The Fall of Historical Adam, (Federal Head of man), impacts all of humanity to need Christ's Salvation

Isn’t it surprising that God didn’t do this for other accounts for which the historicity would seem to matter, such as perhaps the death and resurrection of Jesus? Even though we have four gospel writers recounting the story, not one of them clearly numbers each day of Jesus’ final week with a repeated refrain. In fact, I know of no historical account in the Bible that uses that style.

Perhaps this is because repeated refrains aren’t exactly a sign of history writing. They’re more likely to be found in the psalms or other poetic writing. The refrains most similar to Genesis 1 are found in the last book of the Bible: the seven seals, seven trumpets and seven bowls of God’s wrath. I don’t think the repeated refrain of “the xth angel poured his bowl into the sea” is intended to underscore the literal reality of God’s wrath being a liquid that can pour from bowls.

The seals, trumpets and bowls as well as the days of Genesis 1 make more sense as symbolic devices to arrange the visionary material they contain. Visionary, because the actual events they point to had (at the time of the writing) no human witnesses. The Bible’s other creation accounts dispense with the days but still affirm that God created everything (e.g. Genesis 2:4–25, Job 38, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8:22–31).

There’s a further purpose to the refrain for the days. The “and there was evening, and there was morning” clause shows that after every day’s work, night falls and then morning breaks with no events between. God is portrayed in human terms as doing all their work during the day (even separating light and dark!) and stopping for the nights. Finally, God rests on the seventh day. Exodus 31:17 even says that on this day God was refreshed! The account humanizes God, not because God truly only works days and takes Saturdays off, but because this is a pattern for humans to follow. We are called to live in creation as God’s image bearers, so God first condescends to be described as a human labourer we can emulate.

3 Likes

You must have me confused with someone else. I never said it means a local flood.

1 Like

You are not being asked to agree. You are being asked to substantiate your assertions, which appear baseless.

Sure, environmental change at a given location is constant, but there have always been warm climate bodies of water, hence crocodiles have persisted. There has always been open ocean, hence sharks have persisted. There has always been benthic ocean, hence coelacanth have persisted. You do not like the explanatory power of natural selection, so you strawman evolution as change for the sake of change, but that is not the way it works now, is it?

But you are wrong that there has been little or no change. The fossil record exhibits a considerable variation over time for sharks, crocodiles, and coelacanths.

Crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, and tuatara are animals that have persisted for millions of years, said to have gone unchanged since the days of the dinosaurs. But even the most ancient-looking organisms show us that evolution is always at work.

2 Likes

That statement shows that you do not have “a thorough understanding”: there are no “assumptions” involved. More significantly, there is no such thing as “secular beliefs about ‘deep time’”. This also demonstrates that you do not have “a thorough understanding”:

There’s no more “circular reasoning” involved than there is in someone driving along a street and checking the occasionally legible house/building number and comparing it to the number of blocks driven to estimate how far they’ve driven – that’s cross-referencing, and it isn’t “circular”. Regarding it as circular fails to understand geology even on the level of high school freshman science.

You’ve been corrected on this already. These days it’s easier to identify forms that are not transitional. The situation is akin to claiming that the house number 2306 is not transitional between 2184 and 2468 because you can’t read 2200 or 2422.

Why do you say “look at Genesis 1 as a study” and fail to give it? Here’s Genesis 1, and if you can’t read it then you aren’t really studying it:

1 ‏בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

‎2 ‏וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

‎3 ‏וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃

‎4 ‏וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

‎5 ‏וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לָאוֹר֙ י֔וֹם וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃ פ

‎6 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃

‎7 ‏וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

‎8 ‏וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שֵׁנִֽי׃ פ

‎9 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָק֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

‎10 ‏וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎11 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֔שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

‎12 ‏וַתּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י3 אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎13 ‏וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שְׁלִישִֽׁי׃ פ

‎14 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יְהִ֤י מְאֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהַבְדִּ֕יל בֵּ֥ין הַיּ֖וֹם וּבֵ֣ין הַלָּ֑יְלָה וְהָי֤וּ לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים וּלְיָמִ֖ים וְשָׁנִֽים׃

‎15 ‏וְהָי֤וּ לִמְאוֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

‎16 ‏וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים׃

‎17 ‏וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֛ם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

‎18 ‏וְלִמְשֹׁל֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם וּבַלַּ֔יְלָה וּֽלֲהַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֣ין הַחֹ֑שֶׁךְ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎19 ‏וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם רְבִיעִֽי׃ פ

‎20 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יִשְׁרְצ֣וּ הַמַּ֔יִם שֶׁ֖רֶץ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה וְעוֹף֙ יְעוֹפֵ֣ף עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ עַל־פְּנֵ֖י רְקִ֥יעַ הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃

‎21 ‏וַיִּבְרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִ֖ם הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים וְאֵ֣ת כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּ֣ה׀ הָֽרֹמֶ֡שֶׂת אֲשֶׁר֩ שָׁרְצ֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם לְמִֽינֵהֶ֗ם וְאֵ֨ת כָּל־ע֤וֹף כָּנָף֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎22 ‏וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ אֹתָ֛ם אֱלֹהִ֖ים לֵאמֹ֑ר פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֗וּ וּמִלְא֤וּ אֶת־הַמַּ֙יִם֙ בַּיַּמִּ֔ים וְהָע֖וֹף יִ֥רֶב בָּאָֽרֶץ׃

‎23 ‏וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם חֲמִישִֽׁי׃ פ

‎24 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ נֶ֤פֶשׁ חַיָּה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ בְּהֵמָ֥ה וָרֶ֛מֶשׂ וְחַֽיְתוֹ־אֶ֖רֶץ לְמִינָ֑הּ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

‎25 ‏וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֩ אֶת־חַיַּ֨ת הָאָ֜רֶץ לְמִינָ֗הּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ וְאֵ֛ת כָּל־רֶ֥מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֖ה לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎26 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

‎27 ‏וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

‎28 ‏וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

‎29 ‏וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּה֩ נָתַ֨תִּי לָכֶ֜ם אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֣שֶׂב׀ זֹרֵ֣עַ זֶ֗רַע אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־כָּל־הָעֵ֛ץ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ פְרִי־עֵ֖ץ זֹרֵ֣עַ זָ֑רַע לָכֶ֥ם יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָֽה׃

‎30 ‏וּֽלְכָל־חַיַּ֣ת הָ֠אָרֶץ וּלְכָל־ע֨וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם וּלְכֹ֣ל׀ רוֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה אֶת־כָּל־יֶ֥רֶק עֵ֖שֶׂב לְאָכְלָ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

‎31 ‏וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃ פ

When you can read that, we can talk about studying the text – I’m not interested in studying someone’s translation.

That’s easy – the Hebrew is in a literary form that is not historical narrative. The English is misleading because it hides the original literary type.

= - = + = - = = - = + = - =

One that’s often overlooked is that it is known from measurements in the lab how fast rock layers can bend without fracturing. Using those measurements minimum ages can be found for folded strata where no fracturing has occurred. By those measurements, the Himalayas are at the least hundreds of thousands of years old – and the same is true of many other mountain ranges.

= - = + = - = = - = + = - =

Besides the fact that the vast ages of rock formations were initially established by good Christians prior to any “secular science”.

As he confuses reading a translation with studying the biblical text.

The text does not say that – it says that the highest hills were covered in the known land.

Yes, it is, however traditional it might be; and no, it isn’t, because Genesis doesn’t talk about a globe. You are picking and choosing what to read literally in English; if you want a literal flood then be honest enough to recognize that at the most Genesis is telling about water that got deep enough to back up against the bronze-hard dome that God put over the disk of the Earth. Trying to make what Genesis actually says fit a globe Earth is just science fiction.

That’s false. If you’d actually studied geology you would know this. Good Christian scientists recognized that rock strata are incredibly ancient well before evolution was a dominant theme – and fossils were recognized as being incredibly ancient because they rock layers they were found in had already been recognized as being ancient.

You protest when with evidence someone calls certain Christians liars, yet you impugn generations of good Christians by your false statements about geology.

Nope – in university geology courses we deduced the ages of many rocks without any reference to fossils at all, using physics in a number of different ways.

You demonstrate that you are every time you cite creation.com, a site that makes it clear in their statement of beliefs that they have no intention of doing honest science.

= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =

edit: apologies for the small size of the Hebrew script. I tried to either make it larger or copy from a larger text size but it just stayed the same once I posted it.

1 Like

Your reading of Genesis can’t tell anything about what is “clearly written” because you refuse to actually study the text.

Yes – because YEC was and continues to be responsible for tens of thousands of young people leaving the faith! I cannot abide a pretense of Bible scholarship that refuses to actually study the Bible and ends up lying to people because of that, with that result of people leaving the faith.
Non YEC Christian students I knew found their faith strengthened by studying the sciences while many who had been raised YEC followed the YEC logic and concluded that the Bible could not be trusted.

You can’t read something correctly unless you know what kind of literature you’re reading. YEC refuses to actually read the Bible because it ignores the fact that it is written as ancient literature in ancient literary forms in ancient languages under ancient worldviews. So YECists end up lying about the Bible, with the result that they destroy the faith of thousands month after month.

Nowhere in the text does it say there was a global flood – at most it says there was a flood deep enough that the water backed up against the bronze-hard dome that God had put over the Earth-disk.
But it doesn’t even say that, it says that the flood covered the world known to Noah – that’s it. Translations that say “the earth” are not being honest, they’re translating in accordance with tradition – the traditions of men, to be clear. It’s a problem every serious student of the Bible runs into when they realize that the original words do not mean what the King James and later translations give.

1 Like

If you are making 1day= 1000 years then that means that humanity only appeared up to 2000 years ago. That is the last day plus the day of rest. But we have human records that date at least 3000 BC so that would make the earth at least 11000 years old (6+3+2024)

The earth is getting older by the second. And at what point are you putting 1000 years of inactivity?(Gods sabbath) Before the Garden incident? So Adam and Eve spent 1000 years of so in ignorant bliss and the Devil respected God’s sabbath and waited 1000 years to tempt them?

Your logistics fail at so many levels

Richard

Exactly. There are actually a couple of things going on with the “X day” refrain that the YEC view throws away. Both are a matter of contrast to the Egyptian creation story the outline of which the Genesis account follows: the first is that the Egyptian version had everything happening in just one day, the second is that in the Egyptian view nighttime was an enemy of order that the gods had to fight every single night in order to keep the world in existence. “Evening . . . and morning” are the boundaries of the night, and by using night to mark the days the Genesis writer is declaring that the Egyptians are totally wrong, that night isn’t an enemy, it’s just another tool YHWH-Elohim created to serve Him. And the repetition of days serves to declare that to YHWH-Elohim the steady march of time is important.

And in one of the literary forms of the first Creation account, the “Xth day” structure is there as a way to organize the story and make it easier to remember. Related to this, it should be kept in mind that the numbering does not indicate a succession of days; it isn’t “the second day”, “the third day”, etc., it’s “a second day”, “a third day”. That reminds me of something I don’t think I’ve mentioned in this thread, the fact that many ancient commentators called these “divine days” because up until the sixth day there weren’t any humans who could mark time; I missed listing that one in the post where I noted a number of ways that faithful Christians have read the opening Creation account down through the ages.

Yes. Scholars many centuries ago recognized that the numbering of angels and seals and such in John’s Apocalypse weren’t meant sequentially but thematically; even in the second and third centuries Christians recognized that John’s writing was describing what they were living through.

Nicely put!

3 Likes

Okay, lets take this to the conclusion.

We have 1000 years or so for animals to exist before humanity, giving Dinosaurs enough tie to come and go except there was no death before Adam? Hmm.

.Carnivores?
Bacteria?
Anything that lives on decaying or dying material?
Germination?
Births?

How does/did this world exist without death?

And if Adam caused it, where do all the carnivorous animals, plants and bugs come from?

Technically a herbivore is killing the plant it eats. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat any fruit, which is OK, I guess, because it doesn’t kill the tree, but…

Tell me, does any YEC actually think things through?

Richard

1 Like

Your response has nothing to do with my article. If you’ve read the article with comprehension, you know that it is not about commonalities between species but about the genetic differences between species. So please try again: What models that don’t include common descent would predict the observed patterns?

It is clear that the entirety of your decades-long study of evolution has consisted of reading creationist attacks on evolution. I’ve read the articles by Jeffrey Tomkins that made the 70% claim. Have you ever read the study that measured the difference at 1%(*)? Do you have the expert knowledge of sequencing, genome assembly, and comparative genomics required to judge between them? I do, and I’d be happy to explain to you some of the errors Tomkins made. Do you want to learn about them?

(*) Not exactly what the study said, in fact.

2 Likes

The age is inferred from direct measurements and measured fundamental constants which are calibrated from measurements which if wrong would prevent atoms from existing. Those assumptions allow for having a defined answer and are scientifically verifiable.

Can you give an example of a living fossil that is highly specialized for an environment that has ceased to exist? All of the examples that I am aware of like extreme or variable environments (intertidal, intermittently dry ponds, deserts), live in a lot of places, are generalists in feeding, etc. And the other issue is that even if the average time for a genus to last is short, there are going to be some extreme exceptions. And they are just that: unusual exceptions; Murchisonellidae is one of only four extant families that I can quickly find that are known from the Carboniferous.

What is far more telling is that extinction rate correlates well with stratigraphy–the original definitions of Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, Oligocene, Eocene, and Paleocene were based on the extinction rates of mollusks in European deposits of each layer. And as a further example, the extinction rates of a few layers nearer to me are as follows:

Wando Formation: 1%
Bermont Formation: 15%
upper Waccamaw Formation: 55%
lower Waccamaw Formation: 60%
Elizabethtown Beds: 70%
Duplin Formation: 80%
lower Goose Creek Limestone: 85%

Why should stratigraphy, biostratigraphy, extinction rates, and radiometric dating correlate that well if they are fundamentally wrong?

Exactly where they’ve been deposited in museums buried in museums. What exactly are the following if not transitional forms: Myllokunmingiidae, “ostracoderms”, Elpistostegidae, Eusthenopteron, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, labyrinthodont amphibians, gorgonopsids, Archaeopteryx, Spinifulgur, Busycon auroraense, Melanella laevigata calkinsi, Pelycidion matthewsi/megalomastoma, etc., etc.

1 Like

Hi Ron,
The video of this fast talking just so story telling amounts to nothing more than hand waving.
What a conglomeration of deceptive babble that has clearly been designed to confuse unsuspecting people that evolution is a fact despite the empirical reality that at least 55 REAL living creatures of today are essentially the same morphology of their ancestors that are present in the Fossil geologic column that in some cases allegedly date at hundreds of millions of years. Living fossils are real and to say otherwise is yet another blatant untruth!

God Bless,
jon

Would you consider it reasonable for someone to take the approach of studying a translation and consulting experts (their writings or direct communication) for “this is the best that I can understand this” level of study?

Specifically, starting in the late 17th century and being quite confident of it by about the 1770s.

Or, on a smaller scale, problems arise when people assume that the words in the KJV mean the same thing today–earth in the sense used then would probably be closer to the Hebrew than typical modern understandings of the word “earth”.

1 Like

Yes, but they are rare, and

2 Likes

Simply because they are all built within a deep time evolutionary worldview framework, that makes assumptions consistent with that worldview and callibrated to provide results that are in agreeance with each other. It’s that simple!!!

God Bless,
jon

(Articles on living-fossils)


A new star is born? Brittle star discovered—identical to Jurassic fossils!

A new brittle star has been discovered—but it’s identical to Jurassic fossils!
by Gavin Cox
](A new star is born?)


Ginkgo: a remarkable living fossil

With no evolutionary change over claimed hundreds of millions of years, and possessing a complex genome, the ginkgo is totally baffling to Darwinists
by Jerry Bergman
](Ginkgo: a remarkable living fossil) [

Coelacanth: The transitional fossil that wasn’t

The transitional fossil that wasn’t
by Jerry Bergman
](Coelacanth: transitional fossil?) [

The tapir

‘Primitive’? A ‘hodge-podge of leftovers’? Or something else?
by David Catchpoole
](Tapir) [

Baby fossil snake further frustrates evolution

A tiny snake “frozen in time” in amber belies its claimed 99 million year age
by Philip Bell
](Baby snake fossil defies evolution) [

Sulfur bacteria stasis—“The greatest absence of evolution ever reported”

“The greatest absence of evolution ever reported” is hailed as support for evolution.
by David Catchpoole
](https://creation.com/a/13509) [

Sea Pens

‘Extreme’ living fossils shout ‘after their kind’
by Don Batten
](https://creation.com/a/13219) [

Mighty mites stifle evolutionists

Evolutionists stopped in their tracks as amber find has them scratching their heads.
by Shane Cessna
](https://creation.com/a/13073) [

Sulfur-cycling bacteria 1.8 billion years old the same as today

1.8 billion years have allegedly gone by but these rapidly-reproducing bacteria haven’t changed in all that supposed time
by Michael Oard
](https://creation.com/a/12990) [

Meet ‘Mr Living Fossils’

A former evolutionist who has worked as a research biologist now has a museum that highlights creation.
by Carl Wieland
](https://creation.com/a/11531) [

Famous living fossil ‘link’ idea fizzles further

Famous living fossil ‘link’ idea fizzles further
by Carl Wieland
](https://creation.com/a/12554) [

Dinosaurs are almost certainly extinct

We have had decades to verify the many claims that dinosaurs are still alive today, but to date none of those have panned out.
by Robert W. Carter, Gary Bates, Jonathan Sarfati
(Dinosaurs are almost certainly extinct)

Previous

(Articles on living-fossils)


‘Surprising’ lizards in amber

Thirty-eight fossil lizards reckoned to be 20 million years old—so well-preserved you can see whether their eyes are open or shut.
by David Catchpoole
](‘Surprising’ lizards in amber) [

Sperm wail

The evolutionists’ cry that ostracod gametes are 17 million years old defies common sense.
by David Catchpoole
](Sperm wail) [

Turtles

These uniquely designed creatures continue to defy evolutionary explanation …
by Paula Weston
](Turtles) [

The mysterious giant squid

Despite scoffers over the years, the ‘legends’ and ‘stories’ about these creatures from seafarers are actually based on fact.
by Paula Weston and Carl Wieland
](The mysterious giant squid) [

Salamanders are ‘living fossils’!

How can something long known to be living, be dubbed a ‘living fossil’?
by David Catchpoole
](Salamanders are living fossils!) [

Gladiator—an ‘extinct’ insect is found alive

‘How often do you get to investigate a fossil that has come to life?’ asks one scientist. Good question.
by David Catchpoole
](Gladiator—an 'extinct' insect is found alive) [

Evolutionists can’t dodge ‘Living Fossils’

Things staying the same pose a problem evolution, which is about fantastic changes. See how evolutionists dodge the evidence.
by Don Batten
](Dodging living fossils) [

‘Living fossils’ enigma

Gingko trees, crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, coelacanth fish, tuatara lizards, Lingula lamp shells and Neopilina molluscs haven’t changed in at least a hundred million years. How come?
by David Catchpoole
](Living fossils enigma) [

Horsetails are ‘living fossils’!

Long familiar to keen gardeners, horsetails are ‘living fossils’, unchanged from their supposedly ‘prehistoric’ ancestors.
by David Catchpoole
](Horsetail living fossil) [

Golden oldie

Today, Koelreuteria lives in its natural state only in China, Japan and Korea. Why so far from its fossils found in USA and Germany?
by David Catchpoole
](Golden oldie) [

Living fossil ray riddle

A living Shovelnose Ray is almost identical to a ‘dinosaur era’ fossil ray, a living fossil, challenging both evolution and geological time.
](Living fossil ray) [

‘Lost world’ animals—found!

Cave drawings brought to life by exciting discoveries.
by Carl Wieland
]('Lost world' animals—found!)

Previous

(Articles on living-fossils)

[

Living fossils and ‘junk DNA’

Why do ‘living fossils’ and functions in ‘junk DNA’ present problems for evolution?
by Don Batten, Lita Cosner
](Living fossils erv function) [

Fossils in the wrong place?

Yes and no!
by Michael Oard
](Fossils wrong place) [

Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation

Dr Carl Werner discovered that the world’s museums contain fossils of many of today’s creatures, but found in ‘dinosaur’ rock. Why aren’t these fossils on display?
by Don Batten
](Werner living fossils) [

Amber needed water (and lots of it)

New research reveals a clue as to how aquatic organisms (e.g. barnacles, clams) became entombed in amber.
by David Catchpoole
](Amber needed water) [

The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!

Looking for something different? Try an Asian food market. You might be surprised …
by David Catchpoole
](The 'Lazarus effect': rodent 'resurrection'!) [

Horseshoe crabs invented themselves?

The latest discovery of a horseshoe crab fossil has evolutionists raving.
by David Catchpoole
](Horseshoe crabs invented themselves?) [

Fossil ant found alive!

Better watch where you walk … lest you tread on an ‘extinct’ ant!
by David Catchpoole
](Fossil ant found alive!) [

Correcting the headline: ‘Coelacanth’ yes; ‘Ancient’ no

Instead of ignoring news reports with an evolutionary ‘spin’, we can ‘de-evolutionise’ them for powerful use in outreach.
by David Catchpoole
](Correcting the headline: 'Coelacanth', yes; 'ancient', no) [

Evolutionary Stasis

Are scientists guilty of using language that serves to distort or disguise the facts?
by Philip Bell
](Evolutionary Stasis) [

‘Dinosaur fish’ lady dies

‘Dinosaur fish’ lady dies
by anon
](‘Dinosaur fish’ lady dies) [

Resurrected reef-dwellers?

Resurrected reef-dwellers?
by anon
](https://creation.com/a/16000)

Dr Joachim Scheven, Ph.D.

[

Aren’t 250 million year old live bacteria a bit much?

by Michael J. Oard
](Aren't 250 million year old live bacteria a bit much?) [

Ghostly shrimp challenges evolution!

](Ghostly shrimp challenges evolution!) [

‘Living fossils’

Living horseshoe crabs and Comptonia peregrina ferns are identical to their fossils, indicating no evolution.
by Joachim Scheven
](Living fossils: Comptonia & Limulus) [

‘Living fossils’

Liquidamber and Coelacanth
by Joachim Scheven
](Living fossils: Liquidamber & Coelacanth) [

Spot the difference

](Spot the difference! Fascinating living fossils) [

Bugs in brine

The Discovery of DNA in bacteria in ancient salt crystals shows they cannot be millions of years old.
by Don Batten
](Bugs in brine)

The Bible declares: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

[God Bless,
jon

Right, one could interpret it as picturing a “worldwide” flood, but that world has a different shape than ours. It’s much like when God gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream about “a tree at the center of the earth” that could be seen “to the ends of the whole earth” (Daniel 4). One could say that in the dream the tree was seen “worldwide,” but to say it was visible “globally” confuses the shape of the earth pictured by the dream.

Even when God communicates, as in that dream (see Daniel 4:24), God may accommodate a limited understanding of natural things.

2 Likes

They are unique living organisms that are clearly not transitional by any stretch of the imagination, despite the furious hand waving by evolutionists to the contrary.
Don’t you even think that it is extremely weird that we don’t find real transitional forms between the distinct species we see in the geologic column?
If evolution was a true mechanism used by God, then why don’t we see abundant evidence in the form of trillions upon trillions of transitional forms that document the alleged slow and gradual ascension of life on Earth from first cells through to man.
The reason why we don’t find trillions of transitional forms in the fossil record should be obvious to all truly enquiring minds given the enormous amount of well documented, catalogued fossils at our disposal in 2024.
The whole concept of transitional forms is a myth, evolution is a blatant falsity masquerading as science when it is obviously nothing of the sort. But of course another just so story has been invented to explain to the gullible why we don’t find the expected trillions of transitional forms in the fossil record that would have to have existed if evolution was actually a real mechanism. But it clearly isn’t hence, ZERO transitional forms exist, any statement otherwise is furious and desperate hand waving to cover up this glaring inconsistency that falsifies evolution theory right there. Clear as crystal except that the ever so strongly held religious dogma of many evolutionists that must at all costs, and despite the obvious evidence choose to retain their unwavering belief in evolution that in so doing prevents then from seeing the clearly obvious!

God Bless,
jon

It is telling that you do not provide scriptural references or scripture itself to support your assertion.
PLEASE , I would be grateful if either you or St Roymond could you provide more information as to exactly where in the Bible the words, or words to the effect and meaning of “water backed up against the bronze-hard dome that God had put over the Earth-disk” are written.

Many Thanks,
God Bless,
jon

So exactly where does the Bible state this?

Could you please indicate where you believe the following text is a false translation from the original Hebrew:
18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

T^hanks,
God Bless,
jon

God Bless,
jon

Even creationists do not agree with you.

YEC advocate Tomkins argued that the similarity between Chimpanzee and human genomes was 70%.

ID advocate Richard Buggs, who at one time also suggested 70% similarity and was widely quoted in YEC literature, has revised his estimate to somewhere over 90%.. Note that Buggs has taken into consideration work by Steve Schaffner @glipsnort in his revision.

Creationist Todd Wood, who pioneered the YEC baraminology taxonomy, stated

The weight of the evidence still favors a >90% identity between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

Physical anthropologist Erica ( Gutsick Gibbon ) replicated Tomkins work and found a litany of mistakes. Creation Ministries International associate Robert Carter grudgingly agreed that Erika’s critique and DNA analysis was broadly correct.

Humans and chimpanzees are more genetically similar than many of the species that YEC considers to be members of the same Biblical kind. One that basis, it would be consistent to place chimpanzee’s and humans in the same kind. After all, no primate has been observed to give birth to anything other than a primate.

2 Likes