Bible and science?

[nolidad]

So Jesus is literally a door?

You thought the Bible taught that!? Ha

Well if you can't tell teh difference between literal acts and metaphorical descriptions. But Jesus is the door! For doors are opened to asllow entrance into somewhere . and only Jesus is the entrance to the kingdom.

 

[nolidad]

Barbarian observes:
Not for Christians. Most of us accept that His word is consistent with the things we see in nature.

Well for once we agree!

We do not see in nature one genus changing to another, one phyla or family or order.

We do not see creatures accumulating millions of micromutations that cause massive changes.

We do see each kind reprouce after its kind.

We do see the universe cursed by sin and that mutations are exponentially more harmful than helpful.

 

[The Barbarian]

We do not see in nature one genus changing to another, one phyla or family or order.

I'm pleased you've now acknowledged the fact that new species evolve. But as you know, most YE creationists have moved on, recognizing the fact that new genera and families evolve, as well.

We do not see creatures accumulating millions of micromutations that cause massive changes.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that the large number of transitional series in the fossil record is "very good evidence" for common descent.

We do see each kind reprouce after its kind.

The Bible doesn't say so, and the evidence, as Wise admits, shows that new taxa evolve from older taxa.

We do see the universe cursed by sin

God says it is for humans. But not for other organisms.

and that mutations are exponentially more harmful than helpful.

You've been misled by that. Perhaps you don't know what "exponentially" means. If that was true, all organisms would rapidly go extinct. You have dozens of mutations that were not present in either of your parents.

It is true, that without natural selection, evolution would not have produced the variety of life we see on Earth. That was Darwin's great discovery.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Barbarian said: ↑
So Jesus is literally a door?

You thought the Bible taught that!? Ha

Well if you can't tell teh difference between literal acts and metaphorical descriptions.

Which is exactly why YE creationists have to alter the Bible to make the Genesis story literal history. They can't tell the difference between literal acts and metaphorical descriptions.

Yes, we know how it works. "It's literal unless I want it to be something else."

 

[nolidad]

I'm pleased you've now acknowledged the fact that new species evolve. But as you know, most YE creationists have moved on, recognizing the fact that new genera and families evolve, as well.

If by evolution you mean any change that occurs then I agree! Humans evolve in that sense as we age. I am now experiencing MPB and grey hair- that is evolution as well.

But changes in species are more due to variation within th ekind (Mendellian INheritance) than the requisite unplanned, random undirected mutations for trhe mythical macro evolution to have occurred.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that the large number of transitional series in the fossil record is "very good evidence" for common descent.

You still b eating that dead horse?? I already showed how you took that statement out of context!

The Bible doesn't say so, and the evidence, as Wise admits, shows that new taxa evolve from older taxa.

Yes it does! all you have to do is read that book every once in a while and you would see.

The Bible doesn't say so, and the evidence, as Wise admits, shows that new taxa evolve from older taxa.

Well if you consider Kurt wise to be your Guru- I can't help you there.

Burt the bible does say so. Just because you and Wise overlook the obvious is ot the fault of the 'bible.

You've been misled by that. Perhaps you don't know what "exponentially" means. If that was true, all organisms would rapidly go extinct. You have dozens of mutations that were not present in either of your parents.

It is true, that without natural selection, evolution would not have produced the variety of life we see on Earth. That was Darwin's great discovery.

Well if I have been misled- it is by evolutionists themselves. They all concur that most mutations fall on teh harmful side of the equation (though of those most are benign to nearly benign) but the ration of bad or harmful mutations to good mutations is massive-according to them. And by good mutations it is meant that new and previous non existent information has been added, or new featrures previously not existent have been added- even if by accumulation of millions of micromutations as the hypothesis goes.

 

[nolidad]

Which is exactly why YE creationists have to alter the Bible to make the Genesis story literal history. They can't tell the difference between literal acts and metaphorical descriptions.

Yes, we know how it works. "It's literal unless I want it to be something else."

Wrong again for about the tenth time! It is the theistic evolutionist like yourself who has to reinterpret teh clear plain language of Genesis 1 to fit what your opinion feels is right.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[The Barbarian]

If by evolution you mean any change that occurs then I agree! Humans evolve in that sense as we age. I am now experiencing MPB and grey hair- that is evolution as well.

No. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. Think hard. What did you learn that "evolution" means in biology? Think back when we started talking about it.

But changes in species are more due to variation within th ekind (Mendellian INheritance) than the requisite unplanned, random undirected mutations for trhe mythical macro evolution to have occurred.

As you learned, there are many, many examples of favorable mutations in evoltution. Would you like me to show them to you, again?

(Kurt Wise honestly admits that the large number of transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

You still b eating that dead horse?? I already showed how you took that statement out of context!

Nope. You just don't like what he admitted. Here, let's see it again...

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

We do see each kind reprouce after its kind.

The Bible doesn't say so, and the evidence, as Wise admits, shows that new taxa evolve from older taxa.

Yes it does! all you have to do is read that book every once in a while and you would see.

So show us. Present the verse that says living things reproduce after their kind.

Well if I have been misled- it is by evolutionists themselves. They all concur that most mutations fall on teh harmful side of the equation (though of those most are benign to nearly benign)

Perhaps you don't know what "benign" means. We all have dozens of mutations that didn't exist in either parent. If you were right, we'd all be dead or badly disabled. As you learned, most mutations don't do anything measureable in terms of fitness. A few are harmful, and a very few increase fitness. And natural selection tends to preserve the good ones and tends to remove the bad ones. Which is all that is necessary for evolution.\

And by good mutations it is meant that new and previous non existent information has been added

You still don't get it. Any new mutation in a population increases information. Would you like me to show you the numbers again?

 

[nolidad]

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.

 

[nolidad]

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.

And you are still dishonest in pulling these quotes out of there greater context. He does not accept this evidence as fact- just the opposite and you know it! When he wrote this over 2 decades ago- creationist paleontology was still in its infancy and not well developed. Why are you still being dishonest with everyone here?

From the same paper, His abstract of the paper:

ABSTRACT There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory. Creationist palaeontology is an immature field, the resources of creationists are severely limited, and the ‘transitional form’ issue has a low priority in the creation model. It is thus premature to engage in a rigorous evaluation of transitional form claims. It is suggested that creationists not divert resources or concern in the direction of ‘transitional form’ arguments. As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted. It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological, stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates, and among inter-specific, species, higher-taxon and series stratomorphic intermediates. Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory.

And lest people have forgotten- the whale series has been thoroughly debunked since the writing of this paper!

 

[The Barbarian]

And you are still dishonest in pulling these quotes out of there greater context. He does not accept this evidence as fact

I told you that he doesn't. He merely admits that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Although he points out that the whale series in particular:

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.

When he wrote this over 2 decades ago- creationist paleontology was still in its infancy and not well developed.

Wise still hasn't found a way to explain the transitional forms of whales. Since you understand creationist paleontology, tell us how creationists overcome the difficulties presented by whale evolution.

Why are you still being dishonest with everyone here?

Everyone here knows that I told you that Wise, while admitting that transitional series of fossils are very good evidence for evolution, he prefers to believe "my understanding of scripture." You're not fooling anyone. I even told you that. Why pretend otherwise?

From the same paper, His abstract of the paper:

ABSTRACT There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory. Creationist palaeontology is an immature field, the resources of creationists are severely limited, and the ‘transitional form’ issue has a low priority in the creation model. It is thus premature to engage in a rigorous evaluation of transitional form claims. It is suggested that creationists not divert resources or concern in the direction of ‘transitional form’ arguments. As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted. It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological, stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates, and among inter-specific, species, higher-taxon and series stratomorphic intermediates. Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory.

And lest people have forgotten- the whale series has been thoroughly debunked since the writing of this paper!

I've already shown you that subsequent finds confirmed the evolution of whales from land ungulates. Everyone here has seen that, too. Why bother denying what's still here on the forum?

Would you like me to show you all of it again? C'mon. Since Wise admitted this evidence, we've found more and more transitional forms. Would you like me to show you the evolution of some feature we see in whales today? How about the blowhole?

And the fossil evidence is reinforced by DNA analyses giving us this phylogeny:

And of course, that's confirmed by checking DNA of organisms of known descent. So there's no point in denying the fact. Again, Wise believes that eventually there will be a creationist explanation for these facts. But presently, there is none.

 

[dad]

.

Ha. Something funny about evos trying to use blowholes as evidence.

So, before getting any further, can we rule out that God created some fish (or mammals) with similar features?

 

[nolidad]

I told you that he doesn't. He merely admits that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Although he points out that the whale series in particular:

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.

Yep in the early 90's YEC paleontology did not have very compelling answers. Woodmorappe did not say it was very good evidence and you know that- stop being dishonest.!

Here is what he did say:

It Offers Challenges for the Creationist Model 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: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs onethird smaller;67 Prozeuglodon 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. On the other hand, clues that an alternative solution might be forthcoming comes from the following considerations:

By failing to recognize that he does not accept the macroevolutionary theory. He accepts it looks compelling and since the writing of this in the early 90's the whale series has been empirically debunked! You are just being dishonest when you say he says it s strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory!

 

[nolidad]

Wise still hasn't found a way to explain the transitional forms of whales. Since you understand creationist paleontology, tell us how creationists overcome the difficulties presented by whale evolution.

by empirical scienced which has debunked the supposed evolution of whales!

Everyone here knows that I told you that Wise, while admitting that transitional series of fossils are very good evidence for evolution, he prefers to believe "my understanding of scripture." You're not fooling anyone. I even told you that. Why pretend otherwise?

Well unless you are confused you are now adding deception to dishonesty for we were specifically tralking about Woodmorappe.

 

[nolidad]

Would you like me to show you all of it again? C'mon. Since Wise admitted this evidence, we've found more and more transitional forms. Would you like me to show you the evolution of some feature we see in whales today? How about the blowhole?

I guess you gave up on keeping up with evolution. It was admitted that they drilled the blowhole after another fossil was found with the full upper jaw and the nostrils were at the end!

RSR's List of Evidence Against Whale Evolution | KGOV.com this will help you catch up to modern science!

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess you gave up on keeping up with evolution. It was admitted that they drilled the blowhole after another fossil was found with the full upper jaw and the nostrils were at the end!

You were taken in by that story. You see, it's not just a blowhole. It's also the internal passages that connect to the blowhole. And there are a lot of those skulls now. All with transitional blowholes. And BTW, your link doesn't say what you claim it does.

Scientists initially believed that Pakicetus had flippers and a blowhole, because the teeth and middle ear were like that of a whale. Everyone was surprised that the whale-like anatomy was acutually on a land animal. So when a complete skull was found, it had nostrils close to the end of the jaw.

Dorudon has the blowhole positioned somewhat farther back.

BTW, look at the limbs on Dorudon:

Flippers. Precisely what your guys led you to believe weren't there. They lied to you, like they apparently lied to you about drilling out fake blowholes. Did you honestly think that was true?


And a bit later...

Pilot whale skull. Notice the transitional blowhole

When are you going to learn that those guys lie to you?

 

[nolidad]

You were taken in by that story. You see, it's not just a blowhole. It's also the internal passages that connect to the blowhole. And there are a lot of those skulls now. All with transitional blowholes. And BTW, your link doesn't say what you claim it does.

Scientists initially believed that Pakicetus had flippers and a blowhole, because the teeth and middle ear were like that of a whale. Everyone was surprised that the whale-like anatomy was acutually on a land animal. So when a complete skull was found, it had nostrils close to the end of the jaw.

Dorudon has the blowhole positioned somewhat farther back.

BTW, look at the limbs on Dorudon:

Flippers. Precisely what your guys led you to believe weren't there. They lied to you, like they apparently lied to you about drilling out fake blowholes. Did you honestly think that was true?


And a bit later...

Pilot whale skull. Notice the transitional blowhole

When are you going to learn that those guys lie to you?

Well I guess you will have to take that up wit h th eevolutionary people who admitted on film they drew in flippers and flukes and drilled blowholes where there weren't.

See creationists may have published it- but it was all interviewing the evolutionists who kind of added lots of things that were not there!

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep in the early 90's YEC paleontology did not have very compelling answers. Woodmorappe did not say it was very good evidence and you know that- stop being dishonest.!

I told you that wise said that. I even linked to it. You knew better. So did everyone else here. You're not doing yourself any good by pretending otherwise.

I hope you realize that your source exposed you here, when you claimed that the whale didn't have flippers. Fossils of this transitional whale have been found and yes, they had flippers.

I don't know where you got the story about boring a fake blowhole; even your link wasn't dishonest enough to peddle that story.

Did it not occur to you that if the whale didn't have a blowhole, there would be nostrils on the front of the jaw? Think.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well I guess you will have to take that up wit h th eevolutionary people who admitted on film they drew in flippers and flukes and drilled blowholes where there weren't.

Didn't happen. They did draw in flippers on Dorudon before they had a full skeleton. But when they do that, they stipple into show where the reconstruction. As you just learned, Dorodon did have flippers.

The reconstruction was accurate. No one drilled out a skull to make a blowhole. Nor does your site say that.

 

[The Barbarian]

And when paleontologists do reconstruction, they stipple in to show what they actually have apart from the reconstruction:

They've found a number of them since this, and the reconstruction is now known to be correct.

They goofed on Pakicetus, because the teeth and ear were so whale-like they figured it had a whale-like body. But later specimens showed that it was still well able to walk on land.

 

[nolidad]

Didn't happen. They did draw in flippers on Dorudon before they had a full skeleton. But when they do that, they stipple into show where the reconstruction. As you just learned, Dorodon did have flippers.

Well now that I am retired I will look up dorodon but that still doesn't alter the fact that the whale series has been debunked by further finds and admission of fraud by the discoverers