I’m not sure if that’s totally the case. The use of “fish / fin / leg-appendages” (whatever you wish to call them) could just be an example of an organism making use of the appendages he has, that is most useful. It could be a sign of adaptation. The evolutionary story isn’t just that creatures like whales used to have legs and walk on land, but ALSO that some aquatic creatures, like the fish, grew legs and crawled onto land. The adaptation works both way, and isn’t to by understood in a strictly linear sense.
If the case for post-embryonic tails in humans (referring to real tails and not pseudotails) … It doesn’t seem like a human adaptation to me. Seeing as we are already bipedal creatures what purpose does a tail serve us in the present …? In any case what convinces me more is the embryology, and the tail like structure that gets digested early in the development… While for cats they become tails.
In response to vestigial organs I think Jon Garvey’s last paragraph said it best. It’s presumptuous for us to guess God’s motivations.
“In any case what convinces me more is the embryology, and the tail like structure that gets digested early in the development… While for cats they become tails.”-
ok. but remember that we also have a gills-like stuctures during embrio development. but we know for sure that those structures doesnt develop into gills but a parts of the ears and other parts near the face. so again- we have no real evidence for tail in humans.
Because they are the exact same genes and we watch them develop in embryo of all kinds of animals including humans. And we have fossil evidence of the transition over time of gills becoming hearing mechanisms for land animals. The same gene have different functions.
patrick- they never develop into gills in humans. so the argument fail just from the starting point. common genes can be because of commondesigner.
“And we have fossil evidence of the transition over time of gills becoming hearing mechanisms for land animals”-
we also found transition between car and tuck (jeep). but it doesnt prove any evolution. by the way- we have found tetrapod fossil in the wrong place in the evolution of fish.
Guy — as I’ve said many times before comparing fossils to man-made objects is a very bad analogy. They aren’t in any way shape or form the same. Fossils are found in different layers in the geological column — they show evidence of life that once existed in various forms and show a complex history. Trucks and cars are individually designed by PEOPLE. They do not procreate with other vehicles and they are not organic. It’s a bit frustrating that I keep on having to mention this extreme distinction. Unless you’re arguing that each of those fossils were individually designed (maybe something like progressive creationists like Hugh Ross) then the analogy might be more appropriate … But since I know of what you said in earlier posts you aren’t arguing for a progressive creationist position, because people like Hugh Ross actually believe in the geologic ages.
Unless you can provide a better explanation for the fossil record then your critiques about evolutionary theory don’t make a lot of sense, because the alternative view (36,000+ feet of sediment being laid down in a single global flood in one year, is a very difficult position to defend).
tim. its good analogy if they both have the same traits. cars and animals share the same main trait like complexity for example. even more- we can add the self replication trait to make it a perfect analogy (self replicating cars). the main point of this argument is that even when we can arrange objects in hierarchy doesnt prove any evolution.
more then that- we can arrange animals in hierarchy even among animals that doesnt evolve from each other! so hierarchy doesnt prove anything.
Vehicles are not organic… They are pieced together by people. They cannot, and will not, ever procreate and create other cars. All “transitions” in vehicle manufacturing show is different styles that people liked through the years (compare a car from the 60s to a modern day car). They show advances in technology and other gizmos like seat-belts, electric engines, radio, GPS etc., — I don’t see how it has to do with biological evolution other than the fact they have a structure.
It would be best to not use an analogy at all, if the analogy doesn’t work.
The reason why people make a hierarchy structure with the fossil record is because the farther back you go you start to see creatures with a mix of traits — reptilian, avian, mammalian etc., It becomes so that the distinction is blurred, like archaeopteryx — were it not for the feathers and wings everybody would come to the conclusion that it’s a reptile. But because of the feathers and wings people say it’s a “halfway”.
I try to discuss the scientific and the biblical matters on these issues. But the problem is that when I talk to you, you seem only interested in discussing the material side of things. You seem to have already decided what it is the Bible says and what it means, and thus all scientific data is filtered through that Interpretation.
Can you identify what a “kind” means, according to science and according to the Bible? The baraminology (study of created kinds?) Can you find a exhaustive publication of the proposed Creation Orchard such as those by Jonathan Sarfati? Not just the idea of it … But I mean an actual list of what the original created kinds are.
Do you have biblical justification to assume that Genesis 1 is describing instantaneous creation, based on the Hebrew creation terms, Asah, Yatsar and Bara, and how they are used through out the Bible? (I’ve posted a topic about this in the Biblical Interpretation section if you’re interested).
Are you aware that natural section isn’t the only proposed theory of evolutionary mechanisms out there?
tim. i know that vehicles arent organic. so lets say that we have a theoretical case here. lets say that we have a speciel thechnology with self replicating vehicles that made with organic material. actually- scientists already create something close here, but non organic:
so again- what we will need to conclude in a case with a self replicating car, and even made from organic materials. in this case you will conclude that those cars evolve from other cars or designed by intelligent.
you said:
"The reason why people make a hierarchy structure with the fossil record is because the farther back you go you start to see creatures with a mix of traits "-
not always. if i will show you that there is, in many case, no such hierarchy, you will agree that the evolution isnt true in those cases?
for example: we find fossil of tetrapod tracks in a funny date:
now, if hierarchy is evidence for evolution,then non-hierarchy most be evidence against it. do you think that some biologists now doesnt believe in the evolution of fish because of this non hierarchy? i dont think so.
"like archaeopteryx — were it not for the feathers and wings everybody would come to the conclusion that it’s a reptile. But because of the feathers and wings people say it’s a “halfway” "-
again almost the same problem. we found for example the protoavis, that in many terms is more bird like then archeopteryx. but the problem is that it date about 210 my. 70 my before archeopteryx(!). even more then that- sinosauropteryx suppose to be more primitive then the archeopteryx. but it actually appear in about 25 my after the archeopteryx!. so again- does it mean that bird doesnt evolve from dino because of this lack of hierarchy ? if not- where is the science then?
you said:
“You seem to have already decided what it is the Bible says and what it means, and thus all scientific data is filtered through that Interpretation”-
i dont think so tim. i actually go by the evidences. and like i showed in this coment- the evidences support the creation model and contradict the evolution one.
“Can you identify what a “kind” means, according to science and according to the Bible?”-
a kind according to the creation model is any pairs of animals that can interbreed. so i think.
"Do you have biblical justification to assume that Genesis 1 is describing instantaneous creation, based on the Hebrew creation terms, Asah, Yatsar and Bara, and how they are used through out the Bible? "-
yes. here is it in hebrew: “genesis b: ויצר ה’ אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה”'-
its mean that god created the human from the dirt. doesnt mantion any evolution here or a lot of years. i can give you a lot more problems from the bible prespective about evolution. in the wrong order of the species creation for example.
@dcscccc This about the twentieth time I’ve seen you bring up hypothetical self-replicating vehicles. Has anyone here ever found that line of reasoning convincing in any way? Nope. You really need to expand your rhetorical base a little. The self-replicating cars motif just makes people roll their eyes and dismiss everything you say.
How so? Because Evolution has no rules. Evolution is the response of a Gene Pool’s natural variation in
an environment that may or may not be changing as well.
To say that modern Bacteria aren’t the result of Evolution because they look or act like Ancient Bacteria (assuming
we could really do this) is like saying that Bacteria just don’t evolve.
ALL genetic material in a gene pool is vulnerable to changes, and the Ecological processes that apply to
an individual’s survival.
Could a modern crocodile have fertile offspring with an ancient crocodile? If YES, then you might say that
there haven’t been enough net genetic changes to render that impossible.
If NO . . . does it mean the crocodile is DRAMATICALLY different from the ancient ones? Not by their
appearance. It may well be that the ONLY change in the genetic configuration of a modern crocodile is
in the reproductive area - - with all the other genetic components scrubbed clean of aberrations by
Ecological/Environmental forces.
Random Evolution can produce new levels of complexity; but it is not a requirement.
I’m not a biologist nor a geologist … So it wouldn’t really be for me to say. What I do know is that that evolutionary tree is complex like a bush … Not linear like a ladder. Let’s step back in time for a moment though — before evolutionary theory was even hypothesized. What does the fossil record indicate? Not even talking about profession here … But is there any compelling evidence that the vast majority of the record (that is several thousands to a couple miles of sediment) was all laid down at once in a one year period? The only proponents I know of, early on, was William Buckland in the 1800s, who later recanted after argumentation that some of the fossils has resulted from glaciers. The other is George McCready Price in 1920s who is colloquially called “The Father of Flood Geology”. However he wasn’t an actual hands on geologist, but was just an avid reader of the geologist literature. If a Global Flood is so obviously seen in the rocks, then why is there so few advocates of it, who spend their careers studying the record? Why is it I know of almost no geologist, who is actually active in the field, coming to the conclusion of a Global Flood? Why is it in some places you can find clam fossils and turtle fossils above the dinosaur fossils? The arguments I’ve heard is that the smarter animals outran the flood waters … Surely clams and turtles aren’t more aren’t going to outrun a dinosaur nor can you argue that clams and turtles occupied a “higher habitat” than dinosaurs.
What do you think of Jewish physicist, Gerald Schroeder’s argument against hydraulic sorting? Here’s the full quote:
“The argument that the flood at the time of Noah affected the fossils to the extent that they are no longer valid indicators of history does not stand up to scrutiny. And here is why! We read in Genesis 4:22, that Tuval Cain, son of Lemach, developed the sophisticated working of bronze metal. Though the ages of Cain’s progeny are not listed in the Bible, by juxtaposing Cain’s progeny with those of Seth we can estimate that Tuval Cain lived approximately in the Biblical year 1,000 (that is 1000 years after Adam). The Flood occurred in the Biblical year 1659, 600 years after Tuval Cain. Thus Tuval Cain did his work prior to the Flood and so the waters of the Flood should have upset the relics of his work. Yet along comes the archaeologists and discover the relics of an age that they label as The Early Bronze Age. Scientific dating places it at approximately 2800 BCE or in the Biblical year approximately of 1000, overlapping the Biblical timing of Tuval Cain. If the Flood did indeed alter or change the fossil record, it should also have altered the relics of Tuval Cain. But it did not. The implication is the Flood did not alter the fossil record. The Flood is a poor choice to discredit the fossil record as a measure of true history.”
You wrote, “now, if hierarchy is evidence for evolution,then non-hierarchy most be evidence against it. do you think that some biologists now doesnt believe in the evolution of fish because of this non hierarchy? i dont think so.”
Using the principles laid down by Nicolas Steno “The father of Modern Stratigraphy” in the 1600s, people see the fossil record as something that took place over a long time. Animals die and then get buried forming new layers … Why is it that early layers have very simplistic prokaryotes … Then eukaryotes … Then multicellular life … Dinosaurs … Mammals etc.,? Why should it be so that fossils near the top are closer and closer to animals living today? At the very least the fossil record demonstrates life that lived in that location at one point in time, who died… And then much later different animals moved to that specific location, and then died. All this activity is near impossible to squeeze into a year long global flood.
You wrote, “Again almost the same problem. we found for example the protoavis, that in many terms is more bird like then archeopteryx. but the problem is that it date about 210 my. 70 my before archeopteryx(!). even more then that- sinosauropteryx suppose to be more primitive then the archeopteryx. but it actually appear in about 25 my after the archeopteryx!. so again- does it mean that bird doesnt evolve from dino because of this lack of hierarchy ? if not- where is the science then?”
I’m not sure … I’ve never heard of the fossil you’re talking about. You alluded that earlier you believed in baramin (created kinds). What category does archaeopteryx fit into? Is it a reptile? A bird? Or something else?
You wrote, “a kind according to the creation model is any pairs of animals that can interbreed. so i think.”
That makes sense. The only problem is that John Woodmorappe, one of the most well known people for writing about Noah’s Ark doesn’t seem to agree with that definition of kind. He defines “kind” to be at the “family level” rather than at the species level. He calculated about 8,000 original Baramin and about 16,000 total animals on the ark. Though he doesn’t actually give a list of what these Baramin are. If the definitions is at the species level then that means there’s probably closer to a million different kinds of animals on the ark, which is an unreasonable number.
I asked earlier if there was a list available online of the different Baramin that compromise the Creationist Orchard Model. Seeing how it is their are many evolutionists that publish evolutionary phylogenetic trees online for people to view and critique, I should expect to find some similar lists of Creationist Orchards so I can view them … But I don’t see them.
You wrote, “its mean that god created the human from the dirt. doesnt mantion any evolution here or a lot of years.”
In the book of Isaiah it compares human beings to clay pots striving with their maker (the potter) — and the same Hebrew words are used “Asah and Yatsar”. However, Isaiah knows that people are created in their mother’s wombs … They don’t just pop up out of no where. So he must mean something different. He’s saying that God is RESPONSIBLE for human life. That’s the way I look at it. It also says in other passages that God makes and forms us in the womb… Yet thanks to science we can look, examine, and understand this process a but more in depth. Because we can scientifically describe something does that mean that God is no longer acting? I don’t think so. God also is said to have created (Bara) lightning and snow. Yet we can recreate these things in a lab, and even these events aren’t instantaneous … Does that mean that God is no longer acting? Or that we are seeing God reflected in the creation of lightning and snow that occurs through God’s natural processes? In the Psalms it says, “We are dust”, hearkening back to Genesis 3. We are all made of dust … Not just Adam. We made of earthly material. We are all made in the image of God … Not just Adam. We are all the “clay pots” in Isaiah’s writing, even though we are also formed in our mother’s womb.
You’re not going to find biological evolution in Genesis (though you may find abiogenesis, “Let the earth (non-life) produce vegetation (life))” I think some of the disconnect is in how you read Genesis. Our natural inclination to read Genesis under the lens of our own modern context. We ask questions of How and How Long… When the Bibles focus is more on Who and Why. Have you ever attempted to put yourself in the mindset of a person who lived 3,500 years ago? In the midst of all their pagan cultures, what kind of questions do you think those kinds of people would be asking? How did God create the universe, OR who created the Universe, was the Universe created or has it always been, is the Universe just a bunch of gods? I think those kinds of questions were more important to Ancient Israelites.
Other texts say that man was made from dust … Were they too partially inspired, or just coincedence? Enuma Elish says man was made as after thought to be slaves to kings and Gods. Genesis exalts man as being his prime creation and is made in His image. Enuma Elish says man was made from the blood of demon gods… But I don’t think they were talking about scientific origins, but simply reflected their view or Mankind.
I hope you will reflect on some of these thoughts as I reflect on yours.
""What I do know is that that evolutionary tree is complex like a bush … Not linear like
but you note before that we see an order in the fossil record. in your words : “The reason why people make a hierarchy structure with the fossil record is because the farther back you go you start to see creatures with a mix of traits”
so i showed that it isnt always true. so again- if hierarchy is evidence for evolution- then non hierarchy is evidence against it. like any science…
" If a Global Flood is so obviously seen in the rocks, then why is there so few advocates of it, who spend their careers studying the record? Why is it I know of almost no geologist, who is actually active in the field, coming to the conclusion of a Global Flood? "-
first-im not talking about the flood. second- i do think there is a creation geologists who believe this.
“Why is it in some places you can find clam fossils and turtle fossils above the dinosaur fossils?”-
i actually said this before: its because of their population size.
"What do you think of Jewish physicist, Gerald Schroeder’s argument against hydraulic sorting? "-
i dont know.
" I’ve never heard of the fossil you’re talking about."-
here is the 2:
“That makes sense. The only problem is that John Woodmorappe, one of the most well known people for writing about Noah’s Ark doesn’t seem to agree with that definition of kind. He defines “kind” to be at the “family level” rather than at the species level.”-
i think he is right. because some species can interbreed. so the family level is the best definition.
""Our natural inclination to read Genesis under the lens of our own modern context. "
why not actually? if the bible doesnt say anything about evolution - why we will need to interpret the bible in evolution terms? if the bible say 6000 years. why we will need to involve the belief of milion of years and so on.
I see your logic… perhaps I misspoke when I use the term “hierarchy” while most people say, “nested hierarchy”. I notice when I click on your links and hear the researchers and scientists talk about the fossil discoveries, etc., they say things, “This is a paradigm shift” or even more sublte things like, “This changes our understanding.”. What I don’t find however is people saying the evolutionary theory is on the brinks of collapse, however … are paleontologists, biologists, geologists etc., just being dishonest?
If you’re not arguing for Global Flood causation for the fossil record then what are you arguing for? Did the fossil record form in about a year’s time, or did it take many aeons? Is their a third option I’m not aware of?
Yes, but are these geologists actually active in the field or just reading geologist literature? Do the Flood Geologists have any peer-review scientific papers on why it is one should believe that millions of years of theorized sedimentary rock was actually laid down in a single year?
Sincerely, I don’t know what you mean by this. What does population size have to do with seeing different categories of animals in layers? What does it have to do with seeing different kinds of animals, like clams and turtles, above dinosaurs? Are you saying their are more (or less) turtles than their was dinosaurs… and IF so why should it matter whether they appear on the top or the bottom? I’ve never heard population size as an argument, except by you Guy … why aren’t more geologists arguing for population size?
The problem with John Woodmorappe’s “kind equals families” interpretation is that it contradicts passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about biblical kinds.
Deuteronomy 14:12-18 says,
“But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.”
Notice that the text says that “hawk” and “night hawk” are two separate kinds. Notice that the “little owl” and “great owl” are also two separate kinds. Notice that a bat is classified as a “bird” even though in modern day we classify it as a mammal. This definition of “kind” is at the SPECIES level … not the family. Does Woodmorappe not know of these passages, or does he ignore them?
I have the notion that Woodmorappe classifies “kind” in the broad sense of “family” is because he wants to put a more reasonable number of animals on the ark (thousands rather than millions). But it’s a twofold problem because the less animals that are on the ark, the more different kinds of species that have to evolve to get to what we have today. And the more animals you have on the ark, the more work it is to take care of, and the harder it is too physically fit them on the ark.
I still don’t know why it is I can’t find a list of Baramins — or a more exhaustive list for the Creationists Orchard. It seems kinda shady to me for people to say, “that’s variations within a kind” and yet not actually classify what a “kind” is, nor even attempt to make a comprehensive list of Baramins, so that other people can view them.
First off, you said earlier that you had no problem with an old earth and now you are saying the Bible demands a young one.
Secondly, the Bible does not say 6,000 years. That’s inferred from the Hebraic genealogies, and especially popularized by John Lightfoot and James Ussher in the 1600s. What Ussher didn’t seem to know though, when he put Creation at 4004 BC, was that Hebrew genealogies very often skip several generations, called “telescoping”. Their is a Genealogy at the end of Ruth that lists 10 names, from Pharez to David. In Genesis there’s more information, and we can add 4 more names to the list: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah. So from Abraham to David there are “14 generations”. The problem is that Abraham and David lived around 1000 years apart from each other. It doesn’t take much more than a simple math equation (1000 / 14 = 71) to know that that list is too short. It’s unreasonable to assume that every person from Abraham to David, gave birth at 70 years old.There’s more likely 25 - 50 names in that list … not just 14.
Thirdly, it’s not a recent invention to not interpret the Days of Genesis literally. 1,500 years ago the Jews removed the Six Days from their calendar and treated it as a separate thing … why would they do that? There was no modern science to “apologize for”. In the 4th and 5th centuries, AD, Augustine also viewed the Six Days as literary devices … some of the reason for this is the texts near impossibility of understanding it in literal-historical sense. Was Augustine worried about what scientists in that day had to say about the age of the earth? I don’t think so. How can you have Six Days, each with an evening and a morning, yet the sun not come into existence until the 4th day? How can you have “days” at all, when the very definition of “day” is, “the time it takes for the sun to go in a full circuit around the earth”. In the First Day God separates the light from the darkness. Then on Day Four God creates the “great lights” TO separate the light from the darkness. Why did God need to separate light twice… don’t you think that’s a bit redundant? The text says that the purpose of the Great Lights was to marks, days, months and years … so how was time being measured for the first three “days”…? Why did the Seventh Day not include an evening and morning, even when the sun is in existence at this point? It’s poetic and theological in nature … not scientific.
Guy ---- the entire created Cosmos, and all it’s complexities, is summed up in a single chapter (that’s roughly 200 Hebrew words). Not only that, but much of the text consists of many repeated phrases … it’s obviously not an exhaustive account, but a short summary. There is no mention of gravity, the speed of light, any of the planets that orbit the sun, or any physical laws whatsoever, except for God giving the ability to animals and people to “multiply”. You’re not going to find biological evolution as it’s described in the modern day … and why should we expect that of the text? What would have been the point to make an exhaustive scientific account of everything that went down, explained to an ancient people that wouldn’t have comprehended it in the first place? You’d end up having much more than a single chapter … you’d end up having a book that’s WAY larger than the Bible, and what would have been gained by Moses to write all that down? It would quickly lose it’s theological and spiritual depth. Knowing science isn’t what gets a person right with God.
As I stated earlier, Genesis (according to tradition) was written 3,500 years ago. Cultures, languages etc., change over time. Our mindsets change over time. If you’re reading an ancient document wearing 21st century glasses than the meaning will literally CHANGE with time. That’s why it’s important to take off one’s 21st century glasses, and put yourself in the mindset of an ancient Israelite as best you can. What kind of questions were they interested in? Do you think they were interested in things like the speed of light or gravity? Or were they interested which God was the real one, a-midst pagan cultures? The Bible wasn’t written TO people living thousands of years later … it’s written FOR you, but not directly too every single person that ever lived, in every culture. If we read Deuteronomy 14 with modern eyes, then we would say the Bible got it wrong, because it calls a bat a bird (and everyone knows it’s a mammal). Apparently the Bible had different classifications then we do … it would seem a “bird” is just a creature that can fly.
In any case it doesn’t make sense to read ancient texts under a modern context — you’re more likely to be lead astray.
