However it seems to me that all of this extensive evidence has the same basic problems…it uses inferences and assumptions as fact, then builds a model of truth based on them. That is hardly fact is it.
Science says whales took 10-15 millions years to evolve does it not? Now we are finding that given the number of mutations require are in numbers far great than just a couple, that timeline is impossible and therefore a figure of 49million years is needed putting the evolutionary timeline into complete chaos.
I would challenge your theology and biblical scholarship claims. I’m convinced TE is nothing more than a secular copout to fill in the blank of the void that is the origin of the energy and matter that started the big bang…it’s like "let’s just throw a God in there so we don’t have to concern ourselves with that fundamental issue.
Such a vew is not in fact Christian… That kind of theology I think is ignorant of very very obvious theological themes. For example, when I see even just basic literary methods being ignored when reading Bible passages, it becomes plainly obvious a doctrine is in error. I see that with many fringe religious groups…this one even more so than most others.
It is suicide for a Christian to put secular science before religion. Christian scientists do the opposite and you attack them for it. That makes you fundamentally opposed to Christian principals. If you are not then…
I will repeat a question I’ve asked before and not a single biblical answer was given…
For you as a TE, why did Jesus die on the cross and what is the purpose of the second coming?
Christians do not put “secular science” before religion. We put honest science before Pharisaism.
To save us from our sin of course.
And by the way, sin is something that happens in the here and now. It is something that we must all give account of before God. It is something from which the Blood of Jesus saves us today. This does not depend on how it all got started; such debates are purely academic. Were Adam and Eve real, historical people or merely a theological construct? It doesn’t make a whit of difference. If they were only theological, that doesn’t mean that sin doesn’t exist: it just means that you don’t have someone to pass the buck to for it, and have to take responsibility for it yourself.
1 Like
Right. But you’ve already demonstrated you don’t understand evolution or the approach evolutionary creation takes to biblical scholarship, so not surprising. I don’t care if you’re not convinced, but coming on this forum and telling everyone they are so so wrong without actually addressing anything they say isn’t exactly compelling to anyone else.
1 Like
Asked and answered, Adam. What did you find theologically insufficient? And what does this have to do with the evidence for whale evolution?
According to TE, how did sin come into the world and for what reason?
People are responsible for evil in this world.
that is a basic understanding and in its manifestation is true. However, could you explain from the biblical narrative of the Day of Atonement sanctuary service the theological answer to this question?
There is no chaos, all is in order. Mutation happens much faster. The papers I linked reference a number of specific gene mutations and these would not require the time you are suggesting. Have we not witnessed this past two years how rapidly coordinated mutation can happen? Yes, things happen much slower in the vertebrate world, but millions of years provides ample time
1 Like
Some people think there was a historical human couple Adam and Eve who either as representatives of humanity or the first “spiritual humans” disobeyed God and the narrative in the garden is a symbolic way of telling about that event. Others think the Genesis account is a symbolic way of talking about an entire community of people who were the first humans in relationship with and morally accountable to God and who rebelled. Others think the account is an allegorical way of describing how every human on earth from time immemorial has chosen to rebel against God. ECs do not reject the sinfulness of humanity and many don’t reject a historical fall or the idea of original sin. They reject the idea that the world was perfect, nothing died, lions survived on carrots, Adam had a pet dinosaur, and then whammo, Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit and fundamentally altered entire ecosystems and the geology of earth, because “sin entered the world” and then and only then did we get earthquakes and carnivores and genetic diseases.
3 Likes
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!