, it in no way is exclusively used that way even in scripture. It is recognized by every legitimate Hebrew scholar that the word has three different meanings similar to our word for day. 1) roughly 12 hour period from sunrise to sunset; 2) a 24 hour period from sunrise to sunrise; or, 3) a finite yet undefined period of time ("back in my day"). The issue of ordinals is brought up many times, but it is just as proper linguistically for their use with the third definition as with the second since the time periods are being distinguished by God's different creative activities during those different periods of time.http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-arkhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
The great debate videos, talk about YE vs OE
I agree that the bible should be read in context, so does AIG and all YE creationists, its a universal fact, we read everything in context and build our understanding, I believe god knows how long a day is, if he made things in days, but then on gods 3rd day of work, the solar system saw its first day. My explanation me be hard to understand, please watch those videos for further understanding, the only other way i can explain it is..think of a daily checklist that god has.
Day 1- he creates Heavens and Earth
Day 2 -he creates Light, dark, Morning, Evening
day 3 - heturns on the system, and it runs, "it was good", and the solar system had its first full day!
god lives outside of time, so he made a time for us, and used our language for us to understand how long it took him to do all that he did, to show his majesty and glory.
Edit: another link on the Yom and day.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/day.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/Wang.asp
In love and in Christ
For gods glory