# Were ALL animals created on the 5th or 6th day?



## HawgJawl (Jan 31, 2011)

Helminths are multi-cellular organisms.  They are living animals that generally possess digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems.  Pinworms are just one of numerous types of helminths and are one of the most common human internal parasites.

Did God create helminths such as pinworms and tapeworms and infect Adam and Eve with them in the Garden of Eden on the same day He created Adam and Eve?

Or, did God create some animals such as helminths at some later time (a subsequent creation)?

Or, did helminths evolve?

Or...?

What is your opinion?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Helminths are multi-cellular organisms.  They are living animals that generally possess digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems.  Pinworms are just one of numerous types of helminths and are one of the most common human internal parasites.
> 
> Did God create helminths such as pinworms and tapeworms and infect Adam and Eve with them in the Garden of Eden on the same day He created Adam and Eve?
> 
> ...



I don't think there are many Atheists or Agnostics who believe that the world was created in 6 days.  This might be a better question to ask the people who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 31, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> This might be a better question to ask the people who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.



I'm hoping that some of "those" folks will come here and give an opinion, because I'm skeered to ask a question like this on any other forum.  Some folks seem to get real upset about anyone coming into "their" forum and "looking for trouble".

I'm really interested to see if anyone would consider the possibility of evolution existing along with an initial creation.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm hoping that some of "those" folks will come here and give an opinion, because I'm skeered to ask a question like this on any other forum.  Some folks seem to get real upset about anyone coming into "their" forum and "looking for trouble".
> 
> I'm really interested to see if anyone would consider the possibility of evolution existing along with an initial creation.



I think animals and plants as we know them now have changed a little since the original creation (steelhead, rainbows, and cuts are all slight variations of the same fish) , but a single cell organism evolving into thousands of different animals is a stretch even for a SCI-FI film.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

There are seemingly contridictions in the creation account. My view of this is that although God spoke things into existence, that doesn't mean that it "became" at that momment. God created plants but we see later that plants had not "sprung up " yet because God had not sent rain. Thus herbivores, plant eating animals must not have "been" and also carnivors could not have been sustained yet either. Men of "faith" speak as though the words of God have already happened even if not yet because God said it. Same thing with the misunderstood claim that Jesus existed before time began. Just a big misunderstanding of the scriptures.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> There are seemingly contridictions in the creation account. My view of this is that although God spoke things into existence, that doesn't mean that it "became" at that momment. God created plants but we see later that plants had not "sprung up " yet because God had not sent rain. Thus herbivores, plant eating animals must not have "been" and also carnivors could not have been sustained yet either. Men of "faith" speak as though the words of God have already happened even if not yet because God said it. Same thing with the misunderstood claim that Jesus existed before time began. Just a big misunderstanding of the scriptures.



That is explained in the scriptures. Plants were there in the beginning, and they had water.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> That is explained in the scriptures. Plants were there in the beginning, and they had water.


explanation please


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> explanation please



Genesis 2:4-6 

Also don't forget God told Adam and Eve they could eat of every tree in the garden but one...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

We see plants and trees created on the third day chp1. Chp 2 says that streams watered the surface but also before that says that no shrub had yet appeared nor plant of the field for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth. So we either have contridiction between 1 and 2 or their is an explanation. I would be interested in hearing other explanations


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

My explanation also works with the fact that the 6th day, man and woman were spoken into existence. This is in contridiction that on the 6th day man and woman were told to rule over the creatures but in chp 2, we see Adam ruling over the creatures in the naming process before Eve was even created.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> no shrub had yet appeared nor plant of the field for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth.



Are you using a KJV Bible? It says he created every tree and shrub before it was in the earth (put it there as a fully grown tree) because there was no man to til the earth , and because God had not caused it to rain. It then says after creating the trees that God caused a mist to come out of the earth to provide them water.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Are you using a KJV Bible? It says he created every tree and shrub before it was in the earth (put it there as a fully grown tree) because there was no man to til the earth , and because God had not caused it to rain. It then says after creating the trees that God caused a mist to come out of the earth to provide them water.


Just looking at a parallel bible with 4 different translations. The KJ is easy to miss, "before it was".  It is stated in the NIV  as "no shrub had yet sprung up" and the NASB says "no shrub was yet in the earth and no plant had sprouted."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

Sorry to derail your thread, HawgJawl. Hopefully it is interesting anyway


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Just looking at a parallel bible with 4 different translations. The KJ is easy to miss, "before it was".  It is stated in the NIV  as "no shrub had yet sprung up" and the NASB says "no shrub was yet in the earth and no plant had sprouted."



Hawgjawl, I'm also sorry for hijacking your thread. I never can seem to stay away from a good argument!

I'm not going to get into a KJV vs. other versions debate, but I believe the Bible is the divine Word of God, and that any alterations to the message of the Bible are not the Words of God. 

When read in context it clearly states that "The Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth". God did not "plant" the trees as seeds. He created them as trees before they were in the earth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Hawgjawl, I'm also sorry for hijacking your thread. I never can seem to stay away from a good argument!
> 
> I'm not going to get into a KJV vs. other versions debate, but I believe the Bible is the divine Word of God, and that any alterations to the message of the Bible are not the Words of God.
> 
> When read in context it clearly states that "The Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth". God did not "plant" the trees as seeds. He created them as trees before they were in the earth.


 That would be a debate that I don't care to get into either. As for the proper context, I don't know. I do believe that things were created "with age". Adam, for example, was not a baby.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

Hawgjawl your question reminds me of one of Mark Twains writings about the fly.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 1, 2011)

I don't think creation vs. big bang can be argued.  Regardless of the power of your faith, the version of bible, or the power of your own scientific reasoning, it all boils down to what you want to  believe.  I have often thought both were right.  God spoke it into existence, but not in the 6 day time frame of the bible.  It happened over millions of years.  How else do you explain fossils and carbon dating?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't think creation vs. big bang can be argued.  Regardless of the power of your faith, the version of bible, or the power of your own scientific reasoning, it all boils down to what you want to  believe.  I have often thought both were right.  God spoke it into existence, but not in the 6 day time frame of the bible.  It happened over millions of years.  How else do you explain fossils and carbon dating?



Look into some of the versions of the Gap Theory.


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 1, 2011)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't think creation vs. big bang can be argued.  Regardless of the power of your faith, the version of bible, or the power of your own scientific reasoning, it all boils down to what you want to  believe.  I have often thought both were right.  God spoke it into existence, but not in the 6 day time frame of the bible.  It happened over millions of years.  How else do you explain fossils and carbon dating?



Do some research into carbon dating. It's hardly "tried and true". There is some debate about whether it's even remotely accurate. It's based on the idea that the amount of carbon (and ratios of radioactive carbon vs. "plain jane" carbon) in the atmosphere has always been the same. They also fail to take into account the amount of "carbon contamination" that can take place over "billions of years".


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Do some research into carbon dating. It's hardly "tried and true". There is some debate about whether it's even remotely accurate. It's based on the idea that the amount of carbon (and ratios of radioactive carbon vs. "plain jane" carbon) in the atmosphere has always been the same. They also fail to take into account the amount of "carbon contamination" that can take place over "billions of years".



Maybe that would explain why carbon dating is only used for dating items up to about 50,000 years old.


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe that would explain why carbon dating is only used for dating items up to about 50,000 years old.



So how do they determine it is less than 50,000 years old before they use carbon 15 dating?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 1, 2011)

The typical argument is whether it was creation  OR  evolution.  I'm proposing for consideration the theory that both could exist.  I'm proposing that if you believe in creation (whether that be the story in Genesis or your own version) it is still possible to believe that many organisms have EVOLVED dramatically over time.


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The typical argument is whether it was creation  OR  evolution.  I'm proposing for consideration the theory that both could exist.  I'm proposing that if you believe in creation (whether that be the story in Genesis or your own version) it is still possible to believe that many organisms have EVOLVED dramatically over time.



That is kind of how I see it. God created animals to reproduce after their own kind, but that doesn't mean a handful of species of birds didn't "evolve" into what we have now. But the idea that a single cell organism would produce off spring that somewhere down the line starting using oxygen, then a little later down the line started reproducing via meiosis, then eventually lungs etc. is a stretch even for a SCI-FI film...


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> That is kind of how I see it. God created animals to reproduce after their own kind, but that doesn't mean a handful of species of birds didn't "evolve" into what we have now. But the idea that a single cell organism would produce off spring that somewhere down the line starting using oxygen, then a little later down the line started reproducing via meiosis, then eventually lungs etc. is a stretch even for a SCI-FI film...



I understand what you're saying, but back to the OP,  where did human parasites such as pinworms come from, if they weren't created "in the Garden of Eden"?


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I understand what you're saying, but back to the OP,  where did human parasites such as pinworms come from, if they weren't created "in the Garden of Eden"?



My guess would be they came after the fall of man, but that's just a guess.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> My guess would be they came after the fall of man, but that's just a guess.



Assuming that is correct, do you believe that organisms like these were created by God after "the fall of man" or do you believe that they evolved?

NOTE:  This is simply a question regarding beliefs, this is not a trick question or some type of trap.  There have been a lot of views but few posts.  Everyone please feel free to voice an opinion.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

I'd like to know how someone reconciles evolution with all the animals that pre-date humans or the story that the first woman came from the rib of the first man.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'd like to know how someone reconciles evolution with all the animals that pre-date humans or the story that the first woman came from the rib of the first man.



how do you know animals pre-date humans?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> how do you know animals pre-date humans?



Because of the fossil record.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 1, 2011)

Woman was an afterthought created from spare parts. There inlies the explanation for so much of man's grief..


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Because of the fossil record.



carbon dating?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> carbon dating?



Radiometric dating and the fossil distribution.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Radiometric dating and the fossil distribution.



Is radiometric dating 100% accurate? or 99% or 98%?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Helminths are multi-cellular organisms.  They are living animals that generally possess digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems.  Pinworms are just one of numerous types of helminths and are one of the most common human internal parasites.
> 
> Did God create helminths such as pinworms and tapeworms and infect Adam and Eve with them in the Garden of Eden on the same day He created Adam and Eve?
> 
> ...



I am not real familiar with helminths, does every human have them no matter what, and are they essential for human survival?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I am not real familiar with helminths, does every human have them no matter what, and are they essential for human survival?



Pinworms, tapeworms, etc. are types of human parasites that cause disease and death.  There are at least 35 different types of helminths along with at least 30 additional kinds of human parasites.  

The reason I picked pinworms is because they are fairly advanced animals.  It is argued by some that all advanced animals were created by God in the beginning and NONE evolved from something less advanced.  If this argument is true, then these human parasites had to exist in the garden of eden, which is unlikely because a human infected with all 65 of these parasites (along with any additional ones that may be extinct now) would not have survived.  People still die today when infected with only one type of parasite.  Even if Adam and Eve were somehow able to survive all these parasites, it surely would not feel like paradise.

This leads that these multi-cellular organisms came into being some time after the "fall of man", and after the initial creation.

Could there have been additional creations?

Is it possible that SOME organisms did in fact evolve?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Pinworms, tapeworms, etc. are types of human parasites that cause disease and death.  There are at least 35 different types of helminths along with at least 30 additional kinds of human parasites.
> 
> The reason I picked pinworms is because they are fairly advanced animals. * It is argued by some that all advanced animals were created by God in the beginning and NONE evolved from something less advanced.*  If this argument is true, then these human parasites had to exist in the garden of eden, which is unlikely because a human infected with all 65 of these parasites (along with any additional ones that may be extinct now) would not have survived.  People still die today when infected with only one type of parasite.  Even if Adam and Eve were somehow able to survive all these parasites, it surely would not feel like paradise.
> 
> ...



The part in red is what I dont fully buy into, so I guess I am not much good for this thread.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I think animals and plants as we know them now have changed a little since the original creation (steelhead, rainbows, and cuts are all slight variations of the same fish) , but a single cell organism evolving into thousands of different animals is a stretch even for a SCI-FI film.



In the case of the pinworm, do you believe that a single cell organism evolved into this multi-cellular animal with digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems?


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> In the case of the pinworm, do you believe that a single cell organism evolved into this multi-cellular animal with digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems?



No, I do not. Parasites more than likely came after the fall. How God put them here really doesn't concern me that much.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Feb 10, 2011)

The Bible says faith is by hearing. If that is true . If You here anything enough people will believe it. True or False???


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2011)

I believe that's true for the majority of people.  Some people don't automatically follow the crowd, and some people start questioning things they always believed but never knew exactly why they believed it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2011)

Does anyone have any theories about the origin of the human parasite, the pinworm, OTHER than evolution?


----------

