[_ Old Earth _] The surprising logical minds of babies

[Barbarian]

Speaking of this issue, Darwin wrote in an 1881 letter that "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Evolution—a theory of change without any evidence of change.

Darwin was speaking of the fact that in his day, very little of the fossil record was known. However, that soon changed. Here's young Earth creationist Kurt Wise, on then numerous transitionals now known:

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.
Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[Barbarian]

No, evolution is the revision of Gods creation.

It is the way He did things. It's entirely consistent with Scripture, and it's abundantly supported by evidence.

Evolution (macro) is all in minds of men,,

It is directly observed.

 

[Paloma]

This Kirk Wise? The young earther?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

 

[Paloma]

This Kirk Wise? The young earther?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

The abstract was good. I can't cut and past here.

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

 

[Paloma]

... . Ok, just finished that article by Wise.

Very good and worth reading by all. Quite technical however... Interesting Barbarian, that you did not include the few sentences prior to the start of your quote... . The abstract and his conclusion are excellent as well. Your selection as posted, in context, is not a problem for Creationists at all. In fact, the article fully supports our position. We are, at least, open to looking at the hard questions.

Wise most certainly does not concur ( if you read the whole article ) that what we see in the fossil record agrees with macro-evolution as a whole, as taught by evolutionists. Creationist do not agree with "transitions" as you understand them at all. So the whole issue is a evolutnists construct. God made fully formed creatures, ( with a wide built in genetic ability for change ) some that even looked like a cross between two or more different species.

To someone not using the Bible as their foundation, or focus lens....you might see a "transitory creature", but infact all you are really seeing is a creature with charterisitcs of two different types. ( ie platypus ) This is no problem for the Creationsit. God was very creative and used the same basic design or "blueprint" for many of his creatures. This is fully expected. We all have common charterisitcs on some level. Not a problem for the Creationsit.

Thanks for the article, I enjoyed that!

 

[Barbarian]

Just as Jesus pulled endless fish from a basket, so did the Father create the world we see. Right out of thin air.

Actually, there was no air. He created the universe from nothing, ex nihilo. Having created the universe, he had it then develop and produce all other things in our world. Life, for example, came from the earth, air, and water of the world, as he created those things to do.

The evidence of micro-evolution (small allowable changes in a creature within pre-ordained limits after the initial creation) is everywhere.

So far, no one can show any such limits. Every population of organisms has been observed to continue to evolve, with no demonstrated limit.

Why would God go to all the trouble of making the creation flow from a macro-evolution matrix when making it at all at one time, ready to go, "turn key" if you will, would suffice.?

It seems like a more effective thing to produce a universe that will unfold as He intended, than to continuously adjust it to make it work. Everytime we find out how the universe works, it turns out to be remarkably elegant and spare in the way the rules work. Beauty and economy of rule seem to delight Him.

He created the chicken fully formed and it went on to lay eggs....no need to complicate things...

In fact, we now know that chickens evolved from jungle fowl. So the egg came first, depending on when you think an individual was sufficiently different to qualify as a chicken.

Was adam even a real man Barbarian?

Yep. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with Adam as a real person.

Occasionally we happen to be around to notice when a new species evolves. Even most creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families.

And, as you see in the post above, there are numerous transitional forms in the fossil record. If you like we can test the idea. Name me any two major groups, which are said to be related, and I'll see if we can find a transitional. Pick several if you like.

 

[Barbarian]

Wise most certainly does not concur ( if you read the whole article ) that what we see in the fossil record agrees with macro-evolution as a whole

He doesn't believe it is, because the evidence is contrary to his interpretation of the Bible. However, he honestly admits:

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.

He was a doctoral candidate under Stephen Gould, who although he knew Wise's YE beliefs, insisted that he be accepted into Harvard. As he once said "all that really counts is ability."

So it's not surprising that Wise remarks on the rarity of species-to-species transitions in the fossil record. As Wise admits, the lack of these (and they are rare) is evidence for punctuated equilibrium, which Eldredge and Gould advocated.

 

[Barbarian]

To someone not using the Bible as their foundation, or focus lens....you might see a "transitory creature", but infact all you are really seeing is a creature with charterisitcs of two different types. ( ie platypus )

More to it than that. We see countless transitional organisms where they are predicted to be. But we never see transitionals where they aren't supposed to be. So no mammal/bird transitions. No fish/insect transitions. And so on. That so many transitionals were predicted prior to their discovery by evolutionary theory is, as Kurt Wise admits, powerful evidence for macroevolution.

 

[Eugene]

the egg came first, depending on when you think an individual was sufficiently different to qualify as a chicken.

That's great if I'm reading you right. Ovulation was prior to Eve huh?

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, I should emphasize that I don't see a failure to accept evolution as a sign that one is not saved, or that such denial means that one is not a Christian. The acceptance or denial of the way God produced living things doesn't affect your salvation at all.

My major concern with it, is that many people wrongly think that creationism is an essential part of Christian belief. And that error drives many away from accepting Him. We should not needlessly put barriers in the way of people coming to God.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on the evolution of chickens from jungle fowl:
the egg came first, depending on when you think an individual was sufficiently different to qualify as a chicken.

That's great if I'm reading you right. Ovulation was prior to Eve huh?

I don't see what Eve has to do with it.

 

[Paloma]

BTW, I should emphasize that I don't see a failure to accept evolution as a sign that one is not saved, or that such denial means that one is not a Christian. The acceptance or denial of the way God produced living things doesn't affect your salvation at all.

My major concern with it, is that many people wrongly think that creationism is an essential part of Christian belief. And that error drives many away from accepting Him. We should not needlessly put barriers in the way of people coming to God.

I agree Barbarian.

 

[Eugene]

Barbarian on the evolution of chickens from jungle fowl:
the egg came first, depending on when you think an individual was sufficiently different to qualify as a chicken.



I don't see what Eve has to do with it.

I reckon I should have asked how jungle fowl evolved.

 

[Barbarian]

Gradually. The key is that it happened in historical time. Domestication.

 

[Eugene]

Gradually. The key is that it happened in historical time. Domestication.

The egg or the fowl first? Did it cross any highways for purpose or reason?

 

[turnorburn]

BTW, I should emphasize that I don't see a failure to accept evolution as a sign that one is not saved, or that such denial means that one is not a Christian. The acceptance or denial of the way God produced living things doesn't affect your salvation at all.

My major concern with it, is that many people wrongly think that creationism is an essential part of Christian belief. And that error drives many away from accepting Him. We should not needlessly put barriers in the way of people coming to God.

Horsefeathers You either accept evolution or..

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.

There is no middle road one is God given the other is a theory Jesus never taught evolution, one word from him and its done..Failure to accept this theory has nothing to do with our salvation..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
BTW, I should emphasize that I don't see a failure to accept evolution as a sign that one is not saved, or that such denial means that one is not a Christian. The acceptance or denial of the way God produced living things doesn't affect your salvation at all.

My major concern with it, is that many people wrongly think that creationism is an essential part of Christian belief. And that error drives many away from accepting Him. We should not needlessly put barriers in the way of people coming to God.

Horsefeathers

It's true. The real damage creationism does, is in making it difficult for people to come to God. The most difficult thing for creationists, is to understand that the Bible was never intended by God to be about the mechanisms of creation.

There is no middle road one is God given the other is a theory

YE creationism tries to make a middle ground by changing His word a little, and changing science a little. But it won't work.

Jesus never taught evolution

He didn't teach protons, or a spherical Earth, either. He didn't teach a lot of things that are true. His message is about God and us, and our relationship with Him.

Failure to accept this theory has nothing to do with our salvation.

That's what I just told you. If you truly believe, creationism probably won't harm your salvation. There are people who grow up being told that creationism is essential to Christian belief, and lose their faith when they learn that it can't possibly be true. But by putting off people who might otherwise have come to him, creationism does great damage.

 

[Barbarian]

The egg or the fowl first? Did it cross any highways for purpose or reason?

No. Speciation is not a path to a door.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian observes:
BTW, I should emphasize that I don't see a failure to accept evolution as a sign that one is not saved, or that such denial means that one is not a Christian. The acceptance or denial of the way God produced living things doesn't affect your salvation at all.

My major concern with it, is that many people wrongly think that creationism is an essential part of Christian belief. And that error drives many away from accepting Him. We should not needlessly put barriers in the way of people coming to God.



It's true. The real damage creationism does, is in making it difficult for people to come to God. The most difficult thing for creationists, is to understand that the Bible was never intended by God to be about the mechanisms of creation.



YE creationism tries to make a middle ground by changing His word a little, and changing science a little. But it won't work.



He didn't teach protons, or a spherical Earth, either. He didn't teach a lot of things that are true. His message is about God and us, and our relationship with Him.



That's what I just told you. If you truly believe, creationism probably won't harm your salvation. There are people who grow up being told that creationism is essential to Christian belief, and lose their faith when they learn that it can't possibly be true. But by putting off people who might otherwise have come to him, creationism does great damage.

Your stuck between a rock and a hard place, you can't be a creationist or young earth proponent, last i heard young earth is tantamount to blaspheme. It is indeed a young earth, after sin entered Gods creation corruption settled in, not to worry, God has a new heaven and a new earth in the wings..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Your stuck between a rock and a hard place, you can't be a creationist or young earth proponent

I couldn't because of what I know. If I didn't understand science very well, or if I chose to ignore it in favor of a personal interpretation of the Bible, I could do that. And it wouldn't affect my salvation at all. You don't go to hell just for being a YE creationist.

last i heard young earth is tantamount to blaspheme.

It certainly is contrary to scripture, but it's not a salvation issue.