Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Job 33:6]

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.

That's true. Ceolacanths are present back in carboniferous rock 300 million years ago. And some animals don't have any fossil record at all. I wonder if some people think they were created last week. Never pondered the thought, thanks for sharing.

 

[Astrid]

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?

They didn't though, and I'm a bit disturbed to see
you'd be confused on this point.

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence | National Center for Science Education

Or other such sites or even a few minutes thought.

 

[Astrid]

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.

View attachment 299734

In what way do you see a "right direction"?

 

[Job 33:6]

They didn't though, and I'm a bit disturbed to see
you'd be confused on this point.

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence | National Center for Science Education

Or other such sites or even a few minutes thought.

I think what he's trying to say is that some species of a lineage, co exist.

For example ambulocetus and rodhocetus are found in strata, both roughly dated to 47 Mya.

I'm just pointing out that co-existence of transitional fossils of a single lineage is actually quite common. Just as my uncle and father co-exist, but are at an older part of my family lineage than I am.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think what he's trying to say is that some species of a lineage, co exist.

For example ambulocetus and rodhocetus are found in strata, both roughly dated to 47 Mya.

I'm just pointing out that co-existence of transitional fossils of a single lineage is actually quite common. Just as my uncle and father co-exist, but are at an older part of my family lineage than I am.

Here's another diagram:

Lots of co-occurance of transitional forms. It's quite common.

But of course the key is to understand that transitional forms are not necessarily species that form a straight line from A to B. But rather they're defined by cladistics with an understanding that relatives co-exist with and alongside one another.

Just like my grandfather and grand uncle live alongside one another, and my father and aunt live alongside one another, and I and my cousins live along side one another.

 

[Astrid]

I think what he's trying to say is that some species of a lineage, co exist.

For example ambulocetus and rodhocetus are found in strata, both roughly dated to 47 Mya.

I'm just pointing out that co-existence of transitional fossils of a single lineage is actually quite common. Just as my uncle and father co-exist, but are at an older part of my family lineage than I am.

Trying to say? He did say in bold font no less that
"...all co- occur in the fossil record.
They don't appear sequentially."

You don't see any problem with that??

 

[Job 33:6]

Trying to say? He did say in bold font no less that
"...all co- occur in the fossil record.
They don't appear sequentially."


You don't see any problem with that??

No. I don't.

Here is the same thing just with horses. The transitional fossils commonly co exist.

But as noted above, it's simply because they are related and not necessarily a direct line.

It's a misconception to think that transitional fossils are immediate ancestors of one another. In fact, they're actually defined largely by cladistics and it's commonly known that related species live side by side, just as I live beside my brother and share features that my brother does. Both of us of a single lineage, yet side by side.

Evolution occurs across populations after all. It does not occur from one individual to another.

 

[Astrid]

No. I don't.

View attachment 299736

Here is the same thing just with horses. The transitional fossils commonly co exist.

But as noted above, it's simply because they are related and not necessarily a direct line.

It's a misconception to think that transitional fossils are immediate ancestors of one another. In fact, they're actually defined largely by cladistics and it's commonly known that related species live side by side, just as I live beside my brother and share features that my brother does. Both of us of a single lineage, yet side by side.

No. I don't.

View attachment 299736

Here is the same thing just with horses. The transitional fossils commonly co exist.

But as noted above, it's simply because they are related and not necessarily a direct line.

It's a misconception to think that transitional fossils are immediate ancestors of one another. In fact, they're actually defined largely by cladistics and it's commonly known that related species live side by side, just as I live beside my brother and share features that my brother does. Both of us of a single lineage, yet side by side.

I am aware of what you are saying
though you are a few points off
compass.

I'm trying to get my head,around your
agreeing that all (supposedly) ancestral
forms coexist in the fossil record*
and do not appear in sequence.

It is a blatant falsehood as the most cursory
examination of the actual record will
readily show.


* wonder when that suddenly stopped.
No Ambulocetes etc around today.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am aware of what you are saying
though you are a few points off
compass.

I'm trying to get my head,around your
agreeing that all (supposedly) ancestral
forms coexist in the fossil record*
and do not appear in sequence.

It is a blatant falsehood as the most cursory
examination of the actual record will
readily show.


* wonder when that suddenly stopped.
No Ambulocetes etc around today.

Oh I see what you mean. Well is he saying that all transitional fossils co exist together at one time? Or is he saying that all transitional fossils co exist with maybe just a few others throughout all of time?

There's a difference between saying that all mammals of the entire fossil record all appeared at one time in the permian, and saying that at any given point in time, some mammals co existed with some other related mammals haha.

I guess I would have to ask him to clarify on what he means.

I interpreted his statement as mentioned above.

Ambulocetus lives alongside remingtonocetidae for example, but of course nobody would ever suggest that all species in the diagram listed above, existed alongside one another. That of course isn't true (the latter).

 

[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."

I guess I should clarify then, if you believe that literally ALL whale transitional fossils co-exist in the fossil record, then of course this is just simply false. It's so false that it's easy to assume that you might mean something else (giving the benefit of the doubt that someone would be aware of such things).

But if you believe that SOME transitionals co exist SOME other transitional fossils, then I would agree.

Sometimes we just have to let diagrams do the talking.

Remingtonocetidae might live alongside protocetidae, but basilosaurus doesn't live alongside pakicetus. For example.

All are transitional none the less.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

You're very welcome. Thanks for listening!

 

[Astrid]

Oh I see what you mean. Well is he saying that all transitional fossils co exist together at one time? Or is he saying that all transitional fossils co exist with maybe just a few others throughout all of time?

There's a difference between saying that all mammals of the entire fossil record all appeared at one time in the permian, and saying that at any given point in time, some mammals co existed with some other related mammals haha.

I guess I would have to ask him to clarify on what he means.

I interpreted his statement as mentioned above.

View attachment 299737
Ambulocetus lives alongside remingtonocetidae for example, but of course nobody would ever suggest that all species in the diagram listed above, existed alongside one another. That of course isn't true (the latter).

Very specifically states that there is no evolutionary sequence.

 

[Job 33:6]

I guess I should clarify then, if you believe that literally ALL whale transitional fossils co-exist in the fossil record, then of course this is just simply false. It's so false that it's easy to assume that you might mean something else (giving the benefit of the doubt that someone would be aware of such things).

But if you believe that SOME transitionals co exist SOME other transitional fossils, then I would agree.

Sometimes we just have to let diagrams do the talking.

View attachment 299738

Remingtonocetidae might live alongside protocetidae, but basilosaurus doesn't live alongside pakicetus. For example.

All are transitional none the less.

And I hate to say it but, a lot of Creationist websites do these kinds of things. They word things in funny ways. They often give half-truths.

I remember hearing someone say that, well crafted half-truths require the writer to be familiar with the topic they're trying to deny, thus requiring deliberate deception by the author to write well crafted half-truths.

A man stays late after work and has an affair with a co-worker. His wife asks him where he has been all night and he says that he had to stay late at work.

In such a case, the man has to know what he's avoiding to craft a specific response that keeps him out of trouble.

And I think a lot of Creationist sources do just this. They craft often unusual, half truths that often are borderline deceptive. And for people who aren't savy with the topic, it's easy to be thrown off course.

 

[Job 33:6]

Very specifically states that there is no evolutionary sequence.

Thanks. I tend to read less and less creationist "arguments" the longer I'm in the game. It kills brain cells after awhile. I appreciate it.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks. I tend to read less and less creationist "arguments" the longer I'm in the game. It kills brain cells after awhile. I appreciate it.

If I read them I can't help noticing what they say.
Not that any of it is his thoughts, still less a product
of any species of scholarship.
It's sad to see someonetaken in by the advertising
that they are doing the lords work, giving reasons to believe

Sure, they can preach to the choir, but for people who
have a mind of their own, and who actually think with it
and study , it's an obvious and shabby fraud.

I doubt our friend will face it that he has been conned,
not that it should affect faith in God to do so.
But it's hard.
One thing sure, he nor anyone owes allegiance to
people out to defraud them.

 

[Job 33:6]

If I read them I can't help noticing what they say.
Not that any of it is his thoughts, still less a product
of any species of scholarship.
It's sad to see someonetaken in by the advertising
that they are doing the lords work, giving reasons to believe

Sure, they can preach to the choir, but for people who
have a mind of their own, and who actually think with it
and study , it's an obvious and shabby fraud.

I doubt our friend will face it that he has been conned,
not that it should affect faith in God to do so.
But it's hard.
One thing sure, he nor anyone owes allegiance to
people out to defraud them.

For anyone who is a Christian, we were all there once. Woke up one day and started asking the wrong questions (or the right questions, depending on how we look at things).

As my one Christian friend described it to me many years ago. He simply put his arms up in the air and opened his hands and just said "SCIENCE". And I knew exactly what he meant. No further words were needed. What an honest person learns, they cannot unlearn. Life would be never be the same.

 

[Astrid]

And I hate to say it but, a lot of Creationist websites do these kinds of things. They word things in funny ways. They often give half-truths.

I remember hearing someone say that, well crafted half-truths require the writer to be familiar with the topic they're trying to deny, thus requiring deliberate deception by the author to write well crafted half-truths.

A man stays late after work and has an affair with a co-worker. His wife asks him where he has been all night and he says that he had to stay late at work.

In such a case, the man has to know what he's avoiding to craft a specific response that keeps him out of trouble.

And I think a lot of Creationist sources do just this. They craft often unusual, half truths that often are borderline deceptive. And for people who aren't savy with the topic, it's easy to be thrown off course.

I don't think you can find a creationist site that does not
do that, and more. It's hard wired into the nature
of the beast.
They prey on the I'll informed.
The thing is, it is actually impossible to
be a well informed and intellectually honest
creationist.

My favorite illustration is one of the few
well educated yecs, Dr. K Wise.
PhD paleontology.

" if all the evidence in the universe turned
against it, I'd still be yec".

Type specimen of intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[Astrid]

For anyone who is a Christian, we were all there once. Woke up one day and started asking the wrong questions (or the right questions, depending on how we look at things).

As my one Christian friend described it to me many years ago. He simply put his arms up in the air and opened his hands and just said "SCIENCE". And I knew exactly what he meant. No further words were needed. What an honest person learns, they cannot unlearn. Life would be never be the same.

It's fine to be Chridtian.

What isn't so fine is to be a disciple of and a spreader of lies.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

When it comes to evidence for or against evolution, we will interpret it according to our own presuppositions. There is no such thing as a neutral observer, especially when dealing with prehistory, before the availability of eyewitness testimony.

My presupposition when evaluating the evidence is the inerrancy and internal consistency of the Bible. I accepted evolution until recently because I didn't believe in the inerrancy of scripture until recently.

It's clear that the New Testament regards Adam as the historical father of all humanity. Luke's geology of Jesus traces his lineage all the way back to Adam. If Adam is just a mythological figure, how do we know that Jesus isn't mythological as well?

Perhaps most importantly, Romans 5 says that Jesus died specifically to reverse the consequences of Adam's sin:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If Adam wasn't a historical person by whom sin entered the world, the above passage from Romans 5 would be meaningless.

I don't claim to be able to prove creation. I just believe that one who has faith in the inerrancy of scripture will have the discernment to evaluate the evidence presented for evolution as deficient compared to the doctrine of creation.

Here is Dr. Ben Carson giving reasons to disbelieve evolution, including the complexity of the human brain:

I don't expect the arguments he presents to be convincing for those committed to philosophical materialism, but they should be sufficient for those who accept the authority of scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Humble_Disciple

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.

Here is another quote that I thought was interesting.

Baleen whales date back to 34 Mya, and pakicetus dates back to roughly 56 mya. When did 20 million years ever become "not enough time" or "too fast"?

I feel like critics of evolution who were young earthers used to think "well there's no way they could evolve in 2000 years, that's not enough time", then they took on old earth creation positions over time and then they said "well, 20,000,000 years, That's not enough time either".

As if they carried their claims without really clarifying on why they think that 20 million years is "too fast". If you ask me, it sounds like a stupidly long amount of time, and far more than enough time for such a transition to occur.

We can breed a wolf to the limits of chihuahus and great Danes in the span of perhaps just a few thousand years. But somehow 20,000,000 years is not enough time for a pakicetus to evolve into a dorudon? I just don't know where people come up with these arguments sometimes.

With the above said, I'd highly recommend reading Neil Shubins "some assembly required". Its a good book (it's purely informative, nobody is trying to win any debates here) that explains a lot of these "time" related concepts.