[_ Old Earth _] Alleged Homo Neladi

[Barbarian]

Found a picture of a piece of brow ridge which was found later and it represents about 1/3 skull and shows a definite half sagittal crest...

No picture to show us? What's a "half sagittal crest?"

 

[turnorburn]

Humans have always done things to distort their image to the world.. head binding in this example

tob

Here's more if that isn't enough..

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...9.0....0...1c.1.64.img..6.17.1600.nhopRv2D6U4

 

[Paloma]

In humans, the cranium continues to grow, until the late teens or early 20s at latest.

No, brow ridges are found on hominins whose skulls recede, because they provide some protection to eyes. The bulbous skull of H. sapiens occupies that space, and protects eyes in similar fashion. Brow ridges do not appear in old men. Being of Northern European ancestry, I presumably have some Neandertal genes, and have small, but detectable by touch, brow ridges.


With advanced age, there is increasing loss of bone in the lower jaw and other parts of the skull. So somewhat like this...

]

Ok thanks for some of that info. You had some assumptions hiding in there. I read this. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/the-neandertals-our-worthy-ancestors/

Then this dawned on me.

The animals have slowly been going extinct right? We loose many every year. So also, we have lost some versions of man that have gone extinct.

God created animals to reproduce after their kind, right? (Gen 1:24) Within strict limits, but lots of variety and change potential. (If you evolutionists want to call that amount of change "evolution" -I can meet you there.)

I propose that God probably made man the same way too. He started with Adam. Depending partly on the environment, food, nutrients, etc....Adams decendants changed into different "kinds" of men over time. Some looked like Neanderthals. Still man, (full of our ability today ) but the bones look different. Different sizes and shapes too.

Look at the way our appearance on the outside changes, with all the different races, perhaps entire races have gone extinct. Races that had huge bro-ridges for example. Lots of geneic mutants too no doubt (star child skull,comes to mind?)

Both creationists and evolutionists are happy. I can live with that amount of collaboration.

But I reject "cave-man mentality man". Although, some men sure do appear to be close to a cave man lol. Man has always had the potential for great things as the pyramids demonstrate. Speech was fully preprogrammed into Adam and Eve.

Who knows what kind of man Adam looked like. We are brainwashed by media to see this as Adam...

Perhaps Adam looked like this.

~Paloma

 

[Barbarian]

Ok thanks for some of that info. You had some assumptions hiding in there. I read this. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/the-neandertals-our-worthy-ancestors/

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/the-neandertals-our-worthy-ancestors/

It's not news that creationist organizations no longer refer to Neanderals as "apes." They are very closely related to us. Most people in the field now consider then to be a sub-species of our own. It's a close call, but the fact that they did occasionally interbreed with us, suggests that our two populations did not diverge enough to constitute separate species.

Then this dawned on me.

The animals have slowly been going extinct right? We loose many every year. So also, we have lost some versions of man that have gone extinct.

All but our particular species.

God created animals to reproduce after their kind, right?

The Bible doesn't say so. It says they were created according to their kind. In other words, evolved. But it doesn't say they reproduce after their kind.

Within strict limits, but lots of variety and change potential.

Indeed. DNA evidence shows that bacteria have the potential to eventually give rise to vertebrates. That's a lot of potential. No big deal for God, though. He's omnipotent, so it's not surprising he packed all that potential into the first living things.

(If you evolutionists want to call that amount of change "evolution" -I can meet you there.)

Just another form of creation, the way I see it.

I propose that God probably made man the same way too. He started with Adam. Depending partly on the environment, food, nutrients, etc....Adams decendants changed into different "kinds" of men over time. Some looked like Neanderthals. Still man, (full of our ability today ) but the bones look different. Different sizes and shapes too.

I have no idea which species of Homo were first given living souls. The Biblical account suggests two of them were picked out to be the founders of our race.

Look at the way our appearance on the outside changes, with all the different races, perhaps entire races have gone extinct. Races that had huge bro-ridges for example. Lots of geneic mutants too no doubt (star child skull,comes to mind?)

My guess is that Adam and Eve were H. erectus, but really, we have no way of knowing.

Both creationists and evolutionists are happy. I can live with that amount of collaboration.

Great.

But I reject "cave-man mentality man".

That's always been a laugher for me. Neandertals were likely no less intelligent than we, albeit very technologically conservative. H. erectus was probably not able to do many of the things we can do intellectually, but that wouldn't really be much of a concern for God. The gap between them and us is negligible when you consider the infinite gap between us and God.

Although, some men sure do appear to be close to a cave man lol. Man has always had the potential for great things as the pyramids demonstrate.

Stonehenge and the megalith culture monuments seem to bear out that H. sapiens was able and (maybe most important) interested in making great things.

Speech was fully preprogrammed into Adam and Eve.

It seems H. erectus was probably not very adept at speech. A hyoid bone from H. erectus is known, and the shape and muscle insertions suggest a rather limited flexibility for making sounds. That's far from overwhelming evidence, and given that chimps are known to have considerable language capacity, H. erectus might well have had some ability to speak.

Who knows what kind of man Adam looked like. We are brainwashed by media to see this as Adam...

Good point.

 

[Paloma]

Well barbarian, we are still eons apart.

Whatever Adam looked like, he was created fully and ready to name the creatures of creation. (Gen 2:20). If Adam had no speech capabilities, this is kind of a moot point and pointless text. So speech would have followed Adams decendants as one language, until Babel. (Is Babel just a story too?)

Furthermore, if God had not made all animals fully as we see today more or less, there's not much point in naming anything. Genesis does not allow for your interpreation of the evidence. Thankfully the fossil record show just this. Fully formed creatures with a lack of transitions.

It's logical that animals created after their "kind" would also procreate after their kind. Just becasue scripture does not spell that out, does not mean anything. It's kind of a no brainer IMO. Like, what else would they do?

Bacteria to invertebrates ? I don't think so. Lol. Genesis does not say this. The fossil record does not show this and we don't see this happening today... It makes no sense for God to do this when he could have done it just as a plain straight forward reading of Genesis suggests...why do people insist on capping Gods power?

You fellows are extrapolating micro chages to macro changes. Your taking what we do see and reading into it what we don't see to fit your preconceived worldview. Your bending the Word of God to fit mans flawed interpreation.

If we ignore the straight forward reading of Genesis, how much else do we reject of Genesis? Where's the line? Is sin really real? Did a snake actually talk to Eve? Did Babel actually happen as stated, hence the reason for all the languages today ? Was their a global flood that destroyed all men and creatures but the 8?

Adam and Eve recieved souls as did every child thereafter...until today. There were no soulless cave men running around grunting and poking things with sticks. Granted, an isolated pocket of people would have appeared quite "primitive" just as some deep jungle tribes do today. But these people have always had souls and intelligence as we do. We are all decendants of Adam.

If H. erectus was indeed a decedant of Adam, ( a real man) and not an ape kind, he would have been fully capable of speech. If find it very difficult to be you can make that assumption based on a fossil skull. Unfortunately, this is not an area I know allot about.

Genesis containd the true truth to human origin and development. It's story has been super naturally persevered, first with stories from the patriarchs, then finally to text....it fits the data in every way...

~Paloma

Romans 5:12
Death in Adam, Life in Christ
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

 

[brother Paul]

No picture to show us? What's a "half sagittal crest?"

Sorry here is the pic I found...I think the crest is implied here at the point of splitting...

but I may be wrong on this point and maybe my first observation was more correct which said I do NOT (word left out) see such a crest in the actual but seemed to indicate one in the small skull reconstruction. Not a biggie though because I already see having explored more finds more closely (not the actual but the photographed) that this species of ape has more humanlike qualities...definitely a case of transitional speciation, nor necessarily a transition to human, but a definite development in ape-kind. And though the geology of the cave may prove to be older than the fossil I still anticipate the dating of the cave.

The eLife article agrees there is no indication of a sagittal crest....

 

[Paloma]

Does every ape kind that lives today have a sagittal crest? Every?

 

[Paloma]

Does every ape kind that lives today have a sagittal crest? Every?

To answer my own question, I think... From wiki...

))))A sagittal crest tends to be present on the skulls of adult animals that rely on powerful biting and clenching of their teeth, usually as a part of their hunting strategy. Skulls of some dinosaur species, including tyrannosaurs, possessed well developed sagittal crests. Among mammals, dogs, cats, lions, and many other carnivores have sagittal crests, as do some leaf eaters, including tapirs and some apes.

Sagittal crests are found in robust great apes, and some early hominins (Paranthropus). Prominent sagittal crests are found among male gorillas and orangutans, and do occur but only rarely in male chimpanzees such as Bili Apes.(((

From this I might surmise....if Sagittal crests rarely occur in male chimpanzees is it not possible that other ape types (perhaps some that are extint) have no Sagittal crest? When a skull is found without a crest, before jumping to the conclusion (and assumption) that this is a transitionary creature to man, it may just simply be an extint kind of ape kind that has no crest.

~Paloma

 

[Barbarian]

Well barbarian, we are still eons apart.

Of course, that makes no difference at all to God.

Whatever Adam looked like, he was created fully and ready to name the creatures of creation. (Gen 2:20). If Adam had no speech capabilities, this is kind of a moot point and pointless text.

Perhaps you're reading too much into the text. If it's meant to be symbolic as Christians have long believed, then adding details is the wrong idea.

So speech would have followed Adams decendants as one language, until Babel. (Is Babel just a story too?)

I don't think demoting parables to "just a story" is a good idea for a Christian. Of course, we know now the evolution of languages, and it clearly did not originate at a tower construction site.

Furthermore, if God had not made all animals fully as we see today more or less, there's not much point in naming anything.

That makes no sense. If we had lived in the time of dinosaurs, with no horses, or cats or bats, you're saying it would be senseless to name the animals that were there then?

Genesis does not allow for your interpreation of the evidence.

It's the only interpretation consistent with scripture and the observable facts.

Thankfully the fossil record show just this. Fully formed creatures with a lack of transitions.

Even many creationists disagree with you, citing many, many fossil transitions.

It's logical that animals created after their "kind" would also procreate after their kind.

In general, it's a bad idea to add to scripture.

Bacteria to invertebrates ? I don't think so.

Facts matter. Opinions, well everyone has one, um?

Lol. Genesis does not say this.

It doesn't say the Earth orbits the Sun, either.

The fossil record does not show this

Let's take a look...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

...why do people insist on capping Gods power?

You fellows are extrapolating micro chages to macro changes.

Creationists used to say that God's word denied the evolution of new species. Then as more and more speciations became known, they retreated first to genera, then families. You might as well deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed, accusing scientists of "extrapolating micro growth to macro growth."

Why not just accept it as it is without adding all that new doctrine?

 

[turnorburn]

Of course, that makes no difference at all to God.



Perhaps you're reading too much into the text. If it's meant to be symbolic as Christians have long believed, then adding details is the wrong idea.



I don't think demoting parables to "just a story" is a good idea for a Christian. Of course, we know now the evolution of languages, and it clearly did not originate at a tower construction site.



That makes no sense. If we had lived in the time of dinosaurs, with no horses, or cats or bats, you're saying it would be senseless to name the animals that were there then?



It's the only interpretation consistent with scripture and the observable facts.



Even many creationists disagree with you, citing many, many fossil transitions.



In general, it's a bad idea to add to scripture.



Facts matter. Opinions, well everyone has one, um?



It doesn't say the Earth orbits the Sun, either.



Let's take a look...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

...why do people insist on capping Gods power?



Creationists used to say that God's word denied the evolution of new species. Then as more and more speciations became known, they retreated first to genera, then families. You might as well deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed, accusing scientists of "extrapolating micro growth to macro growth."

Why not just accept it as it is without adding all that new doctrine?

Richard Dawkins accepted it and look what happened to him "A Christless Grave"

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Dawkins accepted that the Earth is round, that it goes around the Sun, and that lightning is a natural phenomenon, not God's weapons against evil people.

All of these were at one time announced to be Christian belief, with no more scriptural or evidential support than creationism.

So your message is that if you accept that the Earth orbits the Sun, you're on the slippery slope to atheism...

 

[turnorburn]

Dawkins accepted that the Earth is round, that it goes around the Sun, and that lightning is a natural phenomenon, not God's weapons against evil people.

All of these were at one time announced to be Christian belief, with no more scriptural or evidential support than creationism.

So your message is that if you accept that the Earth orbits the Sun, you're on the slippery slope to atheism...

Twist your message anyway you like Dawkins said it not me..

tob

*edit: Maybe you didn't hear him the first time?

 

[Paloma]

Of course, that makes no difference at all to God.

Well barbarian, we are still eons apart.

Of course, that makes no difference at all to God.

…I concur, one’s salvation does not hinge on this issue either way…however….undermining Genesis can destroy the footing for many seekers and babes in Christ. If a literal Adam, Babel and Flood….are all “stories” or “symbolism”…why should the rest be believed at face value? Is sin really real? If you destroy the footing on a building, the rest just collapses. Although salvation may not hinge on this issue for US, the saved; one wonders how many seekers “walk on by” Christianity because of the all the “stories” in Genesis that just are not true....

One can’t help but think that one of us is missing the fullness and clarity of full understanding on how things really happened. The law of non-contradiction will not allow both of our versions to be simultaneously true truth; so either one of us is wrong or we both are; but we are not both right. There is nothing to suggest that Genesis was intended to be taken as “symbolic”. It intends to convey real history (Babel, Global Flood etc…) unlike say, the book Revelation which is highly symbolic due to its apocalyptic language style.


Whatever Adam looked like, he was created fully and ready to name the creatures of creation. (Gen 2:20). If Adam had no speech capabilities, this is kind of a moot point and pointless text.

Perhaps you're reading too much into the text. If it's meant to be symbolic as Christians have long believed, then adding details is the wrong idea.

No, I don't think we re reading too much into the text... Christians have long believed it as real history, scripture clearly teaches this (Romans 5:12). Sure there were those who did not, but there was also those who did. The remnant is always there…


So speech would have followed Adams descendants as one language, until Babel. (Is Babel just a story too?)

I don't think demoting parables to "just a story" is a good idea for a Christian. Of course, we know now the evolution of languages, and it clearly did not originate at a tower construction site.

Babel is not a Parable…lol, its real history…and indeed different languages did originate at this particular constructions site. How much of Genesis do you actually believe?


Furthermore, if God had not made all animals fully as we see today more or less, there's not much point in naming anything.

That makes no sense. If we had lived in the time of dinosaurs, with no horses, or cats or bats, you're saying it would be senseless to name the animals that were there then?

OK, I will give you this one…what I meant more precisely was that what’s the point of Adam naming animals only to have their name change down the road a million times as evolution takes place.? Thats kind of silly, no? Are we in the habit of changing animals names today?


Genesis does not allow for your interpreation of the evidence.

It's the only interpretation consistent with scripture and the observable facts.

No it’s not the only interpretation, that’s the whole point of this conversation. The same data can be seen in different lights depending on one starting point...but one thing is for sure, we are both not correct...


Thankfully the fossil record show just this. Fully formed creatures with a lack of transitions.

Even many creationists disagree with you, citing many, many fossil transitions.

No, we don’t. If you read that article you posted a few days ago from the creationist, (Dr. Wise) he rejects "transitions" in so far as much as evolutionists define them. He recommends that creationists actually not engage evolutionists in this argument, because “transitions” are a evolutionary construct. They don’t exist. All we are seeing are the limited changes within each creature that God allows. Transitions, “hit walls” or dead ends and they go no further. All the “transitions” as you call them are nothing more than different creatures or creatures at the upper and lower rages of their built in ability to change.


It's logical that animals created after their "kind" would also procreate after their kind.

In general, it's a bad idea to add to scripture.

Really? You think that’s adding to scripture to infer that when he made cows, the cows would procreate? Ookayyyy…


Bacteria to invertebrates ? I don't think so.

Facts matter. Opinions, well everyone has one, um?

Yes, considering this correspondence, I suppose your right…my opinions rest on the foundation of scripture, you?


Lol. Genesis does not say this.

It doesn't say the Earth orbits the Sun, either.


I thought we were not adding to scripture?


The fossil record does not show this

Let's take a look...


Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf


You missed the sentence prior to your quote…umm

“Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate
expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific
stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing
for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain
inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led
to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated
equilibrium theory.”


...why do people insist on capping Gods power?


You fellows are extrapolating micro changes to macro changes.

Creationists used to say that God's word denied the evolution of new species. Then as more and more speciations became known, they retreated first to genera, then families. You might as well deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed, accusing scientists of "extrapolating micro growth to macro growth."

God’s word completely supports that God created fully formed creatures into “kinds”…these kinds do have tremendous ability to change given various stresses and conditions…..but there are limits….. Ferns don’t change into Redwoods over time… Your extrapolation that one species changes completely into another is unfounded by the data and Gods Word.


Why not just accept it as it is without adding all that new doctrine?


What new doctrine did I add? Did I miss something?

I have accepted Gods Word.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you're reading too much into the text. If it's meant to be symbolic as Christians have long believed, then adding details is the wrong idea.

No, I don't think we re reading too much into the text... Christians have long believed it as real history,

From ancient times, they have not.

scripture clearly teaches this (Romans 5:12).

Romans 5:12 doesn't support creationism. It merely says Adam was a real person, which is consistent with evolution. So much of creationism is like that; citing verses that don't support, and often contradict their new beliefs.

So speech would have followed Adams descendants as one language, until Babel.

That has never happened. Language splits and changes, and quickly makes new languages.

(Is Babel just a story too?)

I don't think demoting parables to "just a story" is a good idea for a Christian. Of course, we know now the evolution of languages, and it clearly did not originate at a tower construction site.

Furthermore, if God had not made all animals fully as we see today more or less, there's not much point in naming anything.

That makes no sense. If we had lived in the time of dinosaurs, with no horses, or cats or bats, you're saying it would be senseless to name the animals that were there then?

OK, I will give you this one…what I meant more precisely was that what’s the point of Adam naming animals only to have their name change down the road a million times as evolution takes place.?

What's the point of naming anything, if many years later, people call it something else? I don't see a problem here.
Genesis does not allow for your interpretation of the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Even many creationists disagree with you, citing many, many fossil transitions.

No, we don’t. If you read that article you posted a few days ago from the creationist, (Dr. Wise) he rejects "transitions" in so far as much as evolutionists define them.

Wrong. He accepts them precisely as Stephen Gould defined them. He even uses Gould's terminology.

He recommends that creationists actually not engage evolutionists in this argument, because “transitions” are a evolutionary construct. They don’t exist.

He cites numerous examples, and admits they exist, and that they are powerful evidence for macroevolution. No point in denying the fact.

All we are seeing are the limited changes within each creature that God allows.

He says one example of transitionals is hominids to modern humans. Perhaps that's not the argument you'd want to make, but there it is.

Transitions, “hit walls” or dead ends and they go no further.

The problem is not only the transitionals between primitive hominids and modern humans. There is no "wall." Modern humans have continued to evolve. No one has every demonstrated a limit beyond which no further evolution is possible.

All the “transitions” as you call them are nothing more than different creatures or creatures at the upper and lower rages of their built in ability to change.

Let's take a look. Wise writes:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

It's logical that animals created after their "kind" would also procreate after their kind.

Barbarian observes:
In general, it's a bad idea to add to scripture.

Really?

Yep. It's a bad idea to twist "created according to their kind", into "reproduce according to their kind", particularly when we observe speciations occuring.

Lol. Genesis does not say this.

It doesn't say the Earth orbits the Sun, either. Not everything that's a fact, is found in scripture.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
...
“Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate
expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific
stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing
for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain
inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led
to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated
equilibrium theory.”

Wise was at Harvard, and was one of the first to note Gould's finding that species-to-species transitions are rare in the fossil record, while higher-level transitions are common. As Wise says, this is powerful evidence for evolution, but also for punctuated equilibrium, in which speciations are relatively fast, most often in small isolated populations. While species-to-species transitions are not common, they do exist. If creationists were right, we wouldn't see them, and we certainly wouldn't see speciations today. But we do see them.

You fellows are extrapolating micro changes to macro changes.

Creationists used to say that God's word denied the evolution of new species. Then as more and more speciations became known, they retreated first to genera, then families. You might as well deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed, accusing scientists of "extrapolating micro growth to macro growth."

God’s word completely supports that God created fully formed creatures into “kinds”

No. Nothing about "fully formed." That's a creationist addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

…these kinds do have tremendous ability to change given various stresses and conditions…..but there are limits….. Ferns don’t change into Redwoods over time… Your extrapolation that one species changes completely into another is unfounded by the data and Gods Word.

In fact, speciations are admitted by most professional creationists, these days. It's pretty hard to deny what's been observed. Nor does God's word deny that fact.


Why not just accept it as it is without adding all that new doctrine?

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you're reading too much into the text. If it's meant to be symbolic as Christians have long believed, then adding details is the wrong idea.



From ancient times, they have not.



Romans 5:12 doesn't support creationism. It merely says Adam was a real person, which is consistent with evolution. So much of creationism is like that; citing verses that don't support, and often contradict their new beliefs.



That has never happened. Language splits and changes, and quickly makes new languages.

(Is Babel just a story too?)

I don't think demoting parables to "just a story" is a good idea for a Christian. Of course, we know now the evolution of languages, and it clearly did not originate at a tower construction site.



That makes no sense. If we had lived in the time of dinosaurs, with no horses, or cats or bats, you're saying it would be senseless to name the animals that were there then?



What's the point of naming anything, if many years later, people call it something else? I don't see a problem here.
Genesis does not allow for your interpretation of the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Even many creationists disagree with you, citing many, many fossil transitions.



Wrong. He accepts them precisely as Stephen Gould defined them. He even uses Gould's terminology.



He cites numerous examples, and admits they exist, and that they are powerful evidence for macroevolution. No point in denying the fact.



He says one example of transitionals is hominids to modern humans. Perhaps that's not the argument you'd want to make, but there it is.



The problem is not only the transitionals between primitive hominids and modern humans. There is no "wall." Modern humans have continued to evolve. No one has every demonstrated a limit beyond which no further evolution is possible.



Let's take a look. Wise writes:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.



Barbarian observes:
In general, it's a bad idea to add to scripture.



Yep. It's a bad idea to twist "created according to their kind", into "reproduce according to their kind", particularly when we observe speciations occuring.



It doesn't say the Earth orbits the Sun, either. Not everything that's a fact, is found in scripture.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
...
“Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate
expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific
stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing
for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain
inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led
to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated
equilibrium theory.”

Wise was at Harvard, and was one of the first to note Gould's finding that species-to-species transitions are rare in the fossil record, while higher-level transitions are common. As Wise says, this is powerful evidence for evolution, but also for punctuated equilibrium, in which speciations are relatively fast, most often in small isolated populations. While species-to-species transitions are not common, they do exist. If creationists were right, we wouldn't see them, and we certainly wouldn't see speciations today. But we do see them.



Creationists used to say that God's word denied the evolution of new species. Then as more and more speciations became known, they retreated first to genera, then families. You might as well deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed, accusing scientists of "extrapolating micro growth to macro growth."



No. Nothing about "fully formed." That's a creationist addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to them.



In fact, speciations are admitted by most professional creationists, these days. It's pretty hard to deny what's been observed. Nor does God's word deny that fact.


Why not just accept it as it is without adding all that new doctrine?

Fully formed here he speaks and it stands fast..

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

When are you going to stop denying Gods word?

Evolution is a doctrine of humanism communism and atheism..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Fully formed here he speaks and it stands fast..

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

None of that says organisms were created "fully formed", either.
When are you going to stop denying Gods word?

Evolution is a doctrine of humanism communism and atheism..

Odd then, that Darwin was a capitalist, and suggested that God just created the first living things. I can't help thinking that you'd do better if you thought a little longer before you wrote things like that.

 

[Paloma]

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

None of that says organisms were created "fully formed", either.
When are you going to stop denying Gods word?

Hey bar, none of this says slow and steady or Punctuated Equilibrium ( PE) either! When you look at the two texts side by side, sudden takes the prize ...

 

[Barbarian]

Hey bar, none of this says slow and steady or Punctuated Equilibrium ( PE) either!

And it doesn't mention atoms, either. Lots of things aren't mentioned in scripture, that are true. As even Gould admitted, both gradual and Punk Eek happen.

When you look at the two texts side by side, sudden takes the prize ...

Unless you look at the fossil record of horses, ammonites, or forams. Then, gradual takes the prize.

 

[Paloma]

And it doesn't mention atoms, either. Lots of things aren't mentioned in scripture, that are true. As even Gould admitted, both gradual and Punk Eek happen.



Unless you look at the fossil record of horses, ammonites, or forams. Then, gradual takes the prize.

I agree, lots of things are not mentioned that are true. What Gould beleived was in error. He's a man. One who rejected Genesis in its pure form ... The fossil record of horses shows nothing of macro evolution. Only in your imagination.

 

[turnorburn]

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

None of that says organisms were created "fully formed", either.
When are you going to stop denying Gods word?

Odd then, that Darwin was a capitalist, and suggested that God just created the first living things. I can't help thinking that you'd do better if you thought a little longer before you wrote things like that.

i did think about it evolution "is" a doctrine of humanism communism and atheism ask Richard Dawkins or haven't you listened to his testimony?

tob

*edit: forgot something..

A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview. Furthermore, Darwinism was critically important in their conversion to communism and to a worldview that led them to a philosophy based on atheism. In addition, the communist core idea that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinistic concepts and conclusions.

http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism