so are we agreeing to the claimed 15 million years or the 49 million years? Which one is it? I would argue that is a rather elaborate change of mind and not at all insignificant. To the average blind follower who doesnt really think about the reality of the numbers, 1 million years or 100 million years is not a seriously considered an issue, however, take that same individual and turn the number into $1,000 or $100,000 and i can assure you, those numbers are most definitely significant! The outrage at the higher figure becomes news worthy.
Why do people sin and animals do not? Can you sin if you do not have moral capacity? These are interesting to think about. While the traditional view is that Adam and Eve were the first to sin, even if you take Adam and Eve as symbolic or representational, there is some common ground between YEC and EC, as YEC sees A&E as the first humans with moral capacity, and the EC view, (which can accept A&E as historic but most often symbolic or representational,) they would similarly identify A&E as representing the development of moral capacity in the process of evolution. Animals act out of selfish motives for the most part. Even those social groups of animals who seem to act in altruistic ways, usually act that way for the benefit of their familial or social group (bees in a hive, lions on a hunt, etc.). Perhaps humankind became sinful when they developed the capacity to overcome their selfish desires, but failed to chose to do so.
Aside from the problems which have already been highlighted on this forum about
-
heterosexuality and homosexuality being at odds with the evolutionary timeline (ie homoesexuality is on the rise whichI would argue is contrary to natural selection) and
-
explaining rape…this also is opposed to the evolutionary timeline and is an exhibit of a more primitive behaviour in humans rather than where we are at present.
both of the above examples I believe very accurately support the biblical narrative
Here are some published issues concerning whale evolution and these arguments are on the rise not the decline…so i would have to assert that the apparent rebuttals to them from evolutionary science is severely lacking in strength.
BTW, I post existing published works here because these are not my own interpretation…I am not trying to put my own spin on things…the claimed errors from the creationist scientific view are views OTHER people who spend a great deal of time immersing themselves in these areas of science
The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus , and Basilosaurus . One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain.
In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian [Ypresian is 50 to 55 million years ago], but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian [Lutetian is 42 to 50 MYA]. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus , an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus , which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus . This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus .
In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian. If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus . In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.
“Zimmer acknowledges”, is that there aren’t very many early whale fossils. Does that surprise you? Evolutionists have probably led you to believe that the fossil evidence for whale evolution is, pardon the expression, rock-solid. But there isn’t really that much “hard” evidence. Whale evolution is mostly imaginary, or speculative at best. all they have found is a skull. They don’t have a single Pakicetus rib. They don’t have any Pakicetus vertebrae. No other bones of any kind. Just a skull–and a fragmentary one at that. Why do they think it came from a whale ancestor? Because its teeth look like whale teeth.
the group of fossils from Pakicetus to Protocetus, and then a 4 million year gap in time before Basilosaurus. The time gap isn’t the problem. It’s the geographical gap that makes the “transitional form” argument even less convincing.
Pakicetus gets its name from its discovery in Pakistan. Except for Basilosaurus, all the other supposed links in this evolutionary chain are found in that part of the world. But then, out of the blue, Basilosaurus appears in Louisiana!
Modern whales have different shaped teeth than Basilosaurus. Baleen whales don’t even have teeth at all. And that’s supposed to be proof that both kinds of modern whales evolved from Basilosaurus
Evolutionists have told us that Pakicetus couldn’t even hear under water. But toothed whales (and dolphins, etc. ) have ultrasonic sonar just like another mammal–the bat. Why don’t evolutionists claim that whales evolved from bats? Is it because bat teeth don’t look like whale teeth? Is it any more ridiculous to think that a bat could evolve into a whale than to think that a wolf could? What makes teeth so much more important than ears when trying to figure out which animals had common ancestors?
The answer is that evolutionists just pick whatever characteristic tends to support their case and use it. If the number of vertebrae supports their supposed evolutionary story, then the number of vertebrae is important. If the number of vertebrae doesn’t–then vertebrae aren’t important. It is entirely subjective. That’s why DNA analysis is so appealing. DNA analysis is quantitative. You can count the number of differences in DNA. The problem is, DNA doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. A case in point is the whale, but we will get to that a little later.
Right now we want to emphasize the problem that plagues evolutionists, which is that there isn’t a clue as to how and when toothed whales developed echolocation. Presumably it must have happened very recently, after toothed and toothless whales diverged, which must have been less than 35 million years ago if both evolved from Basilosaurus. Echolocation seems like a very sophisticated adaptation to have evolved in such a short time.
Scientists believe that early whales actually walked the earth. The theory, supported by recent fossil finds in the foothills of the Himalayas, is that about 53.5 million years ago, whales were amphibious. They originated as land mammals, and gradually ventured into the water in search of food. They fed on fresh and saltwater fish. Eventually, they lost their legs and nostrils, and became the creatures we know today.
If true, Himalayacetus completely throws out the evolutionists’ claimed sequence of transitional fossils that show how a land-dwelling mammal (Pakicetus) that occasionally ventured into fresh water turned into a mammal that swims in salt water all the time. If Himalayacetus was swimming in salt water 1 million years before Pakicetus, then Pakicetus and the supposed transitional forms have nothing at all to do with whale evolution. Himalayacetus would be a fully formed, abrupt appearance of a salt water whale, throwing cold (salt) water on the theory of whale evolution.
We should also point out that the fossil is only a lower jaw. It isn’t even a complete skull
For years, evolutionists have claimed that whales evolved from something like a wolf. But when they analyzed the DNA, whale DNA was closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA
In the October 1, 1998, issue of Nature , J.G.M. Thewissen, a paleontologist at the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, and his colleagues announced their discovery of two ancient whale astragali [ankle bones] … “Our whale astragalus doesn’t look like an artiodactyl,” Thewissen observes. “Unfortunately, it also doesn’t look like a mesonychian.”
In an attempt to settle the discrepancy between the traditional view and the DNA data, a study was made of ankle bones of camels, hippos, and whales. (The fact that whales don’t even have feet should not concern you. They have bones that look like ankle bones. If they look like ankle bones, an evolutionist will believe they must be ankle bones. Some “mammal-like reptiles” have jaw bones that look like ear bones, and evolutionists try to use them to figure out how the ear evolved.
What does this even mean? That fact that you don’t understand something doesn’t mean the evolutionary model has all these problems. As long as a population is reproducing as a population, evolution will happen, even if some individuals in the population are not reproducing. Evolution works at the population level, not at the level of individuals. Plus there is no evidence I am aware of that sexual orientation is genetic, so you can’t talk of traits with no genetic component in terms of an evolutionary timeline.
Rape is a behavior and it’s only identifiable as a behavior in human societies, where we have a concept of bodily autonomy and consent. Dogs don’t rape other dogs. Rape isn’t a thing in the non-human world. You are confusing sociological issues with biological issues. “Rape” is not a product of evolution any more than “embezzlement” is. Both are crimes that require human cultural constructs, human communities, and human moral systems to have any meaning.
1 Like
oooh…So what we have in fact is only a biological evolutionary development, the intellectual development process is unrelated to evolution. How interesting, so may i ask, where did intellectual development come from if not through the evolutionary model? Are you now saying God did this outside of evolution?
Your claim about animal rape is also false. there are many examples of animal rape…many many of them. In some species that is exactly how they procreate!
As I said, according to TE, the question is purely academic.
Sin is something that affects us in the here and now. On the Day of Judgment, we won’t be able to turn to Adam and Eve and say, “It was their fault.” We will have to give account before God for ourselves.
The reason some people get so upset at the suggestion that Adam and Eve might have been theological rather than literal and historical is that they want someone to pass the buck to. In fact, the whole story about Adam and Eve is a cautionary tale against passing the buck in that way.
- Us: “It was original sin.” Blame Adam and Eve.
- Adam: “It was that wife that you gave me.” Blame the wife, and blame God.
- Eve: “It was the serpent.” Blame the demon. “I need deliverance ministry.”
- And the serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on…
1 Like
It’s always so amusing reading “ well to my eyes and in this here YouTube video I done founded it seems…… and then completely ignores millions of peer reviewed papers published by top research journals written by thousands of actual experts.
1 Like
Maybe you can explain in your own words what makes that fossil a crocodilian and not a whale? What basal and divergent traits are you basing it on?
Then maybe let us know how many years ago do you think it was found? What specific geological layers are you thinking? If you can even decide on how that works with your made up science.
Then maybe you can link us to a handful of papers in peer reviewed journals to support your claim.
If you can’t do that then maybe explain why your scientific approach is not accepted by 99.9% of the 8 million scientists world wide.
Let me guess…… Bible says so, I don’t think so, they reject real science …. Then some kind of atheist conspiracy coverup to undermine god? Same basic thing right?
No, what we have is individuals exhibiting behaviors that don’t have a genetic component. You do realize that lots of species have examples of individuals that find same sex mates or engage in same sex mating behavior, right? Neither a certain stage of “evolutionary development” nor the evolution of the human brain is necessary.
Then you are using rape to mean something other than the standard definition of unlawful sexual activity and I’m not going to argue semantics with you.
4 Likes
complete theological nonsense. I dont know of any scholarly work where that is a universal Christian claim as to why Adam and Eve are real or a fairytale. I dont actually know how someone like yourself would even put forward such an absurd defense…its not a particularly strong one.
From the bible, explain to me why Adam and Eve are not significant?
I will then counter your argument from the bible as to why they are significant and real and the narrative of the Garden of Eden is important in salvation. See the difference between us here is that any bible passage that dissagrees with the evolutionary model, you completely throw out…such as the wages of sin being death.
TE claim “oh, but its just a spiritual death”. (with no theological evidence to support such a claim of course, just a hunch and some very poor interpretation of what is actually very self evident scripture…and lots of it btw)
I counter this with, “ah but if spiritual, then why did Jesus (the messiah who would save his people from their sins) die a physical death and when sending His Holy Spirit a month or so after that event, manifest itself as tongues of fire on the heads of the disciples in the upper room?” There is a clear distinction here between the two events!
The TE answer “…” nothing, zip, just the sound of crickets!
What is the question exactly?
read your post before it then you should already know…to help with the context i will update my quote so it reads more of your own previous post if you like.
Have I struck a nerve here, Adam?
1 Like
oh so now the thing that separates us in the evolutionary chain is that we have laws and animals that engage in rape do not? Do they not live by the universal law of nature and natural selection? Why do humans, with a highly intelligent capacity engage in rape and homosexuality? Neither of these two things supports the evolutionary timeline…but they most definately do support the bible narrative!
The bible speaks extensively of sexual immorality…I believe it is a general religious view that this was one of the reasons for the flood and destruction of all living things! The bible also prophecies that this kind of behaviour will continue and I am fairly certain that Christians universally hold to the view that towards the end of time it will only get worse not better…again, this would also seem to me to be in direct contrast to the TE model (unless you are now going to claim that human extinction is part of Gods plan?)
Human culture and complex societal organization, made possible by human language and complex symbolic thought, is indeed one of the main things that separates us from animals, yes. Let me guess, you think that is somehow controversial? By the way, I also believe humans are created to bear God’s image, but the differences between humans and animals aren’t just theological or spiritual.
Yes, because it speaks extensively about morality. Evolutionary biology doesn’t.
1 Like
[content removed by moderator]…no it did not strike any nerve with me as i know that it is not a universally held position. Christians do not play the blame game because they have a the following bible text that spells it out plain and simple:
Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13 For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.
Oh btw, in the concordance, have a guess what biblical passage Paul is referencing here? Wouldn’t you know, its Genesis 3:1-7 (The fall of man and from there the refernces start to filter throughout the entire bible narrative…this is why the death is BOTH spiritual and literal)
My assumption is that the new TE bible being worked on will take quite a few years to complete as you will have to not only rewrite the scriptures to fit your doctrine, but create an entire concordance for it as well. To illustrate the difficulty in all of this, JW’s now have over 8 million members and, in 200 years, they still not only don’t have their own bible translation errors sorted out, they dont even have a concordance which agrees with it!
Yeah, what is the question? I was obviously commenting about your comment about your grandfather’s refusal to believe the devil brought sin into the world,
For starters there are entire books on this subject lol. It’s not our fault you have never picked them up. Or bothered to read the various posts on it.
Let’s start with the tongues of fire at Pentecost. You know that had nothing to do with salvation right? That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The disciples were already saved then in that building.
They got the power of the Holy Spirit that was prophesied about.
Acts 1:8
New American Standard Bible
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”
Jerusalem was for the Jews. Samaria was for the Samaritans and ends of the earth was for the gentiles. This happens in acts 2,8 and 10.
In acts 2:38 we read this is how you receive the Holy Spirit (which is the indwelling ).
Acts 2:38
New American Standard Bible
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
They repented and are baptized ( fully immersed ) in water.
Now jump ahead to the Samaritans ( Samaria ) as promised. A interesting point of contention arises up because it’s Philip the evangelist, not the apostle that was scattered by Paul and went to Samaria.
Acts 8:9-19
New American Standard Bible
9 Now a man named Simon had previously been practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; 10 and all the people, from small to great, were paying attention to him, saying, “This man is the Power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they were paying attention to him because for a long time he had astounded them with his magic arts. 12 But when they believed Philip as he was preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were being baptized. 13 Now even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was repeatedly amazed.
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized [a]in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
You’ll notice it says that Simon and the others heard the gospel, repented and believed it. They were even baptized into Christ. So they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They were saved but they did not have the power of the Holy Spirit to preform miracles. In order for that to happen the Apostles had to come there and lay their hands on them. Simon himself seen this and said “ give me this power “ and was rebuked.
Now let’s check out the contention of the indwelling and power in acts 10 with the gentile Cornelius and his family at the ends of the “world”.
Acts 10:44-48
New American Standard Bible
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the [a]message. 45 All the [b]Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter responded, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Leading up to this, just like in acts 2, Peter is proclaiming the gospel and before he is even finished the power that was promised at those three places to jumpstart the church fell on the gentiles who begin to speak in tongues. Peter realized they received the Holy Spirit ( power ) just like they did realized they are indeed meant to be in the kingdom of God and so he had them baptized so that again, just like in acts 2:38 they could be saved.
Lastly we also have this bit of conversation from Jesus highlighting how just because you have the power of the Holy Spirit does not mean you are saved.
Matthew 7:20-23
New American Standard Bible
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
So how exactly were you trying to tie in the Holy Spirit to countering evolution with the three stages of the power?
You mentioned the verse about sin having entered through one man, Adam.
Im curious did Adam or Eve sin first? Did Eve sin before Adam sinned? If sin literally came into earth by Adam did that mean Eve did not sin? Was genesis wrong about Eve eating first?
Did the serpent also not sin by lying and being deceitful and telling Eve to undermine God?
It seems like Adam was the last to sin…. It’s almost as if they don’t care about the historical accuracy because it’s point is theological? Hmmmm crickets crickets crickets….
1 Like
you made the above statement and i then asked you to explain from your perspective the Day of Atonement Service.
If you had studied this service you would immediately recognise that the very end of the service requires the “acting High Priest” (for the service was not actually conducted by the high priest but his son who will replace him)…places his hands on the scapegoat Azazel and it is cast out into the wilderness bearing the burden for all the sins for which atonement had been made…these sins were the very ones that defiled the sanctuary which is in the midst of the camp of Israel…in the midst of all their evil.
This goat symoblized that the responsibility for sin does not lie with men at all. The responsibility of men is to ask forgiveness for their sin, that is done through faith in the very physical and literal bodily sacrifice of the Messiah Jesus.
The wicked at the end of time are not kiilled because they do not take responsibility for their sins, Jesus died for all sin…it is a free gift to everyone. The caveat is, he cannot force salvation on those who deny his sacrifice under the law (the wages of sin is death) can save them. You cannot be pulled up out of a pit if you do not take the hand of the person who reaches down to pull you up…its a physical and logical impossibility!
The goat wandering into the wilderness symoblizes that we cannot serve two masters…either God or Satan. Azazel is cast out into the hands of the devil who now bears the responsibility for him.
There is a significant theological issue with your statement above, and that is why i asked you explain the DOA from your TE perspective.