[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

" , , . I think evolution is the most likely and most accurate
(though not definitive or entirely accurate) depiction of the process
as it occurred in our reality. But I am ultimately a creationist.
It seems most likely to me that the Creation Story
depicted in The Bible is from the spiritual perspective and
attempting to describe the process in those terms. From our
perspective (had we been conscious to witness it) we would
have seen days 5 and 6 of the creation story take place
over hundreds of millions of years. God is timeless. If
Evolution is viewed through extreme 'fast forward', its
not meaningfully different from Creation by the 'unseen
hand' guiding the mutations and adaptations toward a
specific design.

So I am one example of a believer in Evolution but not
abiogenesis (at least not on its fundamental level that it
occurred by chance."___a believer in Theistic Evolution

To start with, evolution is an observed phenomenon. I expect this person was speaking of evolutionary theory rather than evolution per se. Since evolution is also part of God's creation, one certainly can accept that part of creation, and be a "creationist" in the strict sense. The problem is that YE people have pretty much redefined the term to mean "rejection of science."

Abiogenesis certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but a Christian shouldn't be surprised by that; God says that's how life began. He didn't specially create living things, they were brought forth by previously-created matter.

And I tend to go with the opinions of most early Christian theologians, who say the "days" of creation as categories of creation, not time periods. The text itself tells us this, since it's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

 

[JAG ..]

You were telling us about it. And now you're telling us that you don't even know what it is? Just tell us the definition you were using when you were talking about evolution. What have you got?

"BTW, your argument "proves" that you can't exist.
Would you like me to show you?"__Barbarian



Sure. Humans have about 30,000 genes. There are dozens of alleles (different versions of the same gene) in human populations. So to make it easy, let's say ten per gene. That means the allele you have for any given gene has a 0.1 likelihood. The likelihood of all the alleles you have is 1.0 divided by 0.1 to the 30,000th power. My calculator will only go to the 3,000th power, but that says the likelihood of you is 1 with 2999 zeros in front of it. Way past the level considered impossible.

The number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 1 with 87 zeros in front of it.

"You were telling us about it. And now you're telling us that
you don't even know what it is? Just tell us the definition
you were using when you were talking about evolution.
What have you got?""__Barbarian

"us"__Barbarian
Us?
You're pretty much alone here, are you not?
I am not telling "us" anything.
You can do the "telling."
Or not.
Its your call.

By the way, I am NOT impressed even slightly with your "proof"
that I don't exist -- or whatever you want to claim it is that you
have "proved."

So far as I am concerned my OP and all my follow-up posts in this
thread stands unrefuted by you.

Best.

JAG

 

[JAG ..]

To start with, evolution is an observed phenomenon. I expect this person was speaking of evolutionary theory rather than evolution per se. Since evolution is also part of God's creation, one certainly can accept that part of creation, and be a "creationist" in the strict sense. The problem is that YE people have pretty much redefined the term to mean "rejection of science."

Abiogenesis certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but a Christian shouldn't be surprised by that; God says that's how life began. He didn't specially create living things, they were brought forth by previously-created matter.

And I tend to go with the opinions of most early Christian theologians, who say the "days" of creation as categories of creation, not time periods. The text itself tells us this, since it's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

Interesting.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Best.

JAG


``

 

[Truthfrees]

Colonial animals...

Choanoflagellates are regarded as a suitable model for reconstructing the last unicellular ancestor of animals according to a review study and protocol report by Nicole King et al. This group of free-living and colonial eukaryotic unicellular organism is the closest living relative of animals.
...
The study revealed that rosetta colony develops through cellular division rather than cellular aggregation. In other words, the formation of a rosetta colony is dependent on cell proliferation rather than the aggregation or clumping of similar rosetta species in the immediate surroundings.

... view that a colony of unicellular organism transitioned to a single multicellular organism through repeated cell division. Furthermore, it is also consistent with the hypothesis that the last common ancestor of animals and choanoflagellates was capable of simple multicellularity.

Feathered dinosaurs, most if not all of whom were warm-blooded. They also had avian respiratory systems. Would you like to learn more about that?

Fish with tetrapod legs:

Evolution would be in big trouble if that happened. Dogs are highly specialized animals which would be very unlikely to become bears. However, there are transitional forms between bears and dogs, which don't have the specializations of either. Would you like to learn about that?

Elephants are 4 footed, and they have fur. Just not much of it. So already there. Some species of elephants had a lot of hair. Would you like to learn about those?

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, which are too evolved in their own way to become human.

YE creationist Kurt Wise say there's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" in the fossil record. Would you like a list of the transitionals he mentions?

Evolution is just one way God creates things. It's just a way you happen to disapprove of.

thanks for the info - but i asked for proof - not suggestion -

in science there are many things that are provable rather than suggested -

that is why i am still a non-evolutionary creationist

imo evidence suggests 6 day creation/13 month global flood/etc

evolutionists look at the same evidence and think it suggests evolution/no global flood

 

[Barbarian]

thanks for the info - but i asked for proof - not suggestion -

in science there are many things that are provable rather than suggested -

As you see, the predicted transitionals are there for everyone to see. That's as "proof" as science gets. At this point, with so many predictions of evolutionary theory confirmed, it requires a religious objection to science to ignore it.

that is why i am still a non-evolutionary creationist

Which is your right. And creationists are no less Christians than others, unless they make an idol of creationism.

imo evidence suggests 6 day creation/13 month global flood/etc

The evidence rules out those beliefs, the text of Genesis itself rules out literal 24-hour days of creation, and scripture does not say there was a global flood.

evolutionists look at the same evidence and think it suggests evolution/no global flood

Creationists who know the evidence, freely admit that it is for long ages and evolution.

I've cited some before. One of the more interesting attempts to reconcile evidence with belief is Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" interpretation, meant to support YE creationism:

Gerald Aardsma is a physicist with special qualifications in radiometrics. His "virtual history" is the most recently developed theory of the biblical creation alternatives.34 Aardsma appears to be the first scientist since Gosse to expand upon the omphalos argument in a serious attempt to reconcile the evidence from fossils and long age measurements with the six days of Genesis. As Gosse, he classifies all historical evidence into two categories – that which is not real but appears to have happened before the creation events and that which is actual, happening after the creation.

Aardsma uses the terms "proleptic time" and "virtual history" to explain his theory. Proleptic time – credited to Joseph Scaliger by Aardsma for its first use is very similar to Gosse's "prochronic time" and simply means imaginary time.35 Aardsma states "Proleptic time is the mathematical projection of real historic time back behind Creation. Real historic time only begins at Creation, as the "In the beginning God created" of Genesis 1:1 teaches."36 Virtual history is a term coined by Aardsma to extend history in a way that "time appears to emanate" from it, "when in fact time does not emanate from it at all."37 In optics, for example, a virtual focus is a point from which light rays appear to emanate when actually no light emanates from that point at all. When one looks in a mirror that person is looking at a virtual image. The image of "you" appears real and coming from in the mirror, when actually the light rays emanated from the real you and bounced off the mirror into your eyes. Aardsma notes that virtual history is not unique to proleptic time, but rather "seems to be a general artifact resident within the physical substance produced by creation-type miracles."38 He uses the miracles of Jesus in feeding the 5000, turning water into wine, and healing the man born blind to illustrate virtual history. The Gospel of Mark, for example, records the feeding of the 5000, where Jesus beginning with five loaves and two fish, broke up the loaves and divided the fish among five thousand people until "all ate and were satisfied." After that "they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish."39

Aardsma explains that were we there we would have seen bread that had been cooked and fish with bones, muscle, and veins. But this newly created bread was not actually cooked and the fish did not go through a development process that it takes a fish to become a fish. Could we probe the newly created fish scientifically, we would find “biological cells, and even DNA with a whole genetic blueprint of the fish encoded within it.”40 All these things reflect a virtual history this newly created fish never had. Similarly the turning of water into "good" wine reflects a protracted aging process, yet the wine was created only moments before. And the man born blind after Jesus gives him sight has his eyes, optic nerves, brain cells, and learned visual perception operating as one who has never been blind. The blind man has a virtual history within his visual apparatus of seeing since birth, but actually can see only after the miracle. From examples such as these Aardsma make the important philosophical argument that miracles, of necessity, all have a virtual history.

Aardsma applies the concept of virtual history to the proleptic time we see today, which includes "evidences of pre-Adamic man, dinosaurs, exploding stars, concentrations of radioisotopes in rocks, and all the rest."41 Virtual history is close conceptually to Gosse’s apparent history, but Aardsma differs significantly from Gosse on two aspects. First Aardsma, as a chronologist establishes a date of creation; that being 5176+26 B.C.42 Everything that appears to come before that date occurs in proleptic time and exhibits virtual history only. Physical indications of history after that date are real.

Second, Aardsma importantly argues that the proleptic time we see today is not a direct consequence of the Creation, but of the Fall and the Curse. What we see in proleptic time is the virtual history of dying stars, death and destruction in the fossils. "The Fall was the Serpent's victory and the Curse his spoil, not God's."43

Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Comparisons of Biblical Creation Alternatives

It assumes YE creationism, and attempts to find a reasonable way to account for the evidence. This is, I think, a fair description of his ideas, but I'll see if I can find an article by Aardsma himself.

 

[Barbarian]

By the way, I am NOT impressed even slightly with your "proof"
that I don't exist -- or whatever you want to claim it is that you
have "proved."

I'm merely applying your argument against evolution to you. As you see, the odds of you, given your great grandparents are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. Yet, here you are. That should suggest why the improbability argument is such a failure.

So far as I am concerned my OP and all my follow-up posts in this
thread stands unrefuted by you.

Doesn't matter. BTW, the scientific definition of biological evolution is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Pretty much the same as Darwin's "descent with modification", with genetics added.

That's evolution.

 

[JAG ..]

I'm merely applying your argument against evolution to you. As you see, the odds of you, given your great grandparents are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. Yet, here you are. That should suggest why the improbability argument is such a failure.



Doesn't matter. BTW, the scientific definition of biological evolution is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Pretty much the same as Darwin's "descent with modification", with genetics added.

That's evolution.

"That should suggest why the improbability argument is such a failure."___Barbarian
So you say.
I caught that phrase "should suggest" --- that's "iffy" language.
So called "science" is saturated with "iffy" language --- words like , ,
~ if
~ maybe
~ possibly
~ but {introducing guesswork and speculation}
____________

I will stand with my such as , , ,
999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,
to the power of
, , , 999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,Dice thrown into the air, thingy
and stand with my ,
{1} You cannot know the level of complexity of every single thing on earth
{2} and neither can you know that it would not require
999,999,999,999,999, trillion MORE that the figure up there in order
to achieve the true level of complexity that exists in the human person and
all that is the Earth and that is on the Earth.

So?

So if you believe that all those Dice could possible come up all 6's then
that is absurd nonsense. Those kinds of figures are "off the charts."
Note that I used the phrase "to the power of" so we're talking about
numbers that are absurd in and of themselves with regards to anything
known to mankind --- I doubt that every every grain of sand on the Earth
would not be a fraction of the kinds of numbers I presented up-thread.

Best.

JAG


``

 

[JAG ..]

The evidence rules out those beliefs, the text of Genesis itself rules out literal 24-hour days of creation, and scripture does not say there was a global flood.

"the text of Genesis itself rules out literal 24-hour days of creation"___Barbarian

Please tell me some more about that. I am interested in what you have to say on that,


"and scripture does not say there was a global flood."___Barbarian

Please tell me some more about that too. I am genuinely interested in what
you have to say. Please give me the reasons why you think it was a local
flood -- if that is what you do think it was.

Best.

JAG

 

[Truthfrees]

As you see, the predicted transitionals are there for everyone to see. That's as "proof" as science gets. At this point, with so many predictions of evolutionary theory confirmed, it requires a religious objection to science to ignore it.

Which is your right. And creationists are no less Christians than others, unless they make an idol of creationism.

The evidence rules out those beliefs, the text of Genesis itself rules out literal 24-hour days of creation, and scripture does not say there was a global flood.

Creationists who know the evidence, freely admit that it is for long ages and evolution.

I've cited some before. One of the more interesting attempts to reconcile evidence with belief is Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" interpretation, meant to support YE creationism:

Gerald Aardsma is a physicist with special qualifications in radiometrics. His "virtual history" is the most recently developed theory of the biblical creation alternatives.34 Aardsma appears to be the first scientist since Gosse to expand upon the omphalos argument in a serious attempt to reconcile the evidence from fossils and long age measurements with the six days of Genesis. As Gosse, he classifies all historical evidence into two categories – that which is not real but appears to have happened before the creation events and that which is actual, happening after the creation.

Aardsma uses the terms "proleptic time" and "virtual history" to explain his theory. Proleptic time – credited to Joseph Scaliger by Aardsma for its first use is very similar to Gosse's "prochronic time" and simply means imaginary time.35 Aardsma states "Proleptic time is the mathematical projection of real historic time back behind Creation. Real historic time only begins at Creation, as the "In the beginning God created" of Genesis 1:1 teaches."36 Virtual history is a term coined by Aardsma to extend history in a way that "time appears to emanate" from it, "when in fact time does not emanate from it at all."37 In optics, for example, a virtual focus is a point from which light rays appear to emanate when actually no light emanates from that point at all. When one looks in a mirror that person is looking at a virtual image. The image of "you" appears real and coming from in the mirror, when actually the light rays emanated from the real you and bounced off the mirror into your eyes. Aardsma notes that virtual history is not unique to proleptic time, but rather "seems to be a general artifact resident within the physical substance produced by creation-type miracles."38 He uses the miracles of Jesus in feeding the 5000, turning water into wine, and healing the man born blind to illustrate virtual history. The Gospel of Mark, for example, records the feeding of the 5000, where Jesus beginning with five loaves and two fish, broke up the loaves and divided the fish among five thousand people until "all ate and were satisfied." After that "they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish."39

Aardsma explains that were we there we would have seen bread that had been cooked and fish with bones, muscle, and veins. But this newly created bread was not actually cooked and the fish did not go through a development process that it takes a fish to become a fish. Could we probe the newly created fish scientifically, we would find “biological cells, and even DNA with a whole genetic blueprint of the fish encoded within it.”40 All these things reflect a virtual history this newly created fish never had. Similarly the turning of water into "good" wine reflects a protracted aging process, yet the wine was created only moments before. And the man born blind after Jesus gives him sight has his eyes, optic nerves, brain cells, and learned visual perception operating as one who has never been blind. The blind man has a virtual history within his visual apparatus of seeing since birth, but actually can see only after the miracle. From examples such as these Aardsma make the important philosophical argument that miracles, of necessity, all have a virtual history.

Aardsma applies the concept of virtual history to the proleptic time we see today, which includes "evidences of pre-Adamic man, dinosaurs, exploding stars, concentrations of radioisotopes in rocks, and all the rest."41 Virtual history is close conceptually to Gosse’s apparent history, but Aardsma differs significantly from Gosse on two aspects. First Aardsma, as a chronologist establishes a date of creation; that being 5176+26 B.C.42 Everything that appears to come before that date occurs in proleptic time and exhibits virtual history only. Physical indications of history after that date are real.

Second, Aardsma importantly argues that the proleptic time we see today is not a direct consequence of the Creation, but of the Fall and the Curse. What we see in proleptic time is the virtual history of dying stars, death and destruction in the fossils. "The Fall was the Serpent's victory and the Curse his spoil, not God's."43

Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Comparisons of Biblical Creation Alternatives

It assumes YE creationism, and attempts to find a reasonable way to account for the evidence. This is, I think, a fair description of his ideas, but I'll see if I can find an article by Aardsma himself.

you know there are non-evolutionist creation scientists - they disagree with what you have said and i find their conclusions more convincing - and as you said what you offer as "proof" is the best evolutionists can offer -

as far as genesis it says in the hebrew original text "there was twilight/darkening there was dawning/lighting the first day" - and so on for each day - that's about as 24 hour-ish as you can get -

to stretch that into millions/billions/trillions of years is a personal choice some make and some don't - i don't see how twilight and dawning can be millions/billions/trillions of years - and then do that over 6 times?

 

[Barbarian]

you know there are non-evolutionist creation scientists - they disagree with what you have said

I'm familiar with them...

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"
Dr. Todd Wood, YE creationists and PhD paleontologist

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

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 phenacodontids32 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.39Evidence 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
...
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist and PhD paleontologist, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

These men are have PhDs in a field that requires them to be familiar with the evidence on evolution, and although they believe in YE creationism, they quite honestly admit that the evidence for evolution is very good.

as far as genesis it says in the hebrew original text "there was twilight there was sunrise the first day" - and so on for each day - that's about as 24 hour-ish as you can get -

And supposing mornings and evening before there was a sun which by definition is required to have them, is absurd, as Christians pointed out long before anyone knew about evolution or even the age of the Earth.

The text itself tells you that it's figurative. Just accept it as it is.

 

[Barbarian]

Please tell me some more about that too. I am genuinely interested in what
you have to say. Please give me the reasons why you think it was a local
flood -- if that is what you do think it was.

Sure. The text says the land (erets) was covered, not the entire world. Erets can mean "my land", "the land of a nation", "hereabouts", "as far as the eye can see", and so on. The word for "entire world" is "tevel."

And if you look, you'll see the flood story uses "erets", not "tevel."

See the post above for the first question.

 

[Barbarian]

So if you believe that all those Dice could possible come up all 6's then
that is absurd nonsense.

Turns that result is exactly as likely as any other combination. Now, if you predicted it in advance, that would be something. You can test this by using three dice to make it workable for you.

Toss it about 1000 times, and tally the number of results for each possible combination. You will find that three sixes is as likely as any other combination. Most likely , it will turn up 4 or 5 times. So will every other combination, if the dice are fair. This sounds wrong to someone unfamiliar with probability, but it's true. Do you see why?

But that's not the only reason your idea fails. You see, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random. Nor is chemistry. Some combinations of AAs in proteins just don't function. Many other do. So some mutations will harm an organism (and some will actually benefit, as in the case of Hall's bacteria). Some combinations of genes won't work, either, and those combinations will either die before birth, or tend to die before reproducing. And you won't see them, either.

It's way more interesting than you imagine it is.

 

[Truthfrees]

I'm familiar with them...

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"
Dr. Todd Wood, YE creationists and PhD paleontologist

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

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 phenacodontids32 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.39Evidence 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
...
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist and PhD paleontologist, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

These men are have PhDs in a field that requires them to be familiar with the evidence on evolution, and although they believe in YE creationism, they quite honestly admit that the evidence for evolution is very good.

And supposing mornings and evening before there was a sun which by definition is required to have them, is absurd, as Christians pointed out long before anyone knew about evolution or even the age of the Earth.

The text itself tells you that it's figurative. Just accept it as it is.

twilight and dawning before the sun and moon and stars were created to mark time and seasons is simply indicative that time started for the earth the moment God said light be

 

[Truthfrees]

Sure. The text says the land (erets) was covered, not the entire world. Erets can mean "my land", "the land of a nation", "hereabouts", "as far as the eye can see", and so on. The word for "entire world" is "tevel."

And if you look, you'll see the flood story uses "erets", not "tevel."

See the post above for the first question.

eretz is land/dirt/ground/soil - any land - anything that is not water - so a flood that covered all the land is accurate

 

[Barbarian]

eretz is land/dirt/ground/soil - any land - anything that is not water - so a flood that covered all the land is accurate

Just not the whole world. If it was the world, they would have used "tevel", not "erets."

 

[Barbarian]

twilight and dawning before the sun and moon and stars were created to mark time and seasons is simply indicative that time started for the earth the moment God said light be

No. That's not what "morning" and "evening" mean. If one has to redefine the words to make scripture fit the doctrine, that's a pretty good clue that the doctrine isn't right.

 

[Truthfrees]

No. That's not what "morning" and "evening" mean. If one has to redefine the words to make scripture fit the doctrine, that's a pretty good clue that the doctrine isn't right.

sorry but that is what the hebrew means - twilight/darkening and dawning/lightening/becoming light - and even if you want to say evening morning that is fine too - it's all the same thing - evening means light is leaving - morning means light is coming - hebrew is just interestingly more clear imo

midnight means it's completely dark

 

[Truthfrees]

Just not the whole world. If it was the world, they would have used "tevel", not "erets."

God divided the eretz from the mayim - soil/dirt from water - creating dry land and continents with mountains

then later He flooded the eretz/ dry land/continents/mountains with the mayim

so the mountains and the continents were covered by water in the flood

 

[JAG ..]

Sure. The text says the land (erets) was covered, not the entire world. Erets can mean "my land", "the land of a nation", "hereabouts", "as far as the eye can see", and so on. The word for "entire world" is "tevel."

And if you look, you'll see the flood story uses "erets", not "tevel."

See the post above for the first question.

Thank you for answering my question.

JAG Writes:
Notice below I said "if" , , ,
Regarding Evolution:
Here is the important point: It does not matter to this Christian
if they DO find a true "missing link" between "a Ronald Reagan" and
a Chimp named Rodney and if they prove it at the certainty-level
of 2 + 2 = 4 ~ ~ I will then thank God for creating Mankind using
Evolution.

It would NOT bother me if science proves at the certainty-level that
Abiogenesis is actually true -- and that totally dead material can
spontaneously come to life --- that life CAN and DID come from
non-life. If scientists DO prove that at the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4
-- then I will thank God that He created Mankind through Abiogenesis.

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"__ Genesis 1:1

"Have Faith in God."__The Lord Jesus {Mark 11:22}


Best.

JAG

___________


PS

:Thought For Today.

There are laws in the Universe that we do not understand,
and here is one right here , , ,

"The apostles said to the LORD, "Increase our faith!" He replied,
"If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this
mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will
obey you."__The Lord Jesus in Luke 17:5-6

 

[JAG ..]

Turns that result is exactly as likely as any other combination. Now, if you predicted it in advance, that would be something. You can test this by using three dice to make it workable for you.

Toss it about 1000 times, and tally the number of results for each possible combination. You will find that three sixes is as likely as any other combination. Most likely , it will turn up 4 or 5 times. So will every other combination, if the dice are fair. This sounds wrong to someone unfamiliar with probability, but it's true. Do you see why?

But that's not the only reason your idea fails. You see, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random. Nor is chemistry. Some combinations of AAs in proteins just don't function. Many other do. So some mutations will harm an organism (and some will actually benefit, as in the case of Hall's bacteria). Some combinations of genes won't work, either, and those combinations will either die before birth, or tend to die before reproducing. And you won't see them, either.

It's way more interesting than you imagine it is.

People are different.

There is nothing that can be said with the English language to make
me believe that , , ,

999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,
to the power of
, , , 999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,Dice thrown into the air will at some point
all come up 6's
Also , , ,
{1} You cannot know the level of complexity of every single thing on earth
{2} and neither can you know that it would not require
999,999,999,999,999, trillion MORE that the figure up there in order
to achieve the true level of complexity that exists in the human person and
all that is the Earth and that is on the Earth.

You're not paying any serious attention to my "to the power of" phrase,
as in 10X10X10X10X10X10X10X10X10X10

I said , ,
999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,
to the power of
, , , 999 trillion X's 999 trillion

And I can "go much higher than that"

999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, trillion
to the power of
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,trillion DICE
thrown into the air

Those are numbers that are absurd when applied to anything human.

But I Can Go Much Higher , , ,
I can type 999,999 Etc ALL DAY LONG for 24 hours as fast as I can type
and then do that number
to the power of
ANTOHER DAY of ALL DAY LONG typing 999,999, Etc

So?

So on your principle, at some point ALL those DICE would come up ALL 6's

And its absurd to believe that.

God Himself would have to tell me that was true before I would believe it.


JAG