[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[Barbarian]

The same with bananas. I prefer Lady Finger bananas over Cavendish bananas, but both are still bananas with microevolutionary change.

There was a good deal of amusement over Ray Comfort's argument that God had designed bananas for man. In fact, the bananas we eat were designed by man, and are very, very different than wild bananas, lacking the features Comfort found so divinely designed. If there was a "design", it was in making a universe in which living things can vary as the environment demands.

You seem to accept evolution to a point. Is it your belief that life on Earth is a series of "bushes" rather than single bush incorporating all living organisms?

 

[Cygnus]

Thank you for the link it is full good info.

Yes. it just goes to show these that believe in evolutionism don't corner the market.

 

[Cygnus]

I expect that secular evolutionists would deny original sin. Do you have evidence that evangelical Christians who support evolution deny original sin? If so, please give us a few quotes and names.

They deny what happened in Genesis. They support evolutionism. You do understand that Genesis explains the sin? Evolutionism can't even come close to explaining sin and stay true to the Bible.

I do not support macroevolution, but I do support microevolution,

I have no problem with species changing.

 

[Cygnus]

What kind of creature is Archaeopteryx?

There's a lot of speculation about what Archy was.....from bird all the way down to a fake.

 

[Barbarian]

It is, by anyone's classification, a dinosaur.

Here's skeletons of Archaeopteryx and a bird.

Notice that Archie has hands, hips, ribs, sternum, tail and teeth of a dinosaur.
But it has feathers, and could fly.

Here's a conventional dinosaur skeleton for comparison:

As you see, Archaeoptyrex is far more like a dinosaur than like a bird. Why this should be so, is a complete mystery to Cygnus and his doctrine of "evolutionism." But evolutionary theory predicted this.

 

[Cygnus]

There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply won't fly.

Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds......click here for the rest of the article.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Not sure what you mean by "trans-species." It's a well-characterized genus with several species known. Perhaps "trans-order" might be more appropriate, since it's a transitional linking reptiles and birds. The trend has been to put birds, dinosaurs, and crocodilians into their own order, the Archosaura, since they form a well-defined ingroup with all other reptiles as an outgroup.

Now this is why I never did standup. This was my attempt at humor and it fell flat.

 

[Roro1972]

Yes. it just goes to show these that believe in evolutionism don't corner the market.

Yes this is a site I saved, I have lots of reading to do over there.

 

[Papa Zoom]

It is, by anyone's classification, a dinosaur.

Here's skeletons of Archaeopteryx and a bird.

Notice that Archie has hands, hips, ribs, sternum, tail and teeth of a dinosaur.
But it has feathers, and could fly.

Here's a conventional dinosaur skeleton for comparison:

As you see, Archaeoptyrex is far more like a dinosaur than like a bird. Why this should be so, is a complete mystery to Cygnus and his doctrine of "evolutionism." But evolutionary theory predicted this.

Or Not
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...muddles-the-archaeopteryx-story/#.WXdbbdxtncc

Mind you, I know less about paleontology than I do about standup and we see how that went!

 

[Barbarian]

Your article says what I said. Archaeopteryx was not the first bird; it is a dinosaur that is very close to the line that gave rise to birds. From your link:
This doesn’t change the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs – it merely relegates Archaeopteryx to the sidelines of that process. In its place, species like Epidexipteryx and Epidendrosaurus take up the mantle of earliest birds. It is a tentative revision but a bold one (Xu himself admits that the new family tree is statistically weak). “It’s been a good run for Archaeopteryx,” writes Larry Witmer in a related editorial. “This finding is likely to be met with considerable controversy (if not outright horror).”

As I pointed out, the idea that Archie is a bird was outdated a long, long time ago. It's more of a dinosaur than a bird. Notice that Xiaotingia also has more dinosaur features than bird features. These animals are close to the line that produce birds, but neither of them are the particular species that gave rise to birds.

 

[Barbarian]

Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds......

Perhaps you don't understand what "transitional" means. It is an organism with apomorphic characters of two different groups. So, for example, Archie is transitional because it has apomorphic characteristics of dinsosaurs and of birds. For example, dinosaur pelvis and flight feathers put it in to the category of "transitional."

It would be astonishingly lucky if the very species that happened to lead directly to modern birds happened to fossilize and be found.

 

[Barbarian]

Now this is why I never did standup. This was my attempt at humor and it fell flat.

You happened to make a statement that made sense in terms of science, even if it was a bit wrong. Sorry I missed the humor.

 

[Papa Zoom]

You happened to make a statement that made sense in terms of science, even if it was a bit wrong. Sorry I missed the humor.

I need my puppet to help me with my jokes.

 

[Cygnus]

Perhaps you don't understand what "transitional" means. It is an organism with apomorphic characters of two different groups. So, for example, Archie is transitional because it has apomorphic characteristics of dinsosaurs and of birds. For example, dinosaur pelvis and flight feathers put it in to the category of "transitional."

It would be astonishingly lucky if the very species that happened to lead directly to modern birds happened to fossilize and be found.

There is no such thing as a transitional. Archy was fossilized when the flood sediment settled over him.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes this is a site I saved, I have lots of reading to do over there.

When one flips the coin over and see there is more to fossils than was taught in school...one can easily understand evolutionism never produced anything.

 

[Barbarian]

There is no such thing as a transitional.

I just showed you several. A transitional is an organism with apomorphic characteristics of two different groups.

 

[Barbarian]

When one flips the coin over and see there is more to fossils than was taught in school...one can easily understand evolutionism never produced anything.

Here's one reason why:
The "evolutionism" of YE creationism:

Real evolution:

Your new doctrine of "evolutionism" is pretty much the sum of all misconceptions people have about evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, there is this:

 

[Cygnus]

I just showed you several. A transitional is an organism with apomorphic characteristics of two different groups.

Homology doesn't even come close to demonstrating evolutionism.

Keep in mind those fossils were buried during the flood of Noah.

 

[Cygnus]

Here's one reason why:
The "evolutionism" of YE creationism:

Real evolution:
Your new doctrine of "evolutionism" is pretty much the sum of all misconceptions people have about evolution.

The only misconception about evolutionism is that it is believed by some misguided to be true.