Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Astrid]

There's nothing rational about creationism.

Short n sweet

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the ideas the Romans had are interesting.
No more to it than that.

Paul says:

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

What was that "fulness of the time"?

It was a time when three different nations gave the world three different systems:

1. The Jews gave us sacerdotalism.
2. The Greeks gave us a unified language.
3. The Romans gave us roads to access the world quickly.

These three were instrumental in getting the Gospel message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ out quickly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Short n sweet

Yup.

God said it, that settled it.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I believe there are some people God has predestined to believe in the Bible and others whom He has not.

Because of this, God made the Creation to have sufficient ambiguity, with just enough evidence of design for those who have faith, while allowing others not called unto faith to form their own theories.

The Christian looks at our similarities with other species as the handiwork of a common designer, whereas the unbelieving world sees common descent, because God created with sufficient ambiguity to make His grace necessary to believe.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe there are some people God has predestined to believe in the Bible and others whom He has not.

Because of this, God made the Creation to have sufficient ambiguity, with just enough evidence of design for those who have faith, while allowing others not called unto faith to form their own theories.

The Christian looks at our similarities with other species as the handiwork of a common designer, whereas the unbelieving world sees common descent, because God created with sufficient ambiguity to make His grace necessary to believe.

It's more than just similarities. It's similarities and differences over time in a very particular order.

Fish and whales look similar, but whales don't appear until later on in much shallower layers of rock for example.

 

[Job 33:6]

And this succession is even observed in plants.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

It's more than just similarities. It's similarities and differences over time in a very particular order.

Fish and whales look similar, but whales don't appear until later on in much shallower layers of rock for example.

View attachment 299730

I accept an old earth. I started this thread to support a particular interpretation of Genesis that accepts an old earth called "historical creationism."

What you see in the fossil record is long periods of stasis followed by the abrupt appearance of new species, which makes sense if God created over millions of years.

Speaking of whales:

When modern whales appear in the fossil record, they show up explosively with the full range of diversity for body size and dietary strategy (from carnivorous activity to filter-feeding). It looks as if this explosion coincides with the extinction of the “primitive” whales (archaeoceti). Once modern whales and dolphins appear, they undergo very little evolutionary change as a rule.

The sudden appearance of modern whales at 35 million years ago is difficult to account for from an evolutionary framework. But from a creation standpoint, this pattern is expected...

When asked for evidence of biological evolution, many people point to creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. They claim these extinct animals describe the evolution of a terrestrial mammalian carnivore into primitive whales. But the presumed evolutionary transformation of wolf- or deer-like creatures into primitive whales is exceedingly rapid (under 10 million years). This seems too fast. Transforming a terrestrial mammal into an aquatic one requires extensive anatomical and physiological changes.

Additionally, so-called transitional forms all co-occur in the fossil record. They don’t appear sequentially as would be expected if they documented an evolutionary transformation.

While these fossil record features raise questions about the evolutionary account, they make sense within a creation model context. Creatures like Ambulocetus and the protocetids could be viewed as creatures that were created to be well-adapted at the water’s edge.
Explosive Origins of Modern Whales Points to a Creator - Reasons to Believe

This is where vestigial structures, such as the whale pelvis and hind limbs, enter the debate. Evolutionary biologists argue that common descent offers a better explanation than common design because it readily accounts for vestigial features that are also homologous structures.2 However, recent work by the USC and MNH scientists indicates that the whale pelvis isn’t vestigial. They demonstrate that it serves as an attachment point for muscles that both male and female cetaceans need to reproduce. So, from an evolutionary perspective, the whale and dolphin pelvis appears to be under the influence of selection—a sure indication of function.

According to Matthew Dean, one of the authors of the study, “Everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case.”3
Is the Whale Pelvis a Vestige of Evolution? - Reasons to Believe

 

[Astrid]

I accept an old earth. I started this thread to support a particular interpretation of Genesis that accepts an old earth called "historical creationism."

What you see in the fossil record is long periods of stasis followed by the abrupt appearance of new species, which makes sense if God created over millions of years.

Speaking of whales:

"Science" from any creationist site is, and will be
treated as, garbage.

I really don't understand how you guys can possibly
not realize that it's a complete waste of time to post
such things.

I'm not even saying who is "right" or "wrong", just that
your source is worthless.

ETA

I looked at the thing about "vestigial". Whether the author is
cynically dishonest or really stupid, who knows. He certainly
is not getting far with an educated reader, with such blatant
misrepresentation.

I'm guessing you've no idea what I am talking about.
Those here who are skilled in the art, and there are
several, will start spotting the baloney right away, as I did.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

"Science" from any creationist site is, and will be
treated as, garbage.

I really don't understand how you guys can possibly
not realize that it's a complete waste of time to post
such things.

I'm not even saying who is "right" or "wrong", just that
your source is worthless.

Reasons.org is an old earth creationist site, and Hugh Ross has a Ph.D. in astronomy.

The fact that you would reject any sort of criticism of evolution out of hand, before reading even two or three paragraphs, is only confirming my belief that God has predestined some people to believe in the Bible and not others.

The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence for whale evolution is inadequate for someone who doesn't already accept Darwin's theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

I accept an old earth. I started this thread to support a particular interpretation of Genesis that accepts an old earth called "historical creationism."

What you see in the fossil record is long periods of stasis followed by the abrupt appearance of new species, which makes sense if God created over millions of years.

Speaking of whales:

It's interesting that the words you state suggest that whales "explosively appeared" 35 million years ago.

Have you pondered why at 35 million years ago, and not 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 million years ago as other animals have?

Evolution has a perfect answer for why it occurred 35mya and not at any other time. Because whales evolved from ungulate mammals and such mammals didn't evolve until 50 million years ago, and therefore whales had to be younger.

What is your explanation?

Also, people shouldn't assume that stasis equates to instantaneous appearance. See the following:

Preservation plays a key role in what is apparent, preservation of both intermediate fossils, and also preservation of intermediate layers of rock that contain said fossils.

Earth might be 4.56 billion years old, but a stratigraphic succession may only have 5-10,000 feet of column to observe.

If we crammed 1,000,000,000 years into 5,000 feet of rock, imagine how many intermediate forms wouldn't be observed. That's 200,000 years for 1 foot of rock (assuming equal rates of accumulation which doesn't reflect reality).

You could imagine how easy it would be to miss an intermediate form if a speciation event occurs within 200,000 years.

This would of course result in an "appearance" of "jumps" between species. Just as you're describing as your evidence against evolution.

 

[Astrid]

Reasons.org is an old earth creationist site, and Hugh Ross has a Ph.D. in astronomy.

The fact that you would reject any sort of criticism of evolution out of hand, before reading even two or three paragraphs, is only confirming my belief that God has predestined some people to believe in the Bible and not others.

The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence for whale evolution is inadequate for someone who doesn't already accept Darwin's theory.

Obviously it's a creationist site. Like I didn't know.

An astronomer. Terrif. That makes him an expert
on evolution. Maybe he could fix your teeth and do
heart surgery too?

It is NOT any kind of fact (well, I take that
back, it's a creationist "fact", that is, made up) that I dismiss
criticism out of hand!

Gross insult and totally false.
I'd love to see criticism, the more powerful
the better.

But see, I know creationist sites for what
they are. You think I've not seen enough?
Ha. How much of Maos Little Red
Book" would you need to read to learn it's not
praise of Wall street?

Now, look back to my fortuitously timed ETA.
A minute or less of reading about vestigial
and I was wading in garbage.

Both your simple facts are wrong, but here is a real
one for you.

Any person educated in relevant science can
find lies, distortions, misrepresentations and
any kind of trash "science" just as fast as I did.
In any creationist site.

I'd suggest caution invoking God as being on their side.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Evolution has a perfect answer for why it occurred 35mya and not at any other time. Because whales evolved from ungulate mammals and such mammals didn't evolve until 50 million years ago, and therefore whales had to be younger.

What is your explanation?

I think you are missing the point:

When modern whales appear in the fossil record, they show up explosively with the full range of diversity for body size and dietary strategy (from carnivorous activity to filter-feeding). It looks as if this explosion coincides with the extinction of the “primitive” whales (archaeoceti). Once modern whales and dolphins appear, they undergo very little evolutionary change as a rule.

The sudden appearance of modern whales at 35 million years ago is difficult to account for from an evolutionary framework. But from a creation standpoint, this pattern is expected...

When asked for evidence of biological evolution, many people point to creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. They claim these extinct animals describe the evolution of a terrestrial mammalian carnivore into primitive whales. But the presumed evolutionary transformation of wolf- or deer-like creatures into primitive whales is exceedingly rapid (under 10 million years). This seems too fast. Transforming a terrestrial mammal into an aquatic one requires extensive anatomical and physiological changes.

Additionally, so-called transitional forms all co-occur in the fossil record. They don’t appear sequentially as would be expected if they documented an evolutionary transformation.

While these fossil record features raise questions about the evolutionary account, they make sense within a creation model context. Creatures like Ambulocetus and the protocetids could be viewed as creatures that were created to be well-adapted at the water’s edge.
Explosive Origins of Modern Whales Points to a Creator - Reasons to Believe

I emboldened some important parts that you seem to have completely ignored, especially the part that says "Additionally, so-called transitional forms (in regard to whale evolution) all co-occur in the fossil record. They don’t appear sequentially as would be expected if they documented an evolutionary transformation."

 

[KevinT]

To answer your main question. An all-powerful and all-knowing God could configure existence in that way or any other endless possible scenarios. He could have created everything last Thursday with the appearance of age and implanted memories and all that.

If you are looking for a way to reconcile the natural world with God, I recommend Dr. Francis Collins' book "The Language of God." If you're unfamiliar with Dr. Collins I highly recommend looking into his background and work.

Thanks you for your reply. I think I have heard of that book and have heard an interview with Collins. I'll have to check it out.

KT

 

[KevinT]

The earth didn't grow old, it came into existence old.

We may have to agree to disagree, but this doesn't ring true to my understanding of God and the natural world around us.

Thanks for the reply.
KT

 

[Job 33:6]

It's interesting that the words you state suggest that whales "explosively appeared" 35 million years ago.

Have you pondered why at 35 million years ago, and not 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 million years ago as other animals have?

Evolution has a perfect answer for why it occurred 35mya and not at any other time. Because whales evolved from ungulate mammals and such mammals didn't evolve until 50 million years ago, and therefore whales had to be younger.

What is your explanation?

View attachment 299732


Also, people shouldn't assume that stasis equates to instantaneous appearance. See the following:
View attachment 299733

Preservation plays a key role in what is apparent, preservation of both intermediate fossils, and also preservation of intermediate layers of rock that contain said fossils.

Earth might be 4.56 billion years old, but a stratigraphic succession may only have 5-10,000 feet of column to observe.

If we crammed 1,000,000,000 years into 5,000 feet of rock, imagine how many intermediate forms wouldn't be observed. That's 200,000 years for 1 foot of rock (assuming equal rates of accumulation which doesn't reflect reality).

You could imagine how easy it would be to miss an intermediate form if a speciation event occurs within 200,000 years.

This would of course result in an "appearance" of "jumps" between species. Just as you're describing as your evidence against evolution.

@Humble_Disciple

I would also recommend watching the following video at 50 minutes to the finish (the last 10 minutes of the video).

Was God restless or indecisive? Or was there a step by step process involved?

 

[Astrid]

It's interesting that the words you state suggest that whales "explosively appeared" 35 million years ago.

Have you pondered why at 35 million years ago, and not 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 million years ago as other animals have?

Evolution has a perfect answer for why it occurred 35mya and not at any other time. Because whales evolved from ungulate mammals and such mammals didn't evolve until 50 million years ago, and therefore whales had to be younger.

What is your explanation?

View attachment 299732


Also, people shouldn't assume that stasis equates to instantaneous appearance. See the following:
View attachment 299733

Preservation plays a key role in what is apparent, preservation of both intermediate fossils, and also preservation of intermediate layers of rock that contain said fossils.

Earth might be 4.56 billion years old, but a stratigraphic succession may only have 5-10,000 feet of column to observe.

If we crammed 1,000,000,000 years into 5,000 feet of rock, imagine how many intermediate forms wouldn't be observed. That's 200,000 years for 1 foot of rock (assuming equal rates of accumulation which doesn't reflect reality).

You could imagine how easy it would be to miss an intermediate form if a speciation event occurs within 200,000 years.

The ginko trees disappeared from the fossil
record millions of years ago. Extinct, where once
they'd been abundant.

Extinct, till they turned up live in China..

The coelacanth. His family vanished tens of millions
of years ago. Gone. No fossils anywhere, and none
have ever been found since that extinction...though living
specimens have been found.

The creationist explanation is that they were
created again, "suddenly"?

Or the fossil creatures known only from a tooth,
a single leaf, one or a few bones. Maybe a whole
she'll or skeleton!

But only one. Creationist explanation?
There only ever was one, or just one tooth?

No parents? No descendants?
Where are his sisters and his cousins and his aunts?

Id like to see a creationist attempt to think a bit
instead of trying to impress educated people
with cut and paste nonsense.

Dangerous stuff, though, that thinking.

 

[klutedavid]

Humans are apes.

Yeah, that's what I keep telling them. Me big boss of all monkeys.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you are missing the point:



I emboldened some important parts that you seem to have completely ignored, especially the part that says "Additionally, so-called transitional forms (in regard to whale evolution) all co-occur in the fossil record. They don’t appear sequentially as would be expected if they documented an evolutionary transformation."

Why do you think that all transitional fossils would not "co-occur"?

Do you think that transitional fossils are all descendents of one another in a single line?

And my apologies for skimming over large blocks of text. Sometimes you hear things a million times and your eyes glaze over.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why do you think that all transitional fossils would not "co-occur"?

Do you think that transitional fossils are all descendents of one another in a single line?

Here is an image depicting horse ancestry.

It seems as though they all co-occur with others around them.

Do you think this is a problem for evolution?

@Humble_Disciple

I appreciate your honesty and experimentation with old earth creationism. You're moving in the right direction. And I may be wrong, but I suspect that your search still has a way to go.

 

[Astrid]

I think you are missing the point:



I emboldened some important parts that you seem to have completely ignored, especially the part that says "Additionally, so-called transitional forms (in regard to whale evolution) all co-occur in the fossil record. They don’t appear sequentially as would be expected if they documented an evolutionary transformation."

You missed the point that your source is completely unreliable,
much given over to the Vice of prevarication.