No Stone Age or Bronze Age in Genesis

[Job 33:6]

You don't seem to have even attempted to make the case that fossils imply evolution. Or do you just assume it? There are fossils, therefore they evolved?

Fossils are much better explained by the flood than by evolution. Why would there be so many fossils if there were no flood? Fossils don't normally form. But the real problem with evolution is in the details of biology.

Life is made up of complex, hierarchical, interdependent systems. Do you know what hierarchical means? It means your heart has no value by itself. It requires blood to pump. It requires your body to be laced with veins, arteries and capillaries to pump blood through. To be useful, it requires lungs, liver and kidneys to scrub the bad and add the good for distribution.

Each of these complex organs has no value by themselves. And they are each constructed of many complex components that have no value by themselves. The complexity by itself is not the issue. But it presents a big problem to natural selection. A change must have an advantage or benefit to be conserved. But the components of any complex mechanism would have to have lots and lots and lots of changes conserved over a long period before there was any benefit at all.

Errors (mutations) don't accumulate to form complex, hierarchical, interdependent systems. Life was clearly designed.

I can only hope that you actually read the rest of my response.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Why would there be so many fossils if there were no flood?"

Because the planet has been filled with living animals on every continent for the past 500 million years.

You almost act as if you're surprised that there is evidence of past life.

And just so you know, 99% of fossils are sea fossils. Why? Because shells actually fossilized much more readily, given that they aren't subject to predation, and are buried more rapidly in shallow sea environments. They're also dense and rigid and can withstand more weathering.

With respect to terrestrial fossils however, you're quite right that fossilization is rare. Indeed, we only have some 10-15 complete T Rex skeletons, while T rex in fact dominated North America for millions of years. In comparison, we have trillions of marine shell fossils.

So when we examine likelyhood of fossilization, we have to look at environments in which these species lived.

If you are interested in learning about geology to understand why geologists suggest the things we do, feel free to ask and I could direct you to some resources.

 

[Dale]

And this is an argument for evolution, how?

Welcome to Christian Forums, since I haven't seen you before.

I'd like to point out, or remind you, that more people have left Christianity because of creationism than for any other reason, with the possible exception of sexual morality. I know this from national polls but also from what I've seen locally.

There is a church within walking distance of my home where the minister preaches that there is creationism and there is atheism, and there is nothing else. Liberal Christianity, and apparently any nonliteral interpretation of the Bible, is a sham and a farce. I've heard the same minister stand at the pulpit and say, "What happened to all the young people we used to have?"

In my own life, at one time I stopped going to a Baptist church and started going to a Methodist church because I didn't want to hear creationism taught as doctrine.

I care about Christianity and creationism is emptying the churches.

 

[Dale]

Who is anyone else? Do you mean they're not a problem for people who have faith in evolution? Yes they are. Careful thinking about the information captured as fossils should cause everyone great doubt about evolution.

Unfortunately, fossils don't capture the molecular machinery that must have evolved into existence slowly if evolution is true. But how would a machine evolve slowly? Would one component protein evolve at a time, and be conserved even though useless until the others evolved to complete the machine? Wouldn't that be a violation of how natural selection works? But I digress.

Fossils show complete, functioning, well-designed animals, not animals in the progress of evolving. They look like a snapshot of what existed about 5000 years ago, when the sudden upheavals of the worldwide flood captured them in a heartbeat, often with necks arched back struggling to breathe.

Fossils show marine animals all over the earth, even on the tallest mountains (which weren't tall mountains at the time). And most clams are captured in the closed position, meaning they were alive when they were suddenly buried.

But the biggest problem about the evolution myth is the hypothetical process of evolution itself. Many people defend it by pointing to a modern day example of mutations breaking genes resulting in change. No one disagrees that mutations do damage that causes enough change to create new species, and even new genera. But no such damage ever created a new protein, a new molecular machine, a new membrane, a new organ or a new system. Those things had to be designed, not evolved.

KenJackson:"Who is anyone else?"

Creationists are the ones who are at war with the facts.

KenJackson:"Do you mean they're not a problem for people who have faith in evolution? "

No one has "faith in evolution." There are simply people who follow the facts where they lead. A few years ago, in the town I live in, someone rented a building and put up a sign, Church of Evolution. It turned out that a creationist minister was the one who rented the building and put up the sign. He was trying to prove that evolution is a religion, not a science. He was wrong and not even being particularly honest about it.

KenJackson:"But how would a machine evolve slowly?"

Today's automobiles evolved slowly. The first automobiles were very primitive compared to what we have today.

KenJackson: "But no such damage ever created a new protein, a new molecular machine, a new membrane, a new organ or a new system."

Any mutation, or change in the DNA code, changes the sequence of amino acids assembled into proteins. Any mutation either creates a new protein or changes an existing protein.

 

[KenJackson]

I'd like to point out, or remind you, that more people have left Christianity because of creationism than for any other reason, with the possible exception of sexual morality. I know this from national polls but also from what I've seen locally.

I'm sad to hear that. But my arguments are always from science, except where the historical record of Genesis is helpful for the history it provides.

Note that the Bible never mentions DNA, RNA, nucleotides, polymerases, the genetic code, amino acids, proteins, ribosomes, ATP synthase or any molecular machine, not even obliquely or metaphorically. These are the things that shout out loud that evolution can't work.

For several decades I was convinced that there was no conflict between evolution and the Bible because the Bible says so very little and does after all frequently speak the truth through metaphor. I thought surely scientists must have some evidence to base evolution on. It wasn't until I started looking into molecular biology a few years ago that I realized evolution can't possibly explain what we observe.

I'm less certain about layers of rock and the supposed geologic column, except that the flood provides a much more convincing explanation for the evidence. I'm also not sure about the age of the earth or universe, though I'm having difficulty understanding how the earth could be old or how we could possibly know what preceded the flood. I don't think any life could exist for millions of years since damaging mutations accumulate with each generation.

Creationists are the ones who are at war with the facts.

I don't see that. I'm certainly not at war with the facts.

No one has "faith in evolution." There are simply people who follow the facts where they lead.

You could get away with that fifty years ago. But How did the genetic code evolve?

Any mutation, or change in the DNA code, changes the sequence of amino acids assembled into proteins. Any mutation either creates a new protein or changes an existing protein.

(Darn, I hit post too early.)
No! You haven't given adequate thought to this. People accept that statement by faith without thinking through the details, including the number of permutations of chains of amino acids.

Yes, some mutations create a damaged version of a protein that improves some aspect of some function so it's conserved. But those alleles are a mutation or two away from the original. Where did the original come from? Do you think you can get to every protein in use by a couple mutations here and there? Some proteins are over 1000 amino acids long. There are an effectively infinite number of permutations possible. And natural selection can't work on long sequences of mutation generations because there's no benefit when a protein doesn't fold correctly.

 

[KenJackson]

KenJackson:"But how would a machine evolve slowly?"

Today's automobiles evolved slowly. The first automobiles were very primitive compared to what we have today.

No aspect of any automobile design was input by random mutations, only careful design by intelligent agents. And no, the changes weren't slow in the sense of evolution. The difference between shock absorbents and MacPherson struts may seem trivial to the buyer, but on a molecular basis, it's monumental.

The difference between four cylinders and six cylinders is conceptually simple, but there's lots of carefully shaped metal that had to be added. The crankshaft has to be changed just so. The computer and distributor have to be changed just right. At the molecular level, that's a huge change.

Evolution is *random mutations* filtered by *natural selection* over many generations. That means if you need a bunch of random mutations in a row to make an improvement, every step, every generation in between must at least live if not provide a benefit. That's a tall order.

I don't see any evidence that people consider the details of evolution. I think it's just accepted by faith, as I did for decades, that a bunch of wild mutations go in, unguided natural selection decides and good stuff pops out. Wow. I can't believe I was that naive for so long.

 

[Dale]

I started this thread to talk about the Stone Age, and maybe the Bronze Age. There is no Stone Age in Genesis, despite overwhelming evidence that our ancestors spent hundreds of thousands of years in the Stone Age.

Take the stone tools at Kanjera, South Kenya.

"The site of this fossils find is a hillside in southern Kenya where, in less than an acre,
more than 3700 fossil bones and more than 2000 stone artifacts have been recovered in three distinct archaeological bearing layers spanning three vertical meters."

I'm quoting Joel Duff on a site called the Natural Historian. From another article:

"In just a small portion of the lowest sediment layers surveyed, over 6000 stone artifacts were retrieved including 972 complete stone blades."

There are no settlements here. The hominids who lived there were nomadic hunter gatherers. The site was occupied over several hundred thousand years.

On the age of these artifacts, Duff says: "people have practiced agriculture and herded domesticated animals for thousands of years in this region and thus have had no need for stone tools, especially such crude ones as are found in the deep sediments of these depressions."

Creationists are trying to explain away these stone artifacts.

"Recently, Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis responded ... He questioned the fact that so many artifacts could be produced even over long periods of time and whether many of these shards of stone were even artifacts at all. He went as far as to suggest a global flood 4500 years ago could lead to conditions that shaped many of the rocks that are called Stone Age artifacts."

These stone spear points, and stone knives could not be the result of natural processes or action by water. Experts in stone tools know how to recognize them. The stone tools were made from stone that was carried for several miles, and sometimes for longer distances. They located the best rock to use, then carried rock to where they were staying, possibly beside a pond, which is no longer there. It's not just a question of water knocking the rocks around.



Links
Thousands of Stone Age Artifacts and Fossil Bones: A Story of an Ancient Butcher Shop

Trillions of Stone Artifacts Redux: A South African Test Case of YEC Chronology

 

[KenJackson]

Before you can even begin making sense of all those bones and artifacts, you have to decide whether there was a worldwide flood or not. That decision can't help but be important to the analysis. But I fear that you've dismissed any thought of any such flood and started with the absolute unquestioning assumption that there was none.

Another important point to consider before analysis is whether it is even remotely possible for man (or his ancestors, if you believe he evolved) to have existed for several hundred thousand years, as you've suggested. The fact that damaging mutations accumulate with every generation makes that highly questionable. Again, I fear you haven't even considered this problem.

And finally, if there's a chance that these bones might not be human, it would be important to consider if evolution is even possible. The biology considerations I mentioned above and many more convince me it could never work. Of course I'm not talking about the damaging mutations that are observed today to produce new species, but rather I reference the hypothetical development of proteins, molecular machines, organs and hierarchical systems. If that's impossible, as the evidence suggests, then it most definitely affects the analysis of these bones and artifacts.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm also not sure about the age of the earth or universe, though I'm having difficulty understanding how the earth could be old or how we could possibly know what preceded the flood. I don't think any life could exist for millions of years since damaging mutations accumulate with each generation.

To me the age of the universe is different because it happend before creation week.

One possibility is that age is the wrong question to be asking. I believe God who is outside of time is speaking of a time before time. If the universe was made before time then how can it be measured by time?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This could include the universe and the bare earth, the dirt, rock and water that covered it.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (still before time was created)

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (time created)

It's also possible that the earth sat empty and void covered in water for an undetermined amount of 'time', even though time may again be the wrong word. Maybe it sat for billions of years and also sat for none. I don't think 'outside of time' is a concept that we humans will never ever understand.

 

[KenJackson]

If the universe was made before time ...

Perhaps. Though the passage of time seems to be linked to the existence of matter.

My main problem with the old earth argument is that it is solidly based on the assumption that there was no worldwide flood. The flood did great damage to the whole surface of the earth and dumped all those layers of rock, that geologists and paleontologists study, in a few days. I really don't know how anyone can look at the earth and know anything about what it looked like before the flood. Some think the plate tectonics may have done most of their action during the flood, so even the continents would have been misplaced when the waters receded. And of course the water was much higher.

 

[coffee4u]

Perhaps. Though the passage of time seems to be linked to the existence of matter.

My main problem with the old earth argument is that it is solidly based on the assumption that there was no worldwide flood. The flood did great damage to the whole surface of the earth and dumped all those layers of rock, that geologists and paleontologists study, in a few days. I really don't know how anyone can look at the earth and know anything about what it looked like before the flood. Some think the plate tectonics may have done most of their action during the flood, so even the continents would have been misplaced when the waters receded. And of course the water was much higher.

You mean the 'gap theory'? Yes, that is another thing again. People who hold to this often hold to a creation before creation, of which there is no scriptural backup and brings in a whole host of problems. The main one being, what point would that have been? And how if creation was a remake on top of millions of dead things could that be called 'very good'. I think they are trying to cram in evolution someplace and decided it must be in there. I don't believe evolution ever happened, it's an impossible theory.

The universe can show great age if it sat void and time passed or if it was made outside of time. I tend to think its the second since I don't believe time started until that first day started. I don't believe any ageing method on the universe or the world (rocks) is accurate. But even if it did indeed sit there void for 4 billion years before God said "let there be light" and the rocks are actualy 4 billion years old, this in no way impacts creation week which happens after that. In this case, the world could be both old and young.

I think the global flood made most fossils as well as reshaping the earth to make higher mountains and lower valleys including a lower sea bed.
It's not just the flood that changed things either.
God changed some laws of nature at the fall and again after the flood.
Before the fall animals only ate plants as did Adam and Eve.
After the flood the fear of man came upon the animals and man could also eat meat.
I also believe an ice age happened after the flood from ash in the atmosphere.

 

[Cis.jd]

it doesn't matter if it's there or not. The Bible was never made to be source of scientific answers about our world, it's just telling us about God's revelation to man and how the relationship between him and mankind.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm sad to hear that. But my arguments are always from science, except where the historical record of Genesis is helpful for the history it provides.

I'm less certain about layers of rock and the supposed geologic column, except that the flood provides a much more convincing explanation for the evidence.

You can't justifiably say that your arguments are from science, and then simultaneously not acknowledge science.

You have made baseless arguments against oceanic transgressive and regressive sequences, polystrate fossils, and really against the theory of plate tectonics. Yet when corrected, you have simply moved on to other topics without actually acknowledging the science.

See post #18 for reference: No Stone Age or Bronze Age in Genesis

 

[Job 33:6]

The fact that damaging mutations accumulate with every generation makes that highly questionable. Again, I fear you haven't even considered this problem.

The rest of your ideas seem to fall around this idea that only detrimental mutations accumulate, and not beneficial mutations, which is false.

Here is an example of a mutation that has fixated to a population and is passing on from generation to generation, thats presence reduced cardiovascular disease.
ApoA-1 Milano - Wikipedia

Indeed, there isn't any scientific publication that I've ever heard of, suggesting that mutations are only detrimental, nor any publications suggesting that only detrimental mutations accumulate. On the contrary beneficial fixated mutations are regularly observed and discussed in scientific literature, being carried from generation to generation, such as in the above example.

Also, welcome to Christian forums.

 

[KenJackson]

You mean the 'gap theory'?

I neither propose the gap theory nor reject it. I just don't know. Though I thought you might be proposing it.

... I don't believe time started until that first day started.

This seems to be a variation of the gap theory. Though in my admittedly weak understanding of physics, there's a problem with physical matter existing and time not passing.

I think the global flood made most fossils as well as reshaping the earth to make higher mountains and lower valleys including a lower sea bed.

Yes, when I say "flood", all that is included.

God changed some laws of nature at the fall and again after the flood.
Before the fall animals only ate plants as did Adam and Eve.
After the flood the fear of man came upon the animals and man could also eat meat.

Oh oh. I have wondered at times if the effect which we call the second law of thermodynamics didn't begin until the fall. If that's the case, then maybe there were never any genetic defects and nothing died. Maybe life existed for billions of years with no mutations, no genetic defects at all. That would allow for an old earth. Though this is only a thought. I haven't seen anyone else propose it. And there's a problem with it because it would mean God tweaked the rules of creation after he rested.

The change from eating plants to eating meat, both for animals and humans, was likely due to genetic defects caused by mutations. The original design of man and each kind was genetically perfect. Each could synthesize all the amino acids, vitamins, fatty acids and anything else they needed from anything they ate. But now humans have some "essential amino acids" that our bodies can no longer synthesize. Same for two fatty acids and vitamin C and others.

I don't think God tweaked his design after the flood. Though it's curious why no one could see a rainbow before the flood. I wonder if that was due to the thicker atmosphere.

 

[KenJackson]

The rest of your ideas seem to fall around this idea that only detrimental mutations accumulate, and not beneficial mutations, which is false.

You've put your finger on the key issue. The whole ballgame. Though by only mentioning beneficial mutations, you've put a spin on it.

Yes, there is no question that damaging mutations occur that have beneficial effects (at least in some environments) and are positively selected for. These also give rise to new species and even genera. This is observed. No one argues that it's not observed. But this process is NOT the same mythical process that is supposed to have evolved a microbe (single celled organism) into today's taxonomic families, as evolutionists believe by faith. That mythical process has never been observed.

A microbe can't evolve to higher life by mutations. It would require lots of new proteins, some new molecular machines composed of many carefully crafted new proteins, new organs and new systems all carefully integrated in with the other systems, especially interacting with the nervous system. This can't happen one SNP at a time over a long time with functioning organisms after every mutation. (There are way too many permutations of proteins for way too little time). A sequence of beneficial mutations won't suffice.

Another way to say this is that it would require a lot of new information to implement all the new needed design features. But information only comes from intelligent sources. Where did the information for evolution come from?

Here is an example of a mutation that has fixated to a population and is passing on from generation to generation, thats presence reduced cardiovascular disease.
ApoA-1 Milano - Wikipedia

Very interesting indeed. Of course Wikipedia celebrates the positive which it spins in support of evolution, but I notice that this single point mutation also results in higher triglycerides. For decades my doctors have been telling me high triglycerides are bad. It sounds like there is a clear advantage with today's diet, but I strongly suspect you'd also find disadvantages if you dug deeper.

There is another SNP that someone showed me that's prevalent, I think, in Kazakhstan. It prevents people from absorbing LDLs as they pass through the intestine. The result is also a greatly reduced incidence of plaque and heart disease. But wait! If you can't digest LDLs, you miss out on a lot of the energy content of the food you eat. I don't think you'd be able to live on a keto diet. You would require carbohydrates to live. I sure wouldn't want that mutation.

This all has a big effect on geologists and paleontologists interpret what they see. Because if their analysis depends on simpler organisms evolving into more complex organisms, their analysis is clearly in error.

 

[Job 33:6]

You've put your finger on the key issue. The whole ballgame. Though by only mentioning beneficial mutations, you've put a spin on it.

Yes, there is no question that damaging mutations occur that have beneficial effects (at least in some environments) and are positively selected for. These also give rise to new species and even genera. This is observed. No one argues that it's not observed. But this process is NOT the same mythical process that is supposed to have evolved a microbe (single celled organism) into today's taxonomic families, as evolutionists believe by faith. That mythical process has never been observed.

A microbe can't evolve to higher life by mutations. It would require lots of new proteins, some new molecular machines composed of many carefully crafted new proteins, new organs and new systems all carefully integrated in with the other systems, especially interacting with the nervous system. This can't happen one SNP at a time over a long time with functioning organisms after every mutation. (There are way too many permutations of proteins for way too little time). A sequence of beneficial mutations won't suffice.

Another way to say this is that it would require a lot of new information to implement all the new needed design features. But information only comes from intelligent sources. Where did the information for evolution come from?


Very interesting indeed. Of course Wikipedia celebrates the positive which it spins in support of evolution, but I notice that this single point mutation also results in higher triglycerides. For decades my doctors have been telling me high triglycerides are bad. It sounds like there is a clear advantage with today's diet, but I strongly suspect you'd also find disadvantages if you dug deeper.

There is another SNP that someone showed me that's prevalent, I think, in Kazakhstan. It prevents people from absorbing LDLs as they pass through the intestine. The result is also a greatly reduced incidence of plaque and heart disease. But wait! If you can't digest LDLs, you miss out on a lot of the energy content of the food you eat. I don't think you'd be able to live on a keto diet. You would require carbohydrates to live. I sure wouldn't want that mutation.

This all has a big effect on geologists and paleontologists interpret what they see. Because if their analysis depends on simpler organisms evolving into more complex organisms, their analysis is clearly in error.

Actually, I'll just defer to the post below, no need to go much further here.

 

[Job 33:6]

" It sounds like there is a clear advantage with today's diet, but I strongly suspect you'd also find disadvantages if you dug deeper."

This is just speculation. Perhaps you are the one who should be digging deeper. And unless you have something more to offer here, I would simply have to conclude that you are wrong and that beneficial mutations exist that are not detrimental to species.

You suggested that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that is not detrimental to a species.

I offered one, and you have no counter but to broadly suggest that I should just dig deeper, without offering any further response.

Being advantageous with today's diet, is advantageous, period. Recognition of an advantage, suggests recognition that a species is succeeding in viability and succeeding in life, as a product of a genetic mutation.

And that's about it. There is your change in allele frequency, there is your decent with modification. There's less cardiovascular disease which is a leading killer of mankind in today's world. And that's a good thing. It's not detrimental.

And with the above said, you appear to have abandoned your other arguments against plate tectonics, transgressive and regressive oceanic sequences and polystrate fossils, which says a lot about your position and willingness to make claims that you aren't willing to back up.

 

[Lost4words]

Why do people try to make the Bible into a definitive book on science, history, man etc etc? Its not!

 

[KenJackson]

Youre deliberately ignoring your own shortcomings in your understanding of geology and Paleontology.

But with the above said, you aren't actually offering a clear response to what has been said.

I indeed recognize and acknowledge my knowledge of geology and paleontology is limited. But am I wrong in asserting that much of those studies, especially paleontology, is built on the foundational assumption that modern life evolved from a microbe?

As I said, that's the whole ballgame. If you removed the faith in evolution and only base analysis on known science, wouldn't both of those be badly damaged?

A fish species evolving to walk on land, loses its ability to efficiently swim (detrimental), yet gains the ability to live on land (beneficial).

You believe by faith that a fish evolved to walk on land. There's no evidence of that. "It exists, therefore it evolved" is not science. In fact, there's no reason to not accept that the original design could walk.

The reptile species that evolves to fly loses its bulky size and powerful body and muscle mass used for hunting (detriment) but gains it's ability to...well...fly.

You believe by faith that a reptile evolved to fly. There's no evidence of that. "It exists, therefore it evolved" is not science. In fact, there's no reason to not accept that the original design could fly.

And the same goes for the mutation that lessens probability of cardiovascular disease in people, among other mutations.

I don't think you see it yet. That example you posted changed one nucleotide which changed one amino acid in one protein. How many changes would have been needed to give a fish the ability to walk or a reptile to fly? A number of muscles would have to change or be added. The shape, location and number of fins would have to change significantly. All these changes would have to be integrated into the nervous system so they could be controlled. That's a lot of changes in an effectively infinite universe of possible changes.

It boggles the mind that people are willing to put such blind, unthinking faith in this process. If natural selection made it through selecting so many changes that in the end were judged to be beneficial, wouldn't there be billions of fossils with rejected false starts? And it would't be able to either walk or fly until it could, so how did natural selection know to preserve the many many changes that it ultimately needed?